Your only comment here is to try to pivot into other arguments that you are inventing. Not gonna work here.

That would encourage companies to offer full time positions. Current law (in the US) financially penalizes full time employers, which is why most part time workers end up working multiple part time jobs.

A full time job gives your employer the power to dictate your life schedule to you. Your boss wants you at your desk at 8am but you have to take your kid to school at 8:30? Too bad! You’re there at 8 or you’re fired.

It’s even worse in retail and food service, as I alluded to in my original post. These workers get their schedules a week ahead, with shifts all over the place. One day you’re opening at 6am. Next day you’re closing at 9pm. Good luck having any kind of life outside of work with a schedule like that!

It results in eliminating part-time jobs, overloading full-time employees, and increasing unemployment.

That is irrelevant, because of how it's measured: 1 person working 40 hours/week and 9 people not working gives an unemployment of 90%, but 10 persons working 4 hours/week gives an unemployment of 0% -- but both scenarios have the same amount of work. Of course using part-time jobs reduces the unemployment figures. It says nothing, however, about the availability of work.

All this does is eliminate more jobs.

In your hypothetical scenario, a company that hires 2 or 3 people part-time would need to do health insurance for each of them, benefits for each of them and the additional full-time equivalent paperwork for each of them...

In that scenario, the company would end up just hiring 1 person full-time for the hours, and have much less added overhead costs.

This would lead to higher unemployment, because now instead of 3 people being employed part-time, only 1 person is employed.

Where's the good in that? Maybe I'm just not seeing it from my perspective, if anyone else can chime in?