However, the employer could not require someone to be hired indirectly as a condition of accepting/continuing work. Otherwise you have the same problem of unions, except that the benefits flow towards the employer.

Think of it as Right to Work for the staffing industry, but applied to about every non-direct, non-fulltime form of work. It takes away all the toys from the employer in exchange for introducing freedom of choice in work arrangements for any skill level.

I'm responding to the idea of how employers use outsourcing to dodge benefits and generally (in the supposed name of finance) make it worse off for workers.

Then what's wrong with Right to Work applying to them, with respect to the idea that it cannot be a mandatory condition of employment(read: accepting the job or continuing it cannot depend on consenting to work for a third party and/or on a contract/temp/non-FT basis)?

Until it is something that allows for end-user control of the process instead of Microsoft, then the only support necessary is for it to be made non-functional.

Then the answer would be to make all third party/less-than-FT employment, including staffing agencies, a conscious choice that has to compete with a direct-hire default - for any skill level. Otherwise you just advocate for something similar to monopsony power, which is not to be mistaken for "flexibility" or "just in time labor".

That, and you also seem to be interested in illegals enough to not want to verify employment. Would it be correct to say that you dislike SB1070(and like laws passed in Alabama and Georgia) given that it removes another captive supply of labor, illegals?

Given that it lives and thrives off of desperate workers in the United States - as opposed to the ASA/pro-staffing agency talking points - it is a problem.

Once you've had good, secure employment - you wouldn't want anything less until you could afford to refuse it.

You would have a point if employers had to offer the choice of working directly for the same job and level of skill. Otherwise they act as employer-protecting unions that insulate from the worker.

That, and your lines look like they came straight from the ASA trade group.

It's not helping that ALEC is killing off any ability for a decent one to form given that it rammed through a law that was designed to avoid an Ohio-style referendum failure.

So much for their confidence in We The People.

Unfortunately for you, the Buckeye State managed to defeat a stricter-than-Walker bill and the state is still doing fine. It also helps that the Republicans here know well enough to leave labor relations issues alone lest they incur a third 1958-level event.

If you want an example of how labor and business can cooperate, Ohio would be one of the better examples. Certain must-pass bills that are considered business-friendly in other states (the ALEC-written, multiply deployed Walker bill as well as the Ohio-defeat-by-referendum-inspired RTW bill) are not necessarily considered business friendly. That, and against the trend for transplants to opt for worker-hostile states (read: the entire South), Honda chose to locate itself in Marysville.

Certainly there's plenty of pressure against the state to harmonize itself with the South, but I don't expect it to be a law-violating lockstep action.

(Before you start citing the departure of NCR as evidence of business hostility, they were already on their way out in the 1990's)

Bring in the idea of competing with more secure forms of employment and that can be made to change - where it cannot be a condition of employment to accept anything less than full-time/full-benefit work. To prevent a European-style response of stalled hiring, have the unemployed and new entrants become a protected hiring class as long as they've got less than 10 years of contiguous direct-hire (read: not with anyone like Kelly's staffing services) employment - which restarts on loss of employment.

If it's really about flexibility, then one's business model should not depend on desperate people or the circumvention of benefits - but of advantages that can compete with secure employment at any skill level. Otherwise it is about the control of desperate, disposable people - and nothing more.

Otherwise, this concept of less-secure and disposable employment needs to be killed from orbit with fire, just to be sure.

The problem is that the employer can do more damage to more people versus the people that seek and perform work. You act as if owning a business should be worthy of divine status while workers are a problem.

Or have you not understood the idea of monospony power(and no, not through any Randian interpretations of such)? Then again, your ideals combine the worst of Rand (all of it), and combine them with Taylorism. Expecting someone with those ideals is hardly able to consider that, much less the idea that working for someone as an equal peer is no less noble than being someone that people seek for work.

The problem with your statement is that it leaves too much in the employers' favor.
Cases in point, the abuse of temporary labor as a second-class form of work as well as the catch-22 situation of employment status which would break easily if one were to grant protected hiring status to the unemployed (say, for 10 years contiguous employment with the same direct-hire/non-temp company - and resets/stops in the favor of the worker). To handle the temp abuse, just apply RTW laws to staffing agencies, temporary work, and every non-secure form of employment - to where it has to be a conscious and competitive choice to give up security.

Perhaps age discrimination laws(never mind employment status discrimination or even discriminating against US citizens!) need to gain some teeth and be applied a lot lower than 40.

While there might be "a great deal of employers", they operate something like monopsony power and a lot of them need to have their entitlement mentality smacked right out of them to change that.

If they want to see evidence of an "alien invasion", one might look to the people that are coming from outside the UK - especially Africa and the Middle East.

It's not politically correct, but it is the truth.

Both of which are composed of CPC-led entities

"Huawei, in collaboration with China Mobile, has successfully deployed 4G services on Mount Everest, about 5,200 meters above sea level. Announcing the development, Huawei revealed that work was completed last month and users can now access 4G services like streaming live HD videos from the base camp on the mountain."

Given that Huawei is more or less an arm of the Chinese government, those services might as well be a glorified CPC tap - with the same restrictions as those placed within the PRC.

(oh, and before someone talks about a certain US TLA, your own people don't die or disappear when it acts - unlike China which does it if you look the wrong way at the wrong person)

I'd rather be a K-Mart. Nobody would even know I exist.