That's exactly the question when I started this post. If, by law, there's no fine line drawn on part time vs full time category based on number of hours worked. Why employers can't offer a 40 hour week job without paying benefits and vacation? The thing is, when they only offer something "close to full time hours", one won't get enough income while not able to take up another part time job due to scheduling.apnayloags wrote: ↑Dec 3rd, 2017 9:55 amProbably a parttime job with no benefits. Thats what it sounds like....they will offer u more hours but keep u in parttime category so u get no benefits at all but work close to fulltime.
Thats how majority of employers treating new hires. They give u 6 hrs per day so u cant take up another job due to scheduling but they dont give u vacation or benefits. They will then ask u if u still want it, and many desperate ppl will take it.
Welcome to Canada, where most jobs parttime no benefits but just slaves they need. Immigration ensures plenty of applicants for every shity job
Desperate enough to take on a part time job without benefits is one thing, not having enough income to live by is real