Talk:Customized employment

thanks

thanks to people who helped construct and added contentMatsuiny2004 (talk) 04:39, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

benefits section

could organizations be included as well as employers in the sentence under benefits section? I think there is a difference and it is not included under the employer section. I could settle for a general run through as well, just as long as that is covered. I will add that the cited source does cover it so it would be more accurate to add as well. For now I will add. dispute is welcome.Matsuiny2004 (talk) 04:39, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

What difference is there? Organizations do not generally get benefits from rearranging their employee's schedules unless they are employers. It seems redundant. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:22, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

"The range of options for organizations looking to redesign their workplace for better efficiency and productivity is unlimited, said Michael Williams" this is mentioned on page 2, it specifies that organziations will benefit from making their design more accomodating to people through customized employment. It could be mentioned in a seperate sentence.Matsuiny2004 (talk) 00:45, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

And these organizations, which have workplaces, are somehow not employers? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:26, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

honestly I do not know, I just know that it is included in the source as well as not mentioned as being the same and feel it should be elaborated on to some extent. Maybe I could add the point that thye can be the same to the employer article instead.Matsuiny2004 (talk) 03:54, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

The two terms are not synonymous: it is possible for an organization not to have employees. However, in this context, I can't imagine anyone being confused on this point:

• Organizations with zero employees cannot engage in customized employment because they do not engage in (any kind of) employment.
• Organizations with employees get the same benefits from customized employment as all other employers. There is not a benefit that applies to "employers, when considered from the perspective of being an organization", and "employers, when considered from some other hypothetical perspective."

Including both terms in this context is simply redundant. The redundant and non-specific term organizations should be removed as being poor writing style. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:24, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Customized employment. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110718113339/http://www.worksupport.com/documents/ceguest.pdf to http://www.worksupport.com/documents/ceguest.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:43, 15 August 2017 (UTC)