PDA

View Full Version : How hard a vanilla job can be at Starbucks



jasmine22
05-23-2015, 06:02 AM
Wow. When people say "get a real job"....this is what we are supposed to deal with? I just found this article it's older but I know people who dealt with the same shit in retail.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/08/13/us/starbucks-workers-scheduling-hours.html?_r=0

Aurora_Sunset
05-23-2015, 06:42 AM
Yep, I had a shitty minimum wage job like that. I was usually scheduled 3-4 days a week, but often ended up working 6 to cover for other people last minute. Then, when I was just finally stabilizing with the extra money, they would suddenly yank my hours to 1-2 days a week to "even it out" so that I wasn't officially clocking an average of more than 30 a week because otherwise they'd have to give me benefits. They once scheduled me for 4 days and then, right before the week started, slashed me to 2 short swing shifts without even saying a word.... They'd also change the schedule on days I wasn't there, not call me, and then be up my ass when I didn't show up the next day on time... I'm like what? You didn't tell me! Am I just supposed to call every day and ask if the schedule has been changed without my knowledge? Such bullshit.

I was never able to plan for my own time because chances are I would be called in last minute, the money wasn't stable enough for me to be on top of my bills so I was continually going into debt, but the schedule wasn't consistent enough for me to try to get a second job around it. They trained me for a promotion and then took it away for ridiculous reasons 3 times, and then would promote people who had only been there 3 weeks and put me on shifts with them because they had no idea how to do the extra work, but I did, because I'd been trained... but not promoted to their position....

I can't even imagine trying to do all that with a kid and no car. That's just miserable. As soon as I broke up with my bf and started escorting -- immediately after my first appointment, I put in my notice and never looked back. I could never go back to a place like that now. They're terrible companies to work for.

wr1ter
05-23-2015, 06:51 AM
Ugh. I cant imagine doing all of that with a kid. I can with no car, though. Where I grew up, I took an hour long bus ride to the city to get to work, and often was left waiting around for hours for work to start because of the bus schedule... no other choice. A 4 hour work shift could take me 9 hours of being out of the house. :/ What a pain...

Aurora14
05-23-2015, 09:46 AM
This is how I feel when I'm have a SHIT week in the club:

41719

41720

41721

41722

41723

comic by: Matt Fraction/Chip Zdarsky.

FUCK MINIMUM WAGE. I may not be making that much more than when I worked in the pharmacy, but I'm happier. Now I can be poor because I'm working 1 or 2 days/ 16 hours a week (vs 5 days/38 hours) and I get to spend time with my family.

EastCoastDancer01
05-23-2015, 05:42 PM
Fuck Starbucks! and fuck all companies that treat their employees badly like that. That is bullshit! I don't drink coffee but even if I did I would never give them business just because of how they treat their employees. I try not to give business to any companies like that, such as Walmart. How can they be so inconsiderate and have such unreasonable expectations of their workers? Scheduling that girl to work until 11 pm and then again at 4 am the next morning...that is just cruel! If that's not selling your soul, then I don't know what is. At least in the sex industry you have more freedom and get to choose when and how you want to work.

minnow
05-23-2015, 05:56 PM
Thanks, jasmine22, for posting this interesting and insightful link. Which makes so-called "benefits" in lieu of adequate compensation or a tenable schedule to take advantage of benefits an endless loop of "Catch 22." What good does it do to offer tuition for advanced degree if one cannot effectively plan to make class?

For another perspective, go to Yahoo! Finance, and look up symbol SBUX. Then click "insider transactions." Note that within the last 30 days, one of the directors sold ~119,000 shares for $6M. Given the exercise price of his options of $4.32- $15.21 per share, that is at least ~ $4.2M pure profit. (Try typing in http//finance.yahoo.com/q/it?s=SBUX+Insider+Transactions )

This puts a 21st century spin on indentured servitude.

whirlerz
05-23-2015, 06:26 PM
http://www.cnn.com/videos/tv/2015/05/19/newday-daily-hit-starbucks-employee-yells-at-customer.cnn

xStacey
05-24-2015, 03:41 AM
I thought Starbucks was named one of the best employers! At least that's what they claim with the sign in the door.

Melonie
05-24-2015, 05:25 AM
Isn't it amazing what paid PR can do !!!

Starbucks claims to offer a starting hourly pay rate which is well above minimum wage / competitor's job offerings. This is in fact true ... but ... it comes with the unpublished financial reality that the extra hourly wages are being financed by cuts in de-facto benefits by limiting workers to 28 hours or less per week, plus cutting overall staff levels to the point where any employee no-show precipitates a call-in to cover.

Starbucks claims to offer an impressive benefits package to its workers. This is also in fact true ... but ... it comes with the unpublished financial reality that those 28 hour or less per week part time workers don't qualify for all of Starbucks' employee benefits. Nor will their scheduled working hours plus call-in requirements allow them to take full advantage of the highly touted educational benefits.

As is increasingly the case, one can no longer take 'headlines' at face value !!! To get a true picture, it's necessary to 'look under the hood' and discover what's really happening !!! The true picture seems to be that a tiny minority of 'full time' Starbucks employees do in fact enjoy 'one of the best employers' - as stated 'loudly' in mainstream media ... while the majority of 'part time' Starbucks employees do not ( and in fact face worse working conditions than before ).

But the vast majority of Starbucks customers never bother to look 'under the hood' ... and assume that part of the money they are spending on overpriced coffees is being used to fund 'living wage' paychecks and college tuition for Starbucks employees ( versus mostly being used to fund stock buybacks which created huge profits for company management and stockholders ).

Selina M
05-24-2015, 11:34 AM
Now now, we can't be angry just at Starbucks. MOST vanilla jobs that are hourly food or customer service are like this. I'm definitely not trying to say it's okay, but it does 'come with the territory'. Between my other half and I, we've worked probably 15 such jobs and they're all the same. They put out the Monday-start schedules the Friday 3 days before... if you requested a day off, you never know until then if it was approved. The "clopening" thing is really common, though it's not as extreme in restaurants to leave at midnight and be back at 10:30. He routinely gets put on a 10-12 hour double shift with no lunch break. It's inconvenient and it sucks, but it's unfortunately normal and we can't hang just one corporation out to dry for it.

It's not entirely the fault of a computer algorithm (which I think humans sometimes forget we can override; I'm sure they could program it to not make people "clopen") or the corporation (though it is absurd that they make billions of $$ and can't swallow letting someone finish their 4 hour shift instead of sending them home to save an hour of $8 labor). Usually this kind of BS is manager-specific. I have several friends who LOVED working at Starbucks, but they had good managers. This girl sounds like her manager doesn't give two shits, she's probably just an expendable employee to them. There's also the frequent scenario of the employee who most obviously NEEDS that job getting abused, because the manager knows she'll take it rather than quit. It's fucked up. I'm wondering if she can't possibly appeal to a regional manager.

wednesday86
05-24-2015, 12:25 PM
yeah society thinks sex work is "so degrading" but nothing made me feel more degraded than working a shitty fast food job. Horrible pay and customers treat you like dirt on the bottom of their shoe. I think (or at least I hope) people are wising up that the old paradigm of "working your way up" or "getting a good job with benefits" is no longer a thing. I'm teaching my kids to work for themselves. Seriously $400 every 2 weeks?? I easily make that in a week just selling crap on ebay part time..AND I stay at home with my baby while I do it. People need to adapt because technology is soon going to replace these jobs anyway.

ScarletKitten
05-24-2015, 06:54 PM
Haha, I've worked for Starbucks before. Man, do I have some horror stories. I only got paid $7.40/hour, and I had to work constantly. It was back-breaking work. The manager was a complete asshat. He made me scrub the concrete OUTSIDE. Who does that? I had to clean dirty toilets and scrub trash cans. Sweating my ass off for peasant pay.

The final straw was when I had to work xmas day. The busiest day of the year. I barely had time to breathe, it was a constant line of customers out the door, NONSTOP, until closing time. We closed up at midnight, and went home. But then I had to be there again the next morning at 4AM! NO JOKE! I didn't even get 2 hours of sleep. I showed up, miraculously, on time at 4AM. But I quit that day as soon as my shift was over. It's true what they say about starbucks scheduling. It's grueling.

EastCoastDancer01
05-25-2015, 09:28 PM
^^It's like they expect their employees to be inhuman or something. There needs to be a rule against this type of scheduling if there isnt already.

hyori
05-25-2015, 10:14 PM
Wow, of all companies I really thought Starbucks was one of the better ones. Well, there is still Winco Foods: http://time.com/4701/walmarts-worst-nightmare/

It is truly employee owned and some employees end up millionaires because of their stock values. Walmart's worst nightmare too because they can offer rock bottom prices and keep employees happy.

lynn2009
05-25-2015, 10:19 PM
^^It's like they expect their employees to be inhuman or something. There needs to be a rule against this type of scheduling if there isnt already.

In the last year or so I read an article where new York state was taking action against this kind of scheduling. Hopefully it'll pick up.

Melonie
05-26-2015, 03:38 AM
Well, there is still Winco Foods:
It is truly employee owned and some employees end up millionaires because of their stock values. Walmart's worst nightmare too because they can offer rock bottom prices and keep employees happy.

Yup, Winco Foods has a pretty solid business model. One of their major cost-saving measures is employing their own non-union truck drivers ... at low pay rates versus unionized truckers ( which has drawn the ire of the Teamsters ). Another major cost-saving measure is effectively 'paying' a portion of worker paychecks and retirement benefits in 'script' i.e. non publicly traded company stock shares ... which has indeed created a few 'paper' millionaires ( but only if the company itself is willing to buy out those non publicly traded company stock shares for real cash ).

In the interest of 'equal time', there is a big difference between a publicly traded company 'paying' a portion of worker salaries and retirement benefits with easily tradable company stock shares with many open market buyers and an established market value, versus a privately held company 'paying' a portion of worker salaries and retirement benefits in 'script' which ( for the moment at least ) has zero resale value to anyone except the privately held company's treasury / management. The private company's management is also free to deploy the value of said employee owned 'script' to invest in additional stores etc. without risk of objections from employee 'shareholders'.

whirlerz
05-26-2015, 09:46 AM
Yup, Winco Foods has a pretty solid business model. One of their major cost-saving measures is employing their own non-union truck drivers ... at low pay rates versus unionized truckers ( which has drawn the ire of the Teamsters ).

That sounds Ominous right there^

Melonie
05-26-2015, 01:11 PM
That sounds Ominous right there^

... no more ominous than FedEx versus UPS delivery drivers, or Uber versus Taxi Company drivers. See

Bahuba
05-26-2015, 01:26 PM
yeah society thinks sex work is "so degrading" but nothing made me feel more degraded than working a shitty fast food job. Horrible pay and customers treat you like dirt on the bottom of their shoe. I think (or at least I hope) people are wising up that the old paradigm of "working your way up" or "getting a good job with benefits" is no longer a thing. I'm teaching my kids to work for themselves. Seriously $400 every 2 weeks?? I easily make that in a week.

This to the millionth power - If you get treated like crap every day for poverty wages how do you decide to judge someone else's work?

minnow
05-26-2015, 07:42 PM
That sounds Ominous right there^

How so ?

DreamsInDigital
06-01-2015, 10:09 AM
Usually this kind of BS is manager-specific.

As a former manager responsible for scheduling in a large retail chain store, I can say that I really don't believe that this is a case of "those evil managers just abuse their employees because they don't care."
Consider that this is the BS we had to put up with:

1. The program we had to use for scheduling basically told us how many employees we had to have each day, by the hour, based on company sales forecasts, and we HAD to follow it. These numbers were constantly changing, and it wasn't just so simple to override the system. Now, add in the fact that most employees are not supposed to exceed x number of hours per week, in order to avoid paying them benefits (the company's policy - not under a manager's control.) Then, schedule the employees who do not have 24/7 availability, since they have to be placed into the schedule whenever they CAN work. (For this reason, companies are much more likely to hire applicants who indicate that they have open availability. So, many applicants are pretty much aware that they have to put that on their application in order to have the best chance of getting the job, even if not all hours are convenient for them. Then, of course, you are expected to be able to adhere to whatever you wrote down.) Finally, you have scheduled around the employees who have limited availability, and you are faced with the task of using the remaining employees to fill whatever time slots are left. Keep in mind that you DO have to fill up all the empty slots, because if you don't use the entire staffing budget, corporate will assume that you don't need it all, and cut the budget for the following year (meaning even fewer hours to give out to employees.) This inevitably leads to some unfortunate employees getting stuck with less than convenient or desirable schedules, unless the manager happens to be some kind of scheduling genius (which he/she probably isn't......otherwise he/she would be working in a better job, not managing in retail...)

2. Oh, and I would HATE it when the employees would just assume that the managers make sooo much money. Yeah, we're on salary, so we're guaranteed the same amount of $$ each paycheck.....and that's about the only extra perk we have. No one seems to notice that we actually have to work a gazillion hours a week to get that paycheck in the first place, so if you were to break it down into an hourly rate, we are probably making equal to or less than the hourly rate that our employees get paid. And we still have to deal with the same BS of not knowing our schedule in advance. Even if we did know it though, it wouldn't make much of a difference, because guess who always has to stay late when a deadline needs to be met or some unexpected problem pops up? Yep...

SnuffleUffleGrass
06-01-2015, 12:38 PM
I thought Starbucks was named one of the best employers! At least that's what they claim with the sign in the door.

They changed during the 2008 Money Meltdown. I asked about their benefits back then & they said they had to slash medical for workers.

Selina M
06-01-2015, 05:26 PM
DreamsInDigital, it may be that way in some jobs. I'm going off numerous people who worked for Sbux and were very happy. That is what leads me to think it may be the manager.

Plus, you have to look at it from the managerial point of view. I'm sure I'll get called a callous bitch, but when I'm managing a business and have an employee who is consistently late, has issues finding childcare, etc., it becomes a giant pain in my ass. Those were the first people to get axed. At my family's business, we gave those people a chance but they all proved unreliable (even if it was no fault of their own), and eventually got to the point that people who did not have cars were immediately disqualified.

Tourdefranzia
06-02-2015, 03:16 PM
I'm working my ass off as a realtor right now and dancing when I've got a few hours to spare in my evenings to pay the bills until my new career becomes more lucrative.

I always figured that I must have been lazy because my 9-5 job (that was more like 7am-7pm most days) was leaving me with no time for anything but work.

Now I start work at 7am and am usually engaged in some kind of income generating activity (whether dancing or Real Estate sales) until midnight most nights. Strangely, I feel like I have a lot more time available and I get a lot more accomplished.

It doesn't matter if you are riding a desk or working the counter at a fast food place, if you don't have control over your schedule, you don't have control over you life.

Kellydancer
06-03-2015, 05:17 PM
This reminds me when I worked at Venture (a defunct retail chain like Wal-Mart) in 1991. I didn't have a kid but was in college full time and they'd give me a hard time about working around it. They had this bullshit policy called will call where you had to call an hour or two before work. This was an inconvenience because what if you had to take the bus or go to school or something else? They would give you a hard time if you asked for a day off and often scheduled a closing then an opening the next day. I also didn't want many hours and they kept giving me more and more. I finally had enough and quit when they wrote me up for a day I asked off. I asked them a month early, they refused to allow me off, I got a coworker to take my shift, she ended up in the hospital and unable to work. She got fired, I got written up and walked out. Months later I got a job as a nude model, and six months later a stripper. My coworker did too.

EastCoastDancer01
06-03-2015, 08:32 PM
In the last year or so I read an article where new York state was taking action against this kind of scheduling. Hopefully it'll pick up.

Ooh really? Thats the state I live in! Sweet. Not that it effects me, but its nice to know that my state actually cares about its working class.

Hippy Kid
06-07-2015, 01:11 PM
This is my current "real"job in a nutshell. I don't make minimum wage, but then, I've worked there for seven years and have a low-level "management" position at this point. I can still make more in a couple hours on cam than I do in a full 8.5 hour shift running a department at a grocery store, and I get waaay more respect and job satisfaction out of it. Real jobs suck. There's nothing more fun than working 11:30-8:00 and then coming back in 8 hours later at 4 AM, and knowing you're going to be unpredicatably back and forth all week.

I have already given notice, and I'm only sticking around until they can find someone to replace me, so that my boss doesn't have to work a 7 day week.

So yeah, that's what's expected, in my experience. 10 points for online sexwork!

Melonie
06-07-2015, 01:37 PM
In the last year or so I read an article where new York state was taking action against this kind of scheduling. Hopefully it'll pick up.


Ooh really? Thats the state I live in! Sweet. Not that it effects me, but its nice to know that my state actually cares about its working class.

As with many issues, beware of the unintended consequences. As mandates for higher wages and less flexible structured working hours for unskilled workers 'cost' employers more money, those employers have a stronger incentive to 'automate' ( some ) unskilled human worker positions out of existence. From

(snip)Panera Bread (PNRA) is the latest chain to introduce automated service, announcing in April that it plans to bring self-service ordering kiosks as well as a mobile ordering option to all its locations within the next three years. The news follows moves from Chili's and Applebee's to place tablets on their tables, allowing diners to order and pay without interacting with human wait staff at all.

Panera, which spent $42 million developing its new system, claims it isn't planning any job cuts as a result of the technology, but some analysts see this kind of shift as unavoidable for the industry. (snip)

as well as ... from

(snip)"McDonald's this week told financial analysts of its plans to install self-ordering kiosks and mobile ordering at its restaurants. It isn't the only food chain doing this.

The company that owns Chili's Grill & Bar also said this week it will complete a tablet ordering system rollout next month at its U.S. restaurants. Applebee's announced last December that it would deliver tablets to 1,800 restaurants this year.

The pace of self-ordering system deployments appears to be gaining speed. But there's a political element to this and it's best to address it quickly.

The move toward more automation comes at the same time pressure to raise minimum wages is growing. A Wall Street Journal editorial this week, "Minimum Wage Backfire," said that while it may be true for McDonald's to say that its tech plans will improve customer experience, the move is also "a convenient way...to justify a reduction in the chain's global workforce."

The Journal faulted those who believe that raising fast food wages will boost stagnant incomes. "The result of their agitation will be more jobs for machines and fewer for the least skilled workers," it wrote.(snip)


Sidestepping all arguments over minimum wage and structured working hours mandates, one inescapable fact remains clear. Downscale fast food customers are NOT going to spend > $5 dollars for a Big Mac ... and that's what the company would have to charge if it is mandated to raise hourly pay rates and mandated to staff at levels where one worker calling in sick won't force the company to call in a replacement worker on short notice. Thus the fast food chain must either find some way to keep the sale price down in a range which is 'palatable' to downscale fast food customers, or face loss of profitability. Short of switching to horse meat, that essentially leaves a reduction in the amount of human labor.

Hippy Kid
06-08-2015, 11:25 AM
Interestingly, many European (And some South American) countries with either higher minimum wages or higher functional minimum wages, in the case of union-negotiated wage-rate nations, Big Macs and the like actually do cost significantly more, both in terms of a converted flat rate, and in terms of PPP.

Take several of the Nordic countries, for example, where Mcdonald's workers generally make in the vicinity of $18-24 an hour, converted to USD, which is probably about half that in terms of comparable PPP, taking into account the high GDP and Cost of Living, so lets call it $9-12 an hour.

Are all the McDonald's franchises in Norway taking a loss every year? I doubt it...

Granted, that's a much stronger economy, with far more regulation, more rules, leading to a more competitive "game" of business, thus stronger growth. I suppose it's not fair to compare that with the "business rights" friendly USA, where we put an emphasis on concentrated market control rather than wide-spread regulation and a competitive playing field...

Nonetheless, it does go to show that, given a more regulated, more competitive, firmly built business environment, significantly higher wages, (ie. livable first world wages) are not only possible, but also vital to a strong and growth based economy.

When you have large chunks of your populace, which should be your domestic economic engine, all struggling to pay bills and get enough food, you cannot sustain significant inflation-adjusted growth. If, however, nearly your entire populace is comfortable enough to not only make ends meet but also be a touch frivolous with money, to have enough extra to throw some of it around, everyone benefits, and you can drive real inflation-adjusted growth. We've seen this in the hugely stable and successful Nordic countries, and some of the rest of western Europe, and we're starting to see it in some of the more emergent East Asian economies as well.

So, yeah, segue. Sorry!

DreamsInDigital
06-08-2015, 12:48 PM
I got a coworker to take my shift, she ended up in the hospital and unable to work. She got fired, I got written up and walked out.

Heh....this reminds me of a job that I had in high school. I got a few days off for surgery to get my wisdom teeth taken out. Turns out that my recovery took longer than expected, and on the day I was supposed to go back in, my mouth was still too swollen and painful to even speak. I had my parents call in for me and explain the situation. Next time I went to work, I got written up cuz "you can't have someone else call in for you." ......yeah. /:O

Melonie
06-08-2015, 12:55 PM
^^^ economists will point out that the underlying economic differences between the US and Nordic countries are attributable to somewhat different reasons ... from


(snip)Mass immigration is posing serious problems for the region. For the Nordic countries to be able to afford their welfare states they need to have 80% of their adults in the workforce, but labour-force participation among non-European immigrants is much lower than that. In Sweden only 51% of non-Europeans have a job, compared with over 84% of native Swedes. The Nordic countries need to persuade their citizens that they are getting a good return on their taxes, but mass immigration is creating a class of people who are permanently dependent on the state.

Torben Tranaes, of Denmark’s Rockwool Foundation Research Unit, calculates that in the mid-1990s immigrants in their 40s—the age group that generally contributes most to the public budget—paid only marginally more in taxes than they received in benefits. In Sweden 26% of all prisoners, and 50% of prisoners serving more than five years, are foreigners. Some 46% of the jobless are non-Europeans, and 40% of non-Europeans are classified as poor, compared with only 10% of native Swedes. Immigrants are so closely associated with the Million Programme, and hence with public housing, that the Gringo, a Stockholm newspaper for immigrants, calls them Miljonsvenskar, or “Million Swedes”.(snip)

Or put another way, the Nordic countries 'dirty little secret' is that their economic success depends heavily on keeping out as many immigrants as possible - to preserve high paying jobs for native born Nordic country citizens, as well as to prevent the tax burden on native born Nordic country workers from rising in order to fund gov't benefits for a growing number of low-income or unemployed immigrants !!! And, obviously, low income immigrants living in Nordic countries comprise a tiny percentage of the potential customer base for those >US $5.00 Big Macs, whereas low income immigrants in America comprise a much larger percentage of MacDonalds customer base.

Hippy Kid
06-08-2015, 03:23 PM
The majority of Europe has been dealing with a an ever-increasing influx of Middle-Eastern immigrants for over two decades now. And, while that article focused on a specific government-built low-income housing program, especially in one city, the problems of mass-immigration have affected most of Europe's economies. There is no country or economic system which we have yet discovered that can effortlessly deal with a huge, sudden increase in impoverished immigrants. Economies grow to fit the populace, and if you suddenly dump a bunch of people from outside into that economy, it takes a while to readjust.

In the case of Sweden, however, MOST researchers consistently find a healthy degree of social mobility there, so with luck, we can expect Sweden (And Norway, on which I was originally more focused) to eventually re-balance, if the constant conflict in the Middle-East should subside. (One well-circulated study researched noble family surnames and found that the elite of the 18th century still tends to be moderately better off than the average Swede, on the flip side.) By standard market indicators, however, Sweden is a better place to build a business than most.

I say this in the politest of manners, but it is also worth noting that The Economist is written by journalists, not economists, and anonymous ones at that, with an openly liberal leaning. Many economists, I might guess, would classify the underlying field of that specific article to be less Economics, and rather more Sociology or Demography.

The long and short of it is, however, that economies are driven and swamped and broken and re-furbished and grown by many very complicated inputs, and that no one really understands how markets work, nor can truly and consistently predict them.

At the very simplest, and most relevant to this thread, however, the fact remains that even a cheap-product fast-sale giant like McDonald's apparently can pay it's workers much more than USD $7.25 an hour and still use black ink on their bottom line.

Not that we should expect that in the States, anytime soon, mind you!

Melonie
06-09-2015, 03:39 AM
At the very simplest, and most relevant to this thread, however, the fact remains that even a cheap-product fast-sale giant like McDonald's apparently can pay it's workers much more than USD $7.25 an hour and still use black ink on their bottom line.

Not that we should expect that in the States, anytime soon, mind you!

Trying to maintain focus, I'll actually agree with you completely that McDonalds or Starbucks or any other ( nominally ) US company with stockholders to answer to is not likely to enact corporate policies which actually result in a significant reduction in profitability / stock price valuations / shareholder dividends.

As far as corporate 'direction', it's likely that ... as discussed earlier ... these corporations will wind up raising worker pay rates, and/or increasing worker benefits, and/or improving worker hours / schedules, in response to recent publicity. But it is also likely that the resulting higher employer cost per worker will be offset by increased automation reducing the number of required workers necessary to produce and sell the same amount of product. If those automation measures result in 4 lower paid workers transitioning into 3 higher paid workers, this benefits the 3 remaining workers ... but it also leaves the 4th worker without a job.

SnuffleUffleGrass
06-09-2015, 05:53 AM
This reminds me when I worked at Venture (a defunct retail chain like Wal-Mart) in 1991. I didn't have a kid but was in college full time and they'd give me a hard time about working around it. They had this bullshit policy called will call where you had to call an hour or two before work. This was an inconvenience because what if you had to take the bus or go to school or something else? They would give you a hard time if you asked for a day off and often scheduled a closing then an opening the next day. I also didn't want many hours and they kept giving me more and more. I finally had enough and quit when they wrote me up for a day I asked off. I asked them a month early, they refused to allow me off, I got a coworker to take my shift, she ended up in the hospital and unable to work. She got fired, I got written up and walked out. Months later I got a job as a nude model, and six months later a stripper. My coworker did too.

On the flip side I saw teachers at college terrorize students over work/school schedule conflicts ("If you keep missing classes for work I will drop you from the class.") This is kind of why young students run up insane student loan debt. Many employers make it impossible for a worker to empower themselves to get better jobs- why would you make them able to leave you? aka "Your boss is not your friend."

Prettyglitter
06-09-2015, 02:49 PM
Smh reminds me of my first minimum wage job. I'll never work another!!

Kellydancer
06-09-2015, 07:29 PM
On the flip side I saw teachers at college terrorize students over work/school schedule conflicts ("If you keep missing classes for work I will drop you from the class.") This is kind of why young students run up insane student loan debt. Many employers make it impossible for a worker to empower themselves to get better jobs- why would you make them able to leave you? aka "Your boss is not your friend."

Yeah I saw that as well. Not that I'm agreeing but many professors think that if they give an assignment the student can do it on time. The problem is this isn't always possible. My first semester of college was a struggle because I was taking 16 credits and working 35 hours. By my next semester I was working as a nude model for art classes (great money for little hours) so I saw as able to make the Dean's List.

Hippy Kid
06-11-2015, 05:16 PM
If those automation measures result in 4 lower paid workers transitioning into 3 higher paid workers, this benefits the 3 remaining workers ... but it also leaves the 4th worker without a job.

I wouldn't be entirely upset to see a return to a National Economy where minimum wage families can subsist with only one parent in the work force. If the cost of a higher minimum wage is that families can spare one parent to be a stay at home Dad/Mom, I'll take it. Granted, a higher minimum wage would like most heavily affect young, inexperienced kids first entering the workforce. Maybe we'll get tuition free education and those kids will be able to focus on really furthering their education at 18, rather than trying to supporting themselves with a fast-food job or two. (And while I'm at it, I'd really like a pony...)

But really, we used to consider doing the "at home" stuff a suitable occupation, now if you're not actively receiving monetary compensation, you're looked down upon.

jasmine22
06-11-2015, 11:01 PM
I wouldn't be entirely upset to see a return to a National Economy where minimum wage families can subsist with only one parent in the work force. If the cost of a higher minimum wage is that families can spare one parent to be a stay at home Dad/Mom, I'll take it. Granted, a higher minimum wage would like most heavily affect young, inexperienced kids first entering the workforce. Maybe we'll get tuition free education and those kids will be able to focus on really furthering their education at 18, rather than trying to supporting themselves with a fast-food job or two. (And while I'm at it, I'd really like a pony...)


But really, we used to consider doing the "at home" stuff a suitable occupation, now if you're not actively receiving monetary compensation, you're looked down upon.


thank you for posting that. Honestly I hate how kids are forced to work during college. I had to drop out bc of this and now going back years later. If I didn't have to worry so much about money I could've actually finished. Tuition is free or very low in Europe....why not here?? And I hate how if your not working your lazy....what's wrong with your parents helping you so u don't have to work a shit job? Or a mother staying home to raise her kids? People work too damn hard and for very little money....and we are supposed to respect that? I remember working minimum wage job and bring home $250 every 2 weeks! And waitressing I had nights I went home with barely nothing, but still had to mop the floor, and clean dirty tables and dishes. And people gave me so much shit about being in the adult industry, telling me to get a real job. I just feel like all our priorities are screwed up.

Melonie
06-12-2015, 12:50 AM
Tuition is free or very low in Europe....why not here?

From a purely factual standpoint, it probably has something to do with the fact that Scandinavian workers are faced with income tax rates like 56.9% ( Sweden ), 55.6% ( Denmark ) etc. compared to a maximum US income tax rate of 39.6%. On top of that, 'sales' tax ( VAT ) rates run 25% ( Norway and Sweden ) versus 10% or less in the US. There is no such thing as a 'free lunch'.

Also, as alluded to earlier, Sweden presently has >80% of it's working age population gainfully employed ( and paying income taxes ). In contrast, the US has <60% of it's working age population gainfully employed ( with many of those who are gainfully employed not actually paying income taxes via tax credits ). Much of this difference can be attributed to very active efforts by Scandinavian countries to stop the immigration of 'low skill level' foreigners ( who are unlikely to find jobs, but very likely to consume large amounts of social welfare benefits / taxpayer money ), whereas US efforts have been much less active.

At this point, this thread appears to be taking a 'political' turn ... thus I'll refrain from additional comments.

absolutelyadorable
06-22-2015, 05:04 AM
Wow reading this article brought back so many memories of the shit jobs I've worked in the past........it still pisses me off to think of how much bullshit I accepted because I needed the job so bad and managers KNEW that and exploited it, from being scheduled to work till 4 and not leaving till almost 11 to getting sexually harassed in front of the general manager and him turning a blind eye. SMH! Now that's what I call degradation.