Molson Hart

I haven’t seen the data, but anecdotally, every smart employer I know is moving that way.

Maybe I'm not a smart employer but temps are brutal. 1. They are temps (and not gainfully employed) for a reason. 2. High rates of felons 3. They don't show up 4. At least 20% more expensive than full time If you have full-time work, you hire a full-time person.

You have to consider both the costs and benefits though. The benefits are: 1. Reduced mgmt costs through time savings 2. Specialization (labor laws becomes the agency’s problem) 3. Higher variable but lower fixed costs 4. Optionality to hire the best temps and fire the worst

Of course but I disagree with your list of benefits: 1. Getting temp agencies to actually send people and then getting them to show up is very time consuming. Plus, as you cycle through temps, you must constantly retrain. And then you must have a backup in case they are stupid.

2. Agreed, but you get the hang of this fast, plus software is reducing this burden well today. 3. Sure, but see my caveat in prior tweet. If you have full-time work, use full time people. 4. Agree, but you can also hire people on a part-time basis to try. Also, if you full ...

... hire a temp from an agency you either have to pay a large fee or employ them through the agency for like 400 hours at their inflated temp wage.

Full time hire*