TBH this actually makes me want to change up the rules for employees working full time. It really shouldn't be a sudden "welfare" cliff situation at 40 hours which dissuades employers from hiring one for 40 hours.
That is a very good point, since it would naturally incline employers to double down on the "OMG NO 40 HRS", one hears constantly especially in retail and similar sectors.
Yeah Ik its unrelated but I am thinking of a bill. People think employers are greedy that they don't pay for 40 hours and instead hire people for 39 hours but can you really blame them when that's when you have to thousands of dollars more for one extra hour of work?
