NBC put up a post a couple days ago about the explosion of temp positions in all industries (didn't even mention legal temps that I noticed). The article acknowledges this as a recent trend, but finds no reason why this might be the case:
For Americans who can't find jobs, the booming demand for temp workers has been a path out of unemployment, but now many fear it's a dead-end route.Gee, why would full-time work be hard to find? Why would companies prefer temps that they can jettison at any time? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. Interestingly, the truth is in there, but it apparently only merits a single paragraph, buried about halfway through the article:
With full-time work hard to find, these workers have built temping into a de facto career, minus vacation, sick days or insurance. The assignments might be temporary — a few months here, a year there — but labor economists warn that companies' growing hunger for a workforce they can switch on and off could do permanent damage to these workers' career trajectories and retirement plans.
"There are a lot of perverse incentives for employers to use temps," said Erin Hatton, an assistant professor of sociology at the State University of New York, Buffalo, and author of "The Temp Economy: From Kelly Girls to Permatemps in Postwar America." For one thing, it's cheaper. Using temporary labor lets companies avoid the cost of providing benefits like health insurance, workers' comp, paid sick leave and the like.Apparently, firms use temps at least in part because they can "avoid the cost of providing benefits like health insurance." What is this, the love that dare not speak its name? How can you do a big story on the growth of the use of temps without getting into "why" any deeper than that? Let's face it, Obamacare and the burdens it imposes on employers is a huge reason for the growth of the temp industry. Why not say so?
Former CBS reporter Cheryl Attkisson knows. In an interview with CNN's Brian Stelter, Attkisson lets it all hang out, and it ain't pretty for at least one branch of the Democratic Party propagana machine -- er, mainstream media:
STELTER: Let me read this from “The Washington Post.” This is in March 10th, right around the time you were resigning from CBS. And Erik Wimple wrote, according to a CBS News source you felt you were being kept off “CBS Evening News” because of political considerations. Did you feel that way? I mean, were there political considerations at times?The media isn't doing the job the founders envisioned, which is keeping government honest. Thomas Jefferson said he'd rather have a country with a free press but no government than a country with a government but no free press. Ideally, that free press would always be on the prowl, partisan or not, but all sides would get aired and people could make their own choices. That is not what we have today. Journalists at the national media outlets are overwhelmingly liberal, far to the left of the general population and, quite possibly, to the left of most liberals. But please, don't call them socialists.
ATTKISSON: You know, it’s fairly well discussed inside CBS News that there are some managers recently who have been so ideologically entrenched that there is a feeling and discussion that some of them, certainly not all of them, have a difficult time viewing a story that may reflect negatively upon government or the administration as a story of value.
STELTER: So you’re saying they are liberal or Democrats?
ATTKISSON: I don’t know what their registered party is, I just know that the tendency on the part of some of these managers who have key influences has been they never mind the stories that seem to, for example, and I did plenty of them, go against the grain of the Republican Party, but they do often seem to feel defensive about, almost, personally defensive about stories that could make the government look bad. Even if it’s something as simple as a government waste story that doesn’t pinpoint anybody in particularly and it takes on both parties. It seems as though some of them were sensitive about any story that might appear as though it criticizes the government.
If we can't even get honest reporting on possible impacts of government regulation on industry, when the impacts are clear and clearly negative, why bother having national news organizations. Just go with a government propaganda unit and be done with it. Not that the Obama administration hasn't already thought of that.