> Perhaps I'm missing something, but isn't this trivially false? It's
> obvious to anyone who's ever been around a corporate environment that the
> work involved in hiring and managing ten half-time workers is considerably
> greater than hiring and managing five full-timers.
------------------------
Not always, especially if you can cut out benefits, amounting to 30% of the
wage bill, by employing part-timers.
And sometimes even if you reduced hours are accompanied by a corresponding reduction in take home pay, without any detrimental effect on output. For example, I remember a round of public service cuts in the early 90's when we (the union) advanced proposals for shorter work hours at Statistics Canada and other departments to eliminate the need for layoffs. Managers were receptive until they realized we meant at "no loss in pay" - ie. no reduction in annual salary, only a few hours off the work week, which we argued wouldn't affect output but would save jobs. There was tremendous solidarity about work-sharing through reduced hours among our members - they didn't want to see their colleagues laid off. Too much, as a matter of fact. They were prepared to take home reduced pay along with their reduced hours, which was closer to the management position, and contrary to ours. :)
MG