1464
Post by: Breotan
http://news.yahoo.com/unions-now-angry-health-care-overhaul-074904729.html WASHINGTON (AP) — When President Barack Obama pushed his health care overhaul plan through Congress, he counted labor unions among his strongest supporters.
But some unions leaders have grown frustrated and angry about what they say are unexpected consequences of the new law — problems that they say could jeopardize the health benefits offered to millions of their members.
The issue could create a political headache next year for Democrats facing re-election if disgruntled union members believe the Obama administration and Congress aren't working to fix the problem.
"It makes an untruth out of what the president said, that if you like your insurance, you could keep it," said Joe Hansen, president of the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union. "That is not going to be true for millions of workers now."
The problem lies in the unique multiemployer health plans that cover unionized workers in retail, construction, transportation and other industries with seasonal or temporary employment. Known as Taft-Hartley plans, they are jointly administered by unions and smaller employers that pool resources to offer more than 20 million workers and family members continuous coverage, even during times of unemployment.
The union plans were already more costly to run than traditional single-employer health plans. The Affordable Care Act has added to that cost — for the unions' and other plans — by requiring health plans to cover dependents up to age 26, eliminate annual or lifetime coverage limits and extend coverage to people with pre-existing conditions.
"We're concerned that employers will be increasingly tempted to drop coverage through our plans and let our members fend for themselves on the health exchanges," said David Treanor, director of health care initiatives at the Operating Engineers union.
Workers seeking coverage in the state-based marketplaces, known as exchanges, can qualify for subsidies, determined by a sliding scale based on income. By contrast, the new law does not allow workers in the union plans to receive similar subsidies.
Bob Laszewski, a health care industry consultant, said the real fear among unions is that "a lot of these labor contracts are very expensive and now employers are going to have an alternative to very expensive labor health benefits."
"If the workers can get benefits that are as good through Obamacare in the exchanges, then why do you need the union?" Laszewski said. "In my mind, what the unions are fearing is that workers for the first time can get very good health benefits for a subsidized cost someplace other than the employer."
However, Laszewski said it was unlikely employers would drop the union plans immediately because they are subject to ongoing collective bargaining agreements.
Labor unions have been among the president's closest allies, spending millions of dollars to help him win re-election and help Democrats keep their majority in the Senate. The wrangling over health care comes as unions have continued to see steady declines in membership and attacks on public employee unions in state legislatures around the country. The Obama administration walks a fine line between defending the president's signature legislative achievement and not angering a powerful constituency as it looks ahead to the 2014 elections.
Union officials have been working with the administration for more than a year to try to get a regulatory fix that would allow low-income workers in their plans to receive subsidies. But after months of negotiations, labor leaders say they have been told it won't happen.
"It's not favoritism. We want to be treated fairly," said Hansen, whose union has about 800,000 of its 1.3 million members covered under Taft-Hartley policies. "We would expect more help from this administration."
Sabrina Siddiqui, a Treasury Department spokeswoman, declined to discuss the specifics of any negotiations between the administration and union officials. But she said the law helps bring down costs and improve quality of care.
Katie Mahoney, executive director of health policy at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, said employers were concerned about possible increases in health care costs and would do what was needed to keep their businesses running and retain worker talent. The Chamber has not taken a position on the union concerns, but Mahoney said it was highly unlikely that the administration would consider subsidies for workers in the union plans.
"They are not going to offset the expense of added mandates under the health care law, which employers and unions are going to pay for," Mahoney said.
Unions say their health care plans in many cases offer better coverage with broader doctors' networks and lower premiums than what would be available in the exchanges, particularly when it comes to part-time workers.
Unions backed the health care legislation because they expected it to curb inflation in health coverage, reduce the number of uninsured Americans and level the playing field for companies that were already providing quality benefits. While unions knew there were lingering issues after the law passed, they believed those could be fixed through rulemaking.
But last month, the union representing roofers issued a statement calling for "repeal or complete reform" of the health care law. Kinsey Robinson, president of the United Union of Roofers, Waterproofers and Allied Workers, complained that labor's concerns over the health care law "have not been addressed, or in some instances, totally ignored."
"In the rush to achieve its passage, many of the act's provisions were not fully conceived, resulting in unintended consequences that are inconsistent with the promise that those who were satisfied with their employer-sponsored coverage could keep it," Robinson said.
Harold Schaitberger, president of the International Association of Firefighters, said unions have been forceful in seeking solutions from the Obama administration, but none have been forthcoming. While Congress could address the problem by amending the health care law, Schaitberger said Senate Democrats told union leaders earlier this month that any new legislation was highly unlikely.
So, I guess this is some sort of vindication for people who were trying to prevent Obamacare from becoming law. Too bad the unions were more involved in anti-Republican activism and less in the welfare of their members.
69173
Post by: Dreadclaw69
And that is the danger of saying that you need to pass a law, and then people will find out the details of it.
34390
Post by: whembly
 Dreadclaw69 wrote:And that is the danger of saying that you need to pass a law, and then people will find out the details of it.
Yup.
My dad worked in construction industry for all his life... their Union health plans is considered the "Cadillac" plans...
They got the "waiver" from Obamacare... but, it's temporary.
They're going to get hammered once the waiver expires.
121
Post by: Relapse
The real fun begins next year. My companie's insurance was good until Obamacare got passed, now it has steadily gotten worse since. I'm seeing this is the case with a lot of companies. Count in all the others that are cutting hours to avoid penalties and you can get a real sense of what a cluster feth Obamacare is.
69173
Post by: Dreadclaw69
I get the impression that a lot of Americans wanted healthcare reform, but just not the way its been implemented
1309
Post by: Lordhat
Anything that lessens the power of unions is good.
1464
Post by: Breotan
A good number of people see unions as fundraising entities with their own political agendas and not as employee advocates in the workplace.
19370
Post by: daedalus
 Breotan wrote:A good number of people see unions as fundraising entities with their own political agendas and not as employee advocates in the workplace.
Or worst case, another effective boss with objectives mutually exclusive to your real boss's.
29408
Post by: Melissia
Frankly, I still see unions as unfortunate but necessary despite their many flaws. Businesses certainly cannot be trusted to keep the best interests of their workers in mind, and they have far, far more power than the workers do. So rather than force the businesses to do things directly via law from lawmakers influenced by lobbyists, and who don't understand or care about the situation of the workers in each industry, having an organization of the workers is best, although perhaps it should be better regulated to make sure it doesn't become corrupt like the companies it is supposed to watch over.
63623
Post by: Tannhauser42
Dreadclaw69 wrote:I get the impression that a lot of Americans wanted healthcare reform, but just not the way its been implemented
We do. Unfortunately, every politician wanted it their way, and neither side was willing to make any meaningful compromises (since compromising doesn't get you reelected).
69173
Post by: Dreadclaw69
Breotan wrote:A good number of people see unions as fundraising entities with their own political agendas and not as employee advocates in the workplace.
I will always chuckle when I think of a union (that my wife left years ago) sending her letters complaining about buying elections..... and then asking for a donation which they would pass onto their preferred candiate 
50336
Post by: azazel the cat
Relapse wrote:Count in all the others that are cutting hours to avoid penalties and you can get a real sense of what a cluster feth Obamacare is.
Don't blame your employer's douchebaggery on Obamacare. The ACA is a gakky piece of legislation with a heart of gold, but it is not responsible for your employee deciding to feth you over to save a buck.
34390
Post by: whembly
 azazel the cat wrote:Relapse wrote:Count in all the others that are cutting hours to avoid penalties and you can get a real sense of what a cluster feth Obamacare is.
Don't blame your employer's douchebaggery on Obamacare. The ACA is a gakky piece of legislation with a heart of gold, but it is not responsible for your employee deciding to feth you over to save a buck.
So the business owners should continue operating their business at a competitive disadvantage?
A gold plated turd still smells like gak man.
50336
Post by: azazel the cat
whembly wrote: azazel the cat wrote:Relapse wrote:Count in all the others that are cutting hours to avoid penalties and you can get a real sense of what a cluster feth Obamacare is.
Don't blame your employer's douchebaggery on Obamacare. The ACA is a gakky piece of legislation with a heart of gold, but it is not responsible for your employee deciding to feth you over to save a buck.
So the business owners should continue operating their business at a competitive disadvantage?
A gold plated turd still smells like gak man.
Call it what it is, Whembly. It's a business that's fething over its workers out of greed, nothing more. And that's only the ACA's fault insofar as the ACA created a situation wherein the employer could escape having to pay, which is like blaming the poor lighting in a park for your being mugged.
121
Post by: Relapse
azazel the cat wrote:whembly wrote: azazel the cat wrote:Relapse wrote:Count in all the others that are cutting hours to avoid penalties and you can get a real sense of what a cluster feth Obamacare is.
Don't blame your employer's douchebaggery on Obamacare. The ACA is a gakky piece of legislation with a heart of gold, but it is not responsible for your employee deciding to feth you over to save a buck.
So the business owners should continue operating their business at a competitive disadvantage?
A gold plated turd still smells like gak man.
Call it what it is, Whembly. It's a business that's fething over its workers out of greed, nothing more. And that's only the ACA's fault insofar as the ACA created a situation wherein the employer could escape having to pay, which is like blaming the poor lighting in a park for your being mugged.
Az, in all fairness, you don't know crap about my employer. I have been with the company over twenty years and they maintain an over 90% retention rate of employees because they do all they can for us. Obamacare is screwing over all employers, it seems. Even the good ones like mine.
34390
Post by: whembly
Call it what it is, Whembly. It's a business that's fething over its workers out of greed, nothing more. And that's only the ACA's fault insofar as the ACA created a situation wherein the employer could escape having to pay, which is like blaming the poor lighting in a park for your being mugged.
You're using a mighty large brush there boyo...
Employers ALSO need to offer decent benefit packages in order to compete for talent.
Now that it's more expense... things need to adjust somehow... with the way the economy is going, many businesses are already on razor's edge.
So no... the ACA was poorly designed and poorly TIMED.
50336
Post by: azazel the cat
Relapse wrote: azazel the cat wrote:whembly wrote: azazel the cat wrote:Relapse wrote:Count in all the others that are cutting hours to avoid penalties and you can get a real sense of what a cluster feth Obamacare is.
Don't blame your employer's douchebaggery on Obamacare. The ACA is a gakky piece of legislation with a heart of gold, but it is not responsible for your employee deciding to feth you over to save a buck.
So the business owners should continue operating their business at a competitive disadvantage?
A gold plated turd still smells like gak man.
Call it what it is, Whembly. It's a business that's fething over its workers out of greed, nothing more. And that's only the ACA's fault insofar as the ACA created a situation wherein the employer could escape having to pay, which is like blaming the poor lighting in a park for your being mugged.
Az, in all fairness, you don't know crap about my employer. I have been with the company over twenty years and they maintain an over 90% retention rate of employees because they do all they can for us. Obamacare is screwing over all employers, it seems. Even the good ones like mine.
And does your employer cut back hours so that they do not have to provide insurance to employees?
If no, then great!
If yes, then your employer is a dick.
Which is it?
34390
Post by: whembly
azazel the cat wrote:Relapse wrote: azazel the cat wrote:whembly wrote: azazel the cat wrote:Relapse wrote:Count in all the others that are cutting hours to avoid penalties and you can get a real sense of what a cluster feth Obamacare is.
Don't blame your employer's douchebaggery on Obamacare. The ACA is a gakky piece of legislation with a heart of gold, but it is not responsible for your employee deciding to feth you over to save a buck.
So the business owners should continue operating their business at a competitive disadvantage?
A gold plated turd still smells like gak man.
Call it what it is, Whembly. It's a business that's fething over its workers out of greed, nothing more. And that's only the ACA's fault insofar as the ACA created a situation wherein the employer could escape having to pay, which is like blaming the poor lighting in a park for your being mugged.
Az, in all fairness, you don't know crap about my employer. I have been with the company over twenty years and they maintain an over 90% retention rate of employees because they do all they can for us. Obamacare is screwing over all employers, it seems. Even the good ones like mine.
And does your employer cut back hours so that they do not have to provide insurance to employees?
If no, then great!
If yes, then your employer is a dick.
Which is it?
Right... and they ration healthcare in Canada... don't they?
EDIT: I don't know how healthcare is "operated" in Canada... so, I don't have that many opinions on it (other that, that's the way I'd go here in the states). Conversely, you have no idea how it works here in the States... you're coming from a flawed position.
465
Post by: Redbeard
Dreadclaw69 wrote:I get the impression that a lot of Americans wanted healthcare reform, but just not the way its been implemented
Absolutely. Obamacare does nothing to address the ever-increasing costs of healthcare, it just shifts the burden of who pays for it. The Dems are just as beholden to their corporate masters as the GOP, and neither will do anything to risk the cushy post-congressional jobs handed out as directors at pharma, insurance and healthcare corps. Obamacare does a decent job of making sure overpriced services are available to everyone, but they're still massively overpriced. Time had a great article on the costs a few months ago. Unfortunately it's now behind their paywall, so if you're not a subscriber, you can't easily read it online.
1206
Post by: Easy E
Oh look, the monthly... "Obamacare=Gak" thread.
I hope we get a new gun thread now soon too.
12313
Post by: Ouze
 Redbeard wrote: Unfortunately it's now behind their paywall, so if you're not a subscriber, you can't easily read it online.
While I have nothing to add to the topic at hand, I do have a comment on this tangential matter. Can you find the headline? I've often found that when you find an article you wish to read but it's behind some sort of paywall, if you google the entire and exact headline, you almost always find the entire article mirror elsewhere; often on their own site as a print-friendly version.
121
Post by: Relapse
azazel the cat wrote:Relapse wrote: azazel the cat wrote:whembly wrote: azazel the cat wrote:Relapse wrote:Count in all the others that are cutting hours to avoid penalties and you can get a real sense of what a cluster feth Obamacare is.
Don't blame your employer's douchebaggery on Obamacare. The ACA is a gakky piece of legislation with a heart of gold, but it is not responsible for your employee deciding to feth you over to save a buck.
So the business owners should continue operating their business at a competitive disadvantage?
A gold plated turd still smells like gak man.
Call it what it is, Whembly. It's a business that's fething over its workers out of greed, nothing more. And that's only the ACA's fault insofar as the ACA created a situation wherein the employer could escape having to pay, which is like blaming the poor lighting in a park for your being mugged.
Az, in all fairness, you don't know crap about my employer. I have been with the company over twenty years and they maintain an over 90% retention rate of employees because they do all they can for us. Obamacare is screwing over all employers, it seems. Even the good ones like mine.
And does your employer cut back hours so that they do not have to provide insurance to employees?
If no, then great!
If yes, then your employer is a dick.
Which is it?
No, they are not. They are doing all they can for us, but Obamacare is screwing the company over royaly. There are other employers that have to cut hours to survive because they can't afford Obamacare, so it's hardly fair to label everyone who does so a dick.
73070
Post by: Valion
azazel the cat wrote:Call it what it is, Whembly. It's a business that's fething over its workers out of greed, nothing more.
Even if this were the case, I am left to wonder why so many posters on this board seem to misapprehend the raison d'etre of for-profit business. Hint: it's not social welfare.
Unfortunately, it's not the case. The ACA is bad legislation that nobody read before passing. Simple as that.
50336
Post by: azazel the cat
@Relapse: glad to hear that your employer is a good one.
Valion wrote: azazel the cat wrote:Call it what it is, Whembly. It's a business that's fething over its workers out of greed, nothing more.
Even if this were the case, I am left to wonder why so many posters on this board seem to misapprehend the raison d'etre of for-profit business. Hint: it's not social welfare.
This is actually a point I often have to bring up whenever anyone talks about how a business would never abuse and take advantage of its employees.
37231
Post by: d-usa
You are a union, negotiate for what you want. That's the entire point of being a union in the first place. Quit being pissed because the law might force you to offer up something in negotiations to keep it.
73070
Post by: Valion
azazel the cat wrote:This is actually a point I often have to bring up whenever anyone talks about how a business would never abuse and take advantage of its employees.
That's good. But you missed the point. It's not "greed" that drives such hypothetical decisions, it's the fact that the point of the business is profitability. You seemed to be speaking from a perspective that one of these hypothetical companies of yours should prioritize its workers over competing, which is nutballs.
37231
Post by: d-usa
There are companies that do that you know.
465
Post by: Redbeard
Ouze wrote:
While I have nothing to add to the topic at hand, I do have a comment on this tangential matter. Can you find the headline? I've often found that when you find an article you wish to read but it's behind some sort of paywall, if you google the entire and exact headline, you almost always find the entire article mirror elsewhere; often on their own site as a print-friendly version.
Yup, it was called "A Bitter Pill: Why Medical Bills are Killing Us", and was at http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2136864,00.html
Good luck.
121
Post by: Relapse
 Valion wrote: azazel the cat wrote:This is actually a point I often have to bring up whenever anyone talks about how a business would never abuse and take advantage of its employees.
That's good. But you missed the point. It's not "greed" that drives such hypothetical decisions, it's the fact that the point of the business is profitability. You seemed to be speaking from a perspective that one of these hypothetical companies of yours should prioritize its workers over competing, which is nutballs.
To be honest, the stated mission of the company I work for is "To improve lives". It's an incredible place to work for that , in looking out for the employees, has created an extremely loyal workforce of well trained veterans. The result is a company that is very profitable and looked at as an industry standard. Other companies send their top people to us to learn our methods.
73070
Post by: Valion
Relapse wrote:To be honest, the stated mission of the company I work for is "To improve lives". It's an incredible place to work for that , in looking out for the employees, has created an extremely loyal workforce of well trained veterans. The result is a company that is very profitable and looked at as an industry standard. Other companies send their top people to us to learn our methods.
That doesn't stand at odds with what I said, but I'm sure you're aware of that.
After all, if they're genuinely having issues with the ACA, they could always simply get out of the for-profit game and become a non-profit that treats its workers quite well. Most of them do, after all. So why doesn't it?
121
Post by: Relapse
Valion wrote:Relapse wrote:To be honest, the stated mission of the company I work for is "To improve lives". It's an incredible place to work for that , in looking out for the employees, has created an extremely loyal workforce of well trained veterans. The result is a company that is very profitable and looked at as an industry standard. Other companies send their top people to us to learn our methods.
That doesn't stand at odds with what I said, but I'm sure you're aware of that.
After all, if they're genuinely having issues with the ACA, they could always simply get out of the for-profit game and become a non-profit that treats its workers quite well. Most of them do, after all. So why doesn't it?
Simply stated, to assure continued existance, they have to make a profit, as most businesses do.
73070
Post by: Valion
Relapse wrote:Simply stated, to assure continued existance, they have to make a profit, as most businesses do.
Which is why simply shouting, "Greed!" is stupid. I'm not sure why our Canadian friends do it so often.
121
Post by: Relapse
Valion wrote:Relapse wrote:Simply stated, to assure continued existance, they have to make a profit, as most businesses do.
Which is why simply shouting, "Greed!" is stupid. I'm not sure why our Canadian friends do it so often.
Yup, I see your point. It's interesting how some companies, like mine, build a workforce up, giving them sets of skills people pay thousands of dollars to acquire in universities, to the point where companies world wide take our people for a couple of years to be in their managment. Then there are other companies that yearly drop the bottom 10% of their workers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitality_curve
50336
Post by: azazel the cat
Valion wrote: azazel the cat wrote:This is actually a point I often have to bring up whenever anyone talks about how a business would never abuse and take advantage of its employees.
That's good. But you missed the point. It's not "greed" that drives such hypothetical decisions, it's the fact that the point of the business is profitability. You seemed to be speaking from a perspective that one of these hypothetical companies of yours should prioritize its workers over competing, which is nutballs.
But there is a difference between profitatility and trying to squeeze blood from a stone.
Valion wrote:Relapse wrote:Simply stated, to assure continued existance, they have to make a profit, as most businesses do.
Which is why simply shouting, "Greed!" is stupid. I'm not sure why our Canadian friends do it so often.
Because our your Canadian friend considers the Wal-Mart model to be a horrible travesty that is not even necessary. Consider the comparison between Wal-Mart and Costco: the former treats its employees like crap, pays them almost nothing, and most definitely cuts back hours to avoid paying out health care. Costco, on the other hand, pays closer to a liveable wage and provides health care. Its employees actually give enough of a gak to put out a fire should one start.
So please, do not try to dismiss things out of hand by merely claiming I'm simply saying "profit is bad!". But there is a difference between viewing the employee as a cost of doing business and nothing more, thus looking upon said employee with resentment, which oftentimes leads to the expectation that the employee owes the company something beyond however much labour the hourly wage buys; and between viewing the employee as a necessary facet of the business and thus as an investment towards future profitability.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
Still, its unfair to say that any company that cuts hours because of obamacare is fething its employees for the sake of profits, not all are doing that for that's sake. Or that a company would be wrong in cutting hours to protect profits. That's like blaming a dog for panting on a hot day.
73070
Post by: Valion
azazel the cat wrote:Because our your Canadian friend considers the Wal-Mart model to be a horrible travesty that is not even necessary. Consider the comparison between Wal-Mart and Costco: the former treats its employees like crap, pays them almost nothing, and most definitely cuts back hours to avoid paying out health care. Costco, on the other hand, pays closer to a liveable wage and provides health care. Its employees actually give enough of a gak to put out a fire should one start.
Leaving aside the fact that they operate on different business models, neither is a stellar example of making it in America as a low-level employee. In fact, there are very few stellar examples of that. The unfortunate truth is, if you want job security and good benefits, you need to either educate yourself in something valuable (I recommend STEM, or learning how to be the best fry cook on the line if you choose the liberal arts path), or learn an in-demand trade. The bottom rungs of retail are never going to be paradise, and pretending as though we can make it otherwise is strange.
So please, do not try to dismiss things out of hand by merely claiming I'm simply saying "profit is bad!".
Perhaps I would not have done so had you not made such a staggeringly simplistic claim as, to paraphrase, "All employers who will cut hours or jobs or other benefits in the face of the ACA are greedy." I mean, you don't really think that, do you?
29408
Post by: Melissia
Relapse wrote: Valion wrote: azazel the cat wrote:This is actually a point I often have to bring up whenever anyone talks about how a business would never abuse and take advantage of its employees.
That's good. But you missed the point. It's not "greed" that drives such hypothetical decisions, it's the fact that the point of the business is profitability. You seemed to be speaking from a perspective that one of these hypothetical companies of yours should prioritize its workers over competing, which is nutballs.
To be honest, the stated mission of the company I work for is "To improve lives". It's an incredible place to work for that , in looking out for the employees, has created an extremely loyal workforce of well trained veterans. The result is a company that is very profitable and looked at as an industry standard. Other companies send their top people to us to learn our methods.
Correct. A company that does not look after its employees will suffer for it.
50336
Post by: azazel the cat
Valion wrote: azazel the cat wrote:So please, do not try to dismiss things out of hand by merely claiming I'm simply saying "profit is bad!".
Perhaps I would not have done so had you not made such a staggeringly simplistic claim as, to paraphrase, "All employers who will cut hours or jobs or other benefits in the face of the ACA are greedy." I mean, you don't really think that, do you?
"I'm cutting your hours so that I don't have to pay for your health insurance" is basically the same as saying "the government says I have to pay you, but I've found a way around that". I see the ACA as a cost of having employees, just like a minimum wage. And thus, I view any attempt to skirt around that as an employer taking advantage of a way to not pay employees. Granted, I recognize that there are some small businesses that cannot afford to operate within the confines of the ACA. However, I think the number of small businesses that face legitimate threat from ACA costs is so far below the number of companies claiming that threat.
And if you want me to take a hardline capitalist approach, then I'll put it in these terms: the ACA is a rule of playing the game. If you cannot keep your business profitable despite it, then your business deserves to die. Survival of the fittest. Such is the open market. Sometime in the last 20 years, many, many Americans seem to have conflated the Free Market with the idea that they are entitled to make a profit; and this is just not true. And it is from this attitude where I notice many (not all) anti-ACA attitudes stem from.
44089
Post by: Shadowseer_Kim
And its pretty well proven that the minimum wage hurts everyone, but mainly the minorities.
Why should I need to pay some 15 year old kid who lives at home $9 an hour for counting cans and breaking down cardboard at the local store. (oh yea the government says so) His work is worth what.. maybe $5 an hour.
With every minimum wage, you see less and less of these jobs, and the responsibilities just get heaped on to another employee.
Remember when we had kids bagging groceries, carrying them to your car and counting cans and bottles?
Oh and companies have found out how to get around paying minimum wage. I can name you one evil company that does this notoriously: Goodwill Industries.
You know that Not for Profit, thrift store. They hire people with disabilities to "help them" but get a waiver to be able to pay them as low as 5 cents an hour. The arguement is "their work is not worth more."
23
Post by: djones520
I remember getting paid $5.15 an hour to bag groceries. I then moved onto greener pastures at Taco Bell where I made $6 an hour. After a few months I got a pretty hefty raise up to $6.55 an hour.
I had these jobs in high school. When I graduated, I went onto find a real job. I do have to wonder why it's an employers responsibility to pay more then what a job is worth, because some adults made poor choices in life and ended up only being employable by fast food places and grocery stores.
Now yes... there is always that small population of folks who the responsibility for their situations isn't entirely on their shoulders, but the majority of folks who work those jobs are there because they put themselves there.
44089
Post by: Shadowseer_Kim
exactly. cashier at walmart is not supposed to be a lifelong career. it is an entry level job that takes next to no skill. Expect these jobs to pay low and not provide benefits, that is not what they are for.
29408
Post by: Melissia
 Shadowseer_Kim wrote:exactly. cashier at walmart is not supposed to be a lifelong career. it is an entry level job that takes next to no skill. Expect these jobs to pay low and not provide benefits, that is not what they are for.
And yet, more often than ever before ,they end up being lifelong careers because the free market is failing to provide jobs to move up to.
23
Post by: djones520
 Melissia wrote: Shadowseer_Kim wrote:exactly. cashier at walmart is not supposed to be a lifelong career. it is an entry level job that takes next to no skill. Expect these jobs to pay low and not provide benefits, that is not what they are for.
And yet, more often than ever before ,they end up being lifelong careers because the free market is failing to provide jobs to move up to.
The usual cop out to remove personal responsibility from the picture. "I had substandard grades in high school and never bothered with any other education, and it's all the systems fault my fat ass is stuck on a stool in a Walmart check out line."
63623
Post by: Tannhauser42
 djones520 wrote: Melissia wrote: Shadowseer_Kim wrote:exactly. cashier at walmart is not supposed to be a lifelong career. it is an entry level job that takes next to no skill. Expect these jobs to pay low and not provide benefits, that is not what they are for.
And yet, more often than ever before ,they end up being lifelong careers because the free market is failing to provide jobs to move up to.
The usual cop out to remove personal responsibility from the picture. "I had substandard grades in high school and never bothered with any other education, and it's all the systems fault my fat ass is stuck on a stool in a Walmart check out line."
That's not entirely true. There are, after all, only a finite number of jobs available, even in the best of times. When you have X number of good quality jobs, but X+Y number of people qualify for them, the Y part will have to settle for less. And so on, down.
As Ted Knight said so eloquently in Caddyshack: "Well, the world needs ditch diggers, too."
50512
Post by: Jihadin
There are, after all, only a finite number of jobs available, even in the best of times.
The individual limits themselves on what they can actual do. What are they willing to sacrifice to get the "job" they want. If they have a piss poor education but pass on the ASVAB then bite the bullet and join the military. Most live in the "NOW" and not what the can do for themselves in the future.
44089
Post by: Shadowseer_Kim
This is not even close to true. you can make your own job. you learn how to do something, and you practice at it whatever the trade and you work to become the best.
And yes the world needs ditch diggers. One of the problems is our current public education systems fails to teach children anything about how to make it in the real world or prepare them for it.
Shop classes were mostly cut out a long time ago.
29408
Post by: Melissia
djones520 wrote:The usual cop out to remove personal responsibility from the picture. "I had substandard grades in high school and never bothered with any other education, and it's all the systems fault my fat ass is stuck on a stool in a Walmart check out line."
It's not a cop-out, it's the truth. Just because you're too deluded to realize that we live in a world of finite resources does not mean that we do not live in a world of finite resources. Insulting people whose situations you don't know or understand to make yourself feel better doesn't change it, either. Every year a person remains unemployed or ungainfully employed only further reduces their chances of becoming gainfully employed-- because employers count it against them, no matter what their previous job records say. And yet here we are, not enough jobs out there for all the college graduates-- and before the inevitable whining, no, I don't mean the liberal arts majors. There's not enough jobs for everyone graduating with Science/Engineering/Technology majors. And no matter how much work everyone who wants to get ahead puts in, there's only so many positions that are better than entry-level. More positions than there are people. The usual cop-out, to use your own words, that all of these people should become entrepreneurs is based on nothing more than intellectual laziness and pathetic ignorance of what it really takes to be an entrepreneur. Frequently, even when someone is qualified for an entry-level position in a STEM field, the requirements for the positions are so ludicrously high that recent graduates can't actually find a job. It is not uncommon to have entry-level STEM positions state that you need to have 2 years of experience and a master's-- and I've even seen some openings for freaking internships have a year or more in their requirements. A recent graduate might stumble for quite some time before finding a job that they went to college for... if they find it at all. Because again, the market is not perfect, no matter how much you might scream that it is. Many companies, these days, simply don't want to hire, instead preferring to work the people that they have harder to get more productivity-- especially in the USA.
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
Everyone I know who can't hold a job is in fact a total loser.
#anecdotal evidence
44089
Post by: Shadowseer_Kim
I think we are all arguing the same thing Melissia, just we see different reasons for the same problem.
At least we agree what the problem is.
Yes I have seen it too, lots of help wanted ads for entry level no skill jobs requiring a college degree.
This is a combination of things:
1. Employers are forced to pay higher wages for lower work, so they can insist on higher qualified people. This also helps cause in the heaping more work on the workers they already have.
2. Supply and demand. Tons of supply for workers, demand for workers is down.
3. Hiring someone new is more expensive than keeping someone you already have on payroll.
Now when employers are told "not only do you have to pay a higher wage, you also have to pay for these benefits" they will tighten up on hiring even more. The already employed will find themselves with way more work. You will need a bachelors degree in anything to get hired on to pour my coffee and serve my breakfast at the local diner.
29408
Post by: Melissia
That's certainly not true. Besides, I was speaking specifically of STEM jobs, for which a bachelor's or master's degree in science, technology, engineering, or medicine actually makes sense. These are the kinds of jobs where a higher wage is completely justified. But the companies don't want to hire. They'd rather just pay overtime, or make them work without paying overtime if they can. Preferably the latter, no matter how illegal it is. For jobs like the aforementioned Wal-Mart job, they most assuredly do NOT "pay too much". And waitresses/ers might as well be indentured servants. Correct, the market is failing to provide what is needed at the moment.
2783
Post by: Doomsdave
Shadowseer_Kim wrote:
One of the problems is our current public education systems fails to teach children anything about how to make it in the real world or prepare them for it.
Shop classes were mostly cut out a long time ago.
Exactly. The foolish notion that every HS grad should go to college has done irreperable damage. My brother makes $80K+ a year in the HVAC business (no degree). He is in his early 30's and will have his mortgage paid off next year. The Barrista in my Starbucks has a graduate degree in some humanities BS and is mad at the world because she chose an education that saddled her with debt and is not marketable.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
Its practically cheapened the value of having a college degree. You need a degree to even be considered for most jobs, yet the majority of said jobs don't actually require a college education for you to perform them.
The skills you learned aren't what's needed, the employers just want you to have that shiny piece of paper.
I don't think its the employers fault though. I think everyone, employers and employees alike, has been brainwashed into thinking a college degree should be had for some nebulous reason nobody can really describe.
The higher education industry has done a good job of selling itself.
29408
Post by: Melissia
It's nothing but arrogance to see someone making less than you and then think "they must be lazy, unlike me". I'm sure it's a comforting arrogance, but it's still just arrogance.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
They may not be lazy, but that still doesn't mean they should be paid any more than what the job is worth.
Is being a cashier at Walmart worth $10 an hour plus benefits? Hell no. I'd say its barely worth $5 an hour with no benefits.
68844
Post by: HiveFleetPlastic
You realise you need cashiers at Walmart for your society to function, right? If everyone in your population went out, pulled themselves up by their bootstraps and became astrophysicists, there would still need to be people bagging the groceries, just now they'd be astrophysicists.
Saying people deserve to be paid a pittance for their job when they are doing something necessary to society and someone is going to have to do it, no matter what is just inhumane. Everyone should be paid a decent wage.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
You earn a decent wage. No one forcing anyone to stay 20+ years as a cashier. If your stuck in an arse in job would you not take it upon yourself via self motivation and self improvement to improve your lot in life? Or accept that you suck in life?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
why are we stuck on a walmart cashier of all things?
12313
Post by: Ouze
It's the new McJob.
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
I guess it's the "job that I feel superior to" du jour.
29408
Post by: Melissia
 Grey Templar wrote:They may not be lazy, but that still doesn't mean they should be paid any more than what the job is worth.
Is being a cashier at Walmart worth $10 an hour plus benefits? Hell no. I'd say its barely worth $5 an hour with no benefits.
5 USD an hour is not enough to live off of-- you'd lose 2/3rds of that a month just paying rent in most places for an entry-level apartment, never mind trying to feed yourself or get to and from work every day. And that's assuming you were given 40 hours a week to begin with, a laughable idea given my experience working at Wal-Mart.
Perhaps you would suggest that they start stealing things to make up for the difference?
68844
Post by: HiveFleetPlastic
Look, it doesn't matter who it is. You can't have your entire society magically pull themselves up by their bootstraps. Economies don't work that way. Your gain is at another's expense, always.
29408
Post by: Melissia
 Jihadin wrote:If your stuck in an arse in job would you not take it upon yourself via self motivation and self improvement to improve your lot in life?
It doesn't matte how much motivation and self-improvement you have if there's simply nowhere for you to go to begin with.
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
In a system with limited resources that is unavoidable.
12313
Post by: Ouze
Melissia wrote:Perhaps you would suggest that they start stealing things to make up for the difference?
No, don't worry about it. Once we create this giant population of people who are now making 4 or 5 bucks an hour and no benefits, they won't be able to buy gas or food or find housing. Since demand will go down, the prices of all those things will come down to match!
The miracle of the invisible hand, once again working it's magic.
I see no way at all this could backfire, so long as none of them ever get sick or injured.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
The necessity of a job to society isn't the sole decider of what the wage should be.
The difficulty of the job(IE: what skills are needed for it) and the skillset required for it are more important considerations for determining the wage.
A cashier at walmart requires almost no skill to do the job, which makes the labor pool for the job quite high. As there is never going to be a shortage of people willing and able to do the job why should the pay be anything above minimum wage?
Its not that the workers don't deserve to be paid a high wage or that they do. They should be paid exactly what the job is worth. A cashiers position is not worth very much. All cashiers positions as a whole are worth a lot to society, but no more than any other job is worth. if anything its still pretty low on the totem pole.
29408
Post by: Melissia
Grey Templar wrote:The difficulty of the job(IE: what skills are needed for it) and the skillset required for it are more important considerations for determining the wage.
That's not, however, how the real world works. Automatically Appended Next Post: "What the job is worth" is nebulous and subjective. The market would say "nothing" and use slave labor if it could. Would you say that's okay?
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
Ok, as a counter point. What on earth makes people think a Walmart Cashier should get benefits?
And "because the employee needs them" is not a good reason. Everybody needs/wants everything.
29408
Post by: Melissia
Grey Templar, ours is the same capitalist system that, both historically AND currently, places different values on a job's worth based off of a person's ethnicity, gender, religion, or sexual preference-- even when the same amount and quality of work are put in place. What pathetic delusion makes you think that the current system prices low-level, underprivileged jobs justly? Hell, jobs taht were previously dominated by white men (such as Veterinary work), whom minorities and women have become predominant in, have actually DEVALUED in terms of pay. Capitalism isn't perfect no matter how many people scream and shout that it is.
Regardless, to answer your question, the reason is simple-- it is not beneficial to society to allow otherwise productive members of society to wallow in poverty. Poverty creates a haven for criminals and other malcontents, disease and disorder, and in the most extreme cases, class-based violence. We've seen it happen plenty of times in almost every place in the world, including the USA itself.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
Before we go further on this......are we focusing just on a Walmart cashier job pay and benefits?
It doesn't matte how much motivation and self-improvement you have if there's simply nowhere for you to go to begin with.
I call BS. I got caught in the same situation before I came to conclusion my best offer in life at the was the military. So I took it. Either that or take a job in Alaska working on a rig because I researched the jobs as recent grad of High school.......I HATE THE COLD.
I also would would gain the lead in whatever job I apply for at the expense of others due to my military carreer and disability rating in a federal job. 
29408
Post by: Melissia
So tell me. 50 new jobs are available, and there's 1000 jobless people applying for them. How many people will have to go without jobs after all is said and done?
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
Its just an example of a low end job.
Anyway, it is true that poverty does create a haven for crime and other undesirable behavior. But poverty is impossible to eradicate.
You can raise wages and benefits all you want, but its not going to change the fact there will always be people on the bottom. Which means there's always going to be a place where poverty exists. It isn't a hard fast line you can draw and try to raise all of society above it, instead, poverty is relative to the society its part of.
29408
Post by: Melissia
None of that pathetic hand-waving is an excuse for the extreme concentration of wealth that we currently have.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
Melissia wrote:So tell me. 50 new jobs are available, and there's 1000 jobless people applying for them. How many people will have to go without jobs after all is said and done?
While it is a fact that in that situation there will be 950 jobless at the end of the day, which individuals are jobless is entirely up to the individuals in question. They can work at making themselves be one of the 50.
Now, its also a fact that you can work as hard as possible and still not make it. But that's just how the world works, always has worked, and always will work. The sooner we accept that fact the sooner we can get on with life.
29408
Post by: Melissia
Grey Templar wrote:While it is a fact that in that situation there will be 950 jobless at the end of the day, which individuals are jobless is entirely up to the individuals in question.
Don't be delusional. It's not up to them. It's up to the whims of the business people hiring them. Automatically Appended Next Post: Grey Templar wrote:Now, its also a fact that you can work as hard as possible and still not make it. But that's just how the world works, always has worked, and always will work. The sooner we accept that fact the sooner we can get on with life.
I don't respect defeatists.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
Melissia wrote:None of that pathetic hand-waving is an excuse for the extreme concentration of wealth that we currently have.
Whether the richest person in the world has 100 billion or 200 billion will not change the disparity.
Take all the money the wealthy have and give it to the poor, you will not make the poor any less poor.
29408
Post by: Melissia
Grey Templar wrote:Take all the money the wealthy have and give it to the poor, you will not make the poor any less poor.
Would you also say that taking all the water from a lake would still leave it a lake?
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
Melissia wrote:
Grey Templar wrote:Now, its also a fact that you can work as hard as possible and still not make it. But that's just how the world works, always has worked, and always will work. The sooner we accept that fact the sooner we can get on with life.
I don't respect defeatists.
Says a delusional idealist.
Work on realistic goals where you can actually accomplish something.
Stop attacking rich capitalist fat cats and go help develop villages in Africa. That's where you could make some real change.
29408
Post by: Melissia
I do, and I am. Advocating for the continuation of food stamp programs, and other such assistance to alleviate the pains of poverty is not only a realistic goal, it is a goal that accomplishes a lot more than your defeatist lack of ideals. Grey Templar wrote:Stop attacking rich capitalist fat cats and go help develop villages in Africa. That's where you could make some real change.
There is no reason to believe that I have to go to Africa to help the poor. There are problems here that need to be solved, and ignoring htem will not make them go away, no matter how hard you try.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
You all telling me my option is limited to the area I am? BS. A job is like a relationship
1. If its good you stay.
2. If it sucks you leave.
3. If your looking then LOOK
Some seem quite convince that jobs need to imported to them where they live.
29408
Post by: Melissia
Jihadin wrote:You all telling me my option is limited to the area I am?
No, I'm telling you that no matter whre you go, there will never be enough jobs for everyone, no matter how good their work ethic is or how much skill they might have. Especially in these days of increasing productivity and automation. That's why we have government assistance-- to assist where the market has failed, and the market ALWAYS fails in some way. It is an imperfect collection of imperfect people with a long history of biases, irrational actions, and illogical thoughts driving it, which is why no government has ever managed to keep a system of perfect capitalism, and no sane government would try.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
The government is also full of imperfect people as well and, as I am sure we could all agree, politicians are more imperfect than most.
If the market, made of imperfect people, couldn't do it what makes people think the government, made of those same imperfect people, can fix it?
And unlike the market, the government's potential for abuse and wrong doing is vastly greater. The government has a direct incentive for controlling the people, the market only does what is profitable. The government doesn't care for profit, it only wants power.
Of the two, I'd far prefer the free market to the ironfisted regulator.
29408
Post by: Melissia
Grey Templar wrote:The government is also full of imperfect people as well and, as I am sure we could all agree, politicians are more imperfect than most.
Politicians are, in many ways, better than businesspeople. At the very least, politicians are somewhat accountable to the people who depend upon them. Businesspeople are accountable only to the greed of their shareholders..
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
Really
Business people are not just accountable to their stockholders. They themselves are subject to their customers. You have to be very careful. Even the largest and most successful business can piss off their customers and fall quickly. Businesses must constantly make sure they are pleasing their customers, unlike politicians who are only held accountable one every few years.
If a politician does something dumb a year away from reelection it has to be pretty serious to have an effect. Politicians really only have to seriously worry about their image with the voters shortly before the election. They really aren't beholden to the voters in the off season.
If politicians truly were 100% beholden to the people nobody would complain about lobbyists.
If elections were held every year it might be true. And even then, a politician is really only beholden to the majority(often very slight) that voted him in. The opposition means nothing to him.
29408
Post by: Melissia
For one, a politician who doesn't serve their society well can be voted out of office. A businessman who harms society but is profitable to the shareholders cannot be voted out of office. In many (though obviously not all) cases, businesses must be forced through law to act ethically, because their only desire is the accumulation of wealth.
63623
Post by: Tannhauser42
Grey Templar wrote:Business people are not just accountable to their stockholders. They themselves are subject to their customers. You have to be very careful. Even the largest and most successful business can piss off their customers and fall quickly. Businesses must constantly make sure they are pleasing their customers, unlike politicians who are only held accountable one every few years.
And yet, Games Workshop has been pissing us off for several years now and is still in business. 
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
They obviously haven't pissed us off enough to stop buying their product. Although they're getting there. It'll happen soon.
29408
Post by: Melissia
Yes, actually, they are. That's all that matters to executives' bottom line. Countless examples exist of CEOs making decisions that are incredibly stupid, but happen to please their stockholders.
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
It's always amazing to watch someone who is so aggressively uninformed at work.
The shareholders are not god to a CEO. I bet, if you tried really, really hard, you could think of one or two (there are more than that) entities that a business person is accountable to.
As for GW, they (as well as the post 'ard boyz tournament culture) have driven me into the arms of FFG, and I'm quite happy there.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
I'm still grappling with their prices but WTH....I paint more then I play and they do make for good painting. What I don't like about GW practice/policy is changing out management with no notice. I was all set with the Dakka Warband with another guy to play against and "BAM" we have a new GW manager and a cute one at that. I will admit....nice play on GW side....military peeps are picking the game up....Oh and Gig Harbor has one army base JBLW, Bremerton Naval Yard, and Puget Sound Naval Vase. We need a bunker over here lol
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
How does getting a new cute GW manager interfere with the Dakka Warband? Were all the Slanneshi members running off to ooogle?
50512
Post by: Jihadin
We have only two tables. We were going to play outside the rule set. As in "what we as leaders" would do in a firefight. As in the if the rest of squad was in cover but for one unlucky SoB....then we would opt out that unlucky SoB. Throwing the grenades would go forward instead of where the arrow pointed..unless the one was rolled...then the squad would roll to unass the AO. Roll for distance. If under fire then 1" inch deviant comes into play....you know...RL firefight experience entering the game. SOme of us improve a fighting postion in RL...why not the mini's if they don't move or shoot but fortify their position? We're working with Jen on this. We think it'll be a blast. Just that Jen mention has to be military on military and not military vs kids and non mil types.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LOL damn that's a thread right there....Do infantry MOS's have an unfair advantage over non military. As in mindset on thinking outside the box lol
12313
Post by: Ouze
Melissia wrote:Yes, actually, they are. That's all that matters to executives' bottom line. Countless examples exist of CEOs making decisions that are incredibly stupid, but happen to please their stockholders.
To clarify this somewhat, you might want to rephrase that as " Countless examples exist of CEOs making decisions that are incredibly stupid in the long term, but generate short term profits, but happen to please their stockholders who have no problem with short term profits."
Warren Buffett had some interesting thoughts on how to fix this, presuming this is actually a "problem". The idea was, I believe, substantially increasing the tax on short-term stock sales, but then after 5 years (or so), completely removing all tax on them which would drastically change corporate culture.
Not sure what any of this has to do with Obamacare and labor unions though.
Also, you know you've been on Dakka too long when you almost add a "u" to labor as an American.
29408
Post by: Melissia
Ethical decisions quite often have much to do with short vs long term gain.
121
Post by: Relapse
Grey Templar wrote:Ok, as a counter point. What on earth makes people think a Walmart Cashier should get benefits?
And "because the employee needs them" is not a good reason. Everybody needs/wants everything.
The employer also needs good employees, and from the managment model I witnessed where I work and it's results, the best thing an employer can do is invest in his employees. This is both in cash and benefit incentives as well as training them above their job level. When I first started working where I do, there were only 50 employees, but the business has since grown to need over 750 in the years I worked there.
As I stated in an earlier post, the workforce is so incredibly well trained, pretty much anyone who has worked there for a few months is more than the equal in lean manufacturing techniques a lot of college graduates posses. As a consequence, the company has people come from all over the world to learn the job relations model of our company as well as our lean techniques.
The mind set of our managment is that a "rising tide raises all boats".
Employers that are not willing to invest in their employees generally end up with short timers who have no loyalty that are always looking for the first way out, with no stake in caring if the business does well or not. Such a company finds itself in a continual cycle of having to train people and dealing with the cost of mistakes during the traing process.
A wise man once told me, "If you want monkeys, then pay peanuts".
73070
Post by: Valion
It's a mistake to assume that all businesses have the capability or even the need to follow that model, however.
121
Post by: Relapse
Valion wrote:It's a mistake to assume that all businesses have the capability or even the need to follow that model, however.
This is true, but some of the more successful ones I have seen do. Almost without fail, the ones who treat their employees like slaves are nowhere near as profitable as they could be.
73070
Post by: Valion
Relapse wrote:This is true, but some of the more successful ones I have seen do. Almost without fail, the ones who treat their employees like slaves are nowhere near as profitable as they could be.
I doubt that's true. McDonald's, for instance, would likely be a lot less profitable if it put employees first. Most businesses that rely on unskilled labor would see nothing but a profit decrease if they suddenly started shelling out Google-style employee amenities.
19370
Post by: daedalus
Relapse wrote: Valion wrote:It's a mistake to assume that all businesses have the capability or even the need to follow that model, however.
This is true, but some of the more successful ones I have seen do. Almost without fail, the ones who treat their employees like slaves are nowhere near as profitable as they could be.
I think that depends mostly upon the job. It's a skilled vs. unskilled labor type of thing, hence a McDonald's which will fire you for being 10 minutes late whereas as at Generic Software Company, you get a concerned call from your boss at 30 minutes late making sure everything is okay (goddamned traffic) and finding out if you need some time off/work from home, and when you do get into the office, there's free coffee/soda/foosball/wii games.
Doesn't keep McDonald's from being on every street corner. Generic Software Company is not doing too bad either from what I hear.
Edit; That thing that was said more concisely just before me.
50336
Post by: azazel the cat
Grey Templar wrote:Is being a cashier at Walmart worth $10 an hour plus benefits? Hell no. I'd say its barely worth $5 an hour with no benefits.
And what price per hour will you pay to prevent your employee from skimming from the register? Because if your employee cannot afford to eat because of how low the wage is, then you(infinitive, not necessarily you personally) must be impossibly stupid to think the employee will choose to go hungry rather than short the cash register. Sure, if you catch the employee, they can be fired. Then you have to train a new employee (a further cost) and deal with the exact same problem.
Ouze wrote:Also, you know you've been on Dakka too long when you almost add a "u" to labor as an American.
But at least you finally learned to spell it correctly.
Relapse wrote: Grey Templar wrote:Ok, as a counter point. What on earth makes people think a Walmart Cashier should get benefits?
And "because the employee needs them" is not a good reason. Everybody needs/wants everything.
The employer also needs good employees, and from the managment model I witnessed where I work and it's results, the best thing an employer can do is invest in his employees. This is both in cash and benefit incentives as well as training them above their job level. When I first started working where I do, there were only 50 employees, but the business has since grown to need over 750 in the years I worked there.
As I stated in an earlier post, the workforce is so incredibly well trained, pretty much anyone who has worked there for a few months is more than the equal in lean manufacturing techniques a lot of college graduates posses. As a consequence, the company has people come from all over the world to learn the job relations model of our company as well as our lean techniques.
The mind set of our managment is that a "rising tide raises all boats".
Employers that are not willing to invest in their employees generally end up with short timers who have no loyalty that are always looking for the first way out, with no stake in caring if the business does well or not. Such a company finds itself in a continual cycle of having to train people and dealing with the cost of mistakes during the traing process.
A wise man once told me, "If you want monkeys, then pay peanuts".
^This. All of this. Goddammit, when did you & I start agreeing on so much?
Valion wrote:Relapse wrote:This is true, but some of the more successful ones I have seen do. Almost without fail, the ones who treat their employees like slaves are nowhere near as profitable as they could be.
I doubt that's true. McDonald's, for instance, would likely be a lot less profitable if it put employees first. Most businesses that rely on unskilled labor would see nothing but a profit decrease if they suddenly started shelling out Google-style employee amenities.
What a lovely strawman you're building.
We're not talking about Google-style amenities. We're talking about health benefits and a livable wage. And for many businesses, including unskilled labour, do you know what the most expensive costs quite often are? The brick & mortar lease, and training. If you have a high turnover, then you will be re-training constantly, which is a sinkhole for operating expenses. Any business that thinks it's cheaper beyond the short term (that is, beyond "this quarter") to get stuck in a perpetual cycle of turnover is not going to be maximizing its profit potential or coming anywhere near it. However, many businesses (often publicly traded ones) tend to see the current-quarter-only mindset as being satisfactory to keep impatient shareholders in line. Unfortunately, this is not a viable, long-term business strategy and often causes first diminishing returns, and then ultimately a loss of profitability.
73070
Post by: Valion
azazel the cat wrote:What a lovely strawman you're building.
We're not talking about Google-style amenities. We're talking about health benefits and a livable wage. And for many businesses, including unskilled labour, do you know what the most expensive costs quite often are? The brick & mortar lease, and training. If you have a high turnover, then you will be re-training constantly, which is a sinkhole for operating expenses. Any business that thinks it's cheaper beyond the short term (that is, beyond "this quarter") to get stuck in a perpetual cycle of turnover is not going to be maximizing its profit potential or coming anywhere near it. However, many businesses (often publicly traded ones) tend to see the current-quarter-only mindset as being satisfactory to keep impatient shareholders in line. Unfortunately, this is not a viable, long-term business strategy and often causes first diminishing returns, and then ultimately a loss of profitability.
And we have proof of that, in the rapid decline of Wal-mart, all fast food chains, convenience stores, gas stations, and of course restaurants.
I don't know. Perhaps you're writing to us from some alternate universe where there's no such thing as low-end labor.
50336
Post by: azazel the cat
Valion wrote: azazel the cat wrote:What a lovely strawman you're building.
We're not talking about Google-style amenities. We're talking about health benefits and a livable wage. And for many businesses, including unskilled labour, do you know what the most expensive costs quite often are? The brick & mortar lease, and training. If you have a high turnover, then you will be re-training constantly, which is a sinkhole for operating expenses. Any business that thinks it's cheaper beyond the short term (that is, beyond "this quarter") to get stuck in a perpetual cycle of turnover is not going to be maximizing its profit potential or coming anywhere near it. However, many businesses (often publicly traded ones) tend to see the current-quarter-only mindset as being satisfactory to keep impatient shareholders in line. Unfortunately, this is not a viable, long-term business strategy and often causes first diminishing returns, and then ultimately a loss of profitability.
And we have proof of that, in the rapid decline of Wal-mart, all fast food chains, convenience stores, gas stations, and of course restaurants.
I don't know. Perhaps you're writing to us from some alternate universe where there's no such thing as low-end labor.
I'm confused. Are you saying that you're not equating health care and a livable wage to Google-type amenities in a blatant attempt at a strawman? because I'm pretty sure this is what you said:
I doubt that's true. McDonald's, for instance, would likely be a lot less profitable if it put employees first. Most businesses that rely on unskilled labor would see nothing but a profit decrease if they suddenly started shelling out Google-style employee amenities.
Wal-Mart is declining because they don't pay a livable wage, and thus nobody who works there gives a gak about the place. This is demonstrated in their customer-facing interactions, which in turn hurts the business.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
Walmart is declining? and its because they're not paying what people would consider a decent wage with benefits? You got some proof?
57874
Post by: strybjorn Grimskull
Grey Templar wrote:Walmart is declining? and its because they're not paying what people would consider a decent wage with benefits? You got some proof?
Why don't you look at the "living wage" and compare to the minimum wage you find at your local wal-mart, you will find that it is almost impossible to live on that low a salary.
50336
Post by: azazel the cat
Grey Templar wrote:Walmart is declining? and its because they're not paying what people would consider a decent wage with benefits? You got some proof?
How about the link I posted earlier in the thread?
Also, this
and this
and this one
All of the causes, including internal Wal-Mart memos, are pointing towards customers having no confidence in the company, which is caused by its employees not giving a gak. This comes from being unhelpful, to long lines, to poor restocking. Nobody in Wal-mart cares, and it is reflected. This is a basic tenet of any customer-facing retail store: if your employees do not care, then your customers will not either.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
Ok, fair enough. I missed that earlier link.
Still, it is entirely possible for a job to not be worth paying a living wage for.
I still think expecting full benefits working a gak job like a Walmart cashier is unreasonable. Its a gak job that a child could do. Its simply not worth a good salary plus benefits for that reason. Automatically Appended Next Post:  strybjorn Grimskull wrote: Grey Templar wrote:Walmart is declining? and its because they're not paying what people would consider a decent wage with benefits? You got some proof?
Why don't you look at the "living wage" and compare to the minimum wage you find at your local wal-mart, you will find that it is almost impossible to live on that low a salary.
I don't deny that. But that's not what we were discussing.
Working at Walmart is not something that should, or was ever intended to, be a life-long career path. The fact some people make it their career path is not reason enough to pay a job more than its worth.
29408
Post by: Melissia
Grey Templar wrote:Working at Walmart is not something that should, or was ever intended to, be a life-long career path. The fact some people make it their career path is not reason enough to pay a job more than its worth.
If the free market provided enough jobs that people didn't have to work at wal-mart, this might be a valid argument. But it doesn't, so it isn't. Currently, we are suffering from not enough jobs for the people who need them-- and this is compounded by massive amounts of budget cuts, which invariably add more unemployed people seeking jobs (making it harder to find jobs). That combined with people working to a later age (either due to cultural reasons or because of later retirement ages), means that there are really very, very few livable jobs available for people out of high school, college, or trade school. And as the government budget is cut even more, as productivity increases and jobs are lost to automation, this problem will only get worse.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
No, there being a limited supply of jobs doesn't invalidate my argument.
Just because some people have no choice to make it their career path because they can't find anything else has no bearing on the fact the job is still worth jack squat.
The same for someone who's skillset has been invalidated by changing technology. There is no obligation to accommodate. Someone may need something, doesn't mean they are entitled to get it.
You only deserve compensation equal to what your job is worth. Restocking shelves and manning a cash register is not worth full benefits.
121
Post by: Relapse
@ Azazel, You are quite correct about traing being spendy. I work as a trainer and it costs my company a few thousand to get someone properly oriented and able to turn out good quality product. The company did some research and found it is even more expensive to just have employees learn "On the job", since they had to deal with the inevitable scrap, machine damage, and injury issues a badly trained employee causes. Add into that the fact that in a minimal to no training scenario there are as many ways to do things as there are people. This leads to many difficulties also, such as methods improvement because everyone has their own pet method of doing a job, or the frustration of a new employee being told how to do the same job different ways by different people. I could go on some more, but I think you get the idea.
I have seen companies go under due to poor or no training. Companies in a revolving door scenario because of poor employee treatment make less money than they could, it's a fact of life.
A poll of 16,000 companies was taken and it was found that proper Job Instruction eliminated in some cases, up to 50%. of some of the manufacturing difficulties a company faces.
I also created and taught a Job Relations class for my place of employment and it was found, though polling the same 16,000 companies that 80% of people quit their job do so because of the treatment they get from their supervisors.
12313
Post by: Ouze
azazel the cat wrote:Wal-Mart is declining because they don't pay a livable wage, and thus nobody who works there gives a gak about the place. This is demonstrated in their customer-facing interactions, which in turn hurts the business.
McDonalds has recently issued quality reports saying the exact same thing,
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
The argument that paying people more would raise prices seems superflous to me.
I'll gladly pay a couple extra dollars somewhere if it meant the service would be better.
121
Post by: Relapse
 Monster Rain wrote:The argument that paying people more would raise prices seems superflous to me.
I'll gladly pay a couple extra dollars somewhere if it meant the service would be better.
Ironicaly, it might actually decrease prices or at least keep them the same if people are treated well. Based off my observations, treating people well assures a better retention rate, less expensive training, and less scrap, saving the company money at the same time maintaining or improving customer good will.
5534
Post by: dogma
Grey Templar wrote:
You only deserve compensation equal to what your job is worth. Restocking shelves and manning a cash register is not worth full benefits.
What your job is worth according to your employer, or what your job is worth according to the market?
Because the market is influenced by popular opinion, and if enough people are annoyed by the lack of benefits for the relevant group of employees then the value of those employees will increase.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
The market of course.
And not nearly enough opinion exists to make benefits mandatory for such a low end job. Benefits are a portion of whatever the position's Salary is. Its like saying the job's worth 10 times, or whatever amount, the current salary when you say a cashier deserves benefits. Utterly ludicrous.
5470
Post by: sebster
Breotan wrote:So, I guess this is some sort of vindication for people who were trying to prevent Obamacare from becoming law. Too bad the unions were more involved in anti-Republican activism and less in the welfare of their members.
I think it's absolutely fascinating that a clear cut case of unions wanting to maintain one of their protected, over-expensive niches, and worrying that reforms will produce a better result for employees and employers while leaving them out of the loop and not getting their cut... and the Republican cheerleaders ignore all that because they get to complain about Obamacare some more. I mean, fething hell, if there was one thing you people could be relied on I thought it would have been union bashing. I guess ultimately this is just one more point of evidence of the complete intellectual bankruptcy of the modern conservative movement in the US. Automatically Appended Next Post: Melissia wrote:Frankly, I still see unions as unfortunate but necessary despite their many flaws. Businesses certainly cannot be trusted to keep the best interests of their workers in mind, and they have far, far more power than the workers do. So rather than force the businesses to do things directly via law from lawmakers influenced by lobbyists, and who don't understand or care about the situation of the workers in each industry, having an organization of the workers is best, although perhaps it should be better regulated to make sure it doesn't become corrupt like the companies it is supposed to watch over.
Absolutely. But the problem is how little time unions spend on those basic, non-glamorous jobs (legal representation for workers, working with employers on occ health and safety matters etc) and how much time the spend trying to protect/expand their power base, and how much of member's money basically gets channeled straight in to political causes. It's a tough issue, because the assumed answer of the right is 'therefore no more unions' and the assumed answer on the left is either 'pretend nothing is wrong' or 'pretend it's the least worst option', when it seems to me the only good answer is 'better unions'. Automatically Appended Next Post:  whembly wrote:So the business owners should continue operating their business at a competitive disadvantage?
Offering a plan over and above what was absolutely necessary would have been just as much of a 'competitive disadvantage'* under the old scheme. The point being, of course, that better schemes didn't automatically produce a "competitive disadvantage", because better insurance plans are desired by employeers, just like more pay and better working conditions are. As such, it would depend on whether the extra money the employer paid for a scheme was sufficiently appreciated by current and potential employees, allowing the company to attract more and better employees in exactly the same way as a higher rate of pay would. And, of course, the labour market right now is somewhere between poor and really very gak. Which everyone should appreciate means bargaining power lies with the employer, allowing him to, you know, cut the remuneration he pays to his employees. In an ordinary job market employees would respond by looking for work elsewhere, but in this market jobs are hard to come by, and as a result the employer cuts where he can. This would be true, Obamacare or not. That an employer might say 'Obamacare' as he's doing it only means that employers will use easy scapegoats as they do what they'll always do in a poor labour market. EDIT - Your next post comments on the poor timing of Obamacare, and that I'll grant. It would be better if this came in during better economic conditions, but that's true of lots of things. When the political environment is as it is, you move important legislation when you can. Waiting for the perfect economic circumstance to line up with the rare event when you have the political power to deliver this kind of legislation basically means doing nothing, ever. And the US health system is the product of being allowed to drift for too long, and the end result is that you are paying an outrageous amount for a middle of the road healthcare system.
63623
Post by: Tannhauser42
The problem with unions is that you only ever hear the bad stories about them. Living here in North Texas, the only union you ever really hear about is the pilots' union for American Airlines, and it's hard to feel sympathy for them when they want to go on strike to get more money when they already make six figures and only work 3-4 days a week, and so on and on.
That's an exaggeration, but it's how it gets played out in the media whenever union negotiations get involved.
You never hear the good stories about unions anymore.
5470
Post by: sebster
Redbeard wrote:Absolutely. Obamacare does nothing to address the ever-increasing costs of healthcare, it just shifts the burden of who pays for it.
That's completely wrong.
The profit making of private insurers is now capped, as they have to spend most funds collected on medical services for their members. There is going to be a not-for-profit company set up to examine the comparative effectiveness of research techniques. And perhaps most importantly, you will now have, finally, real competition in your healthcare through the healthcare exchanges. Payments to hospitals and doctors will shift to a payment for condition model as opposed to a payment for procedure model, removing the bizarre incentive that currently exists for over treatment.
And there's a load of other minor little reforms, on stuff like reducing payments to hospitals who have high rates of preventable re-admissions, giving them incentive to prevent such. Automatically Appended Next Post: Valion wrote:The ACA is bad legislation that nobody read before passing. Simple as that.
I'm used to a lot of content free opinions on Dakka, but the negative opinions on ACA seem to set a new standard. Now, I'm not picking on you Valion, just picking yours out as one example of many, but it's remarkable how many posters are able to post some variant of 'ACA is bad' and not actually extrapolate on that.
It seems the only other debate points made against ACA basically boil down to 'here's a news article from a pundit hack/someone with an obvious personal benefit from the old healthcare system complaining about ACA' ie the OP's story, or 'here's a personal anecdote about something I am perceiving as bad, which some other person explained to me was due to ACA, without ever actually explaining why'.
I don't think I should have to explain why each of those debate approaches don't really offer anything of value. And I'll leave it as speculation up to the reader as to why they appear to be the only kind of points made against ACA.
73070
Post by: Valion
No kidding.
Are you saying that you're not equating health care and a livable wage to Google-type amenities in a blatant attempt at a strawman?
Yes.
because I'm pretty sure this is what you said:
No, it isn't. I'll explain again, and I will try to use smaller words this time.
If the only key to profitability was happy employees, then there would be zero reason for every business out there not to have Google-style amenities. That of course is not the case. Some businesses in some industries simply do not need to worry about retention because they pull the low-hanging fruit of the labor market.
While I'm sure you find your self-admitted leftist Forbes contributors' opinion piece compelling, it glosses over a massive difference in the way the two companies do business right at the top of the article: Costco brings in half a billion in membership fees that Walmart doesn't.
A better case study would be T-Mobile versus the rest of the American wireless market. T-Mobile goes out of its way to pay its customer support reps more, and trains them for a ridiculously long time. They routinely win JD Power awards for their customer service. They're still losing out massively to Verizon and AT&T.
5470
Post by: sebster
djones520 wrote:I do have to wonder why it's an employers responsibility to pay more then what a job is worth, because some adults made poor choices in life and ended up only being employable by fast food places and grocery stores.
While I agree that it is up to the individual to acquire the skills to be able to command a higher rate of pay, your assumption that such a system has anything to do with 'what a job is worth' is very, very wrong.
Economics does not work that way. 'Worth' is an impossible nonsense, and no economist will touch it with a 10 foot pole. Every job is necessary, it might be easier and therefore cheaper to find an airplane mechanic than a pilot, but you need both to get the plane to its destination. Automatically Appended Next Post: Jihadin wrote:The individual limits themselves on what they can actual do. What are they willing to sacrifice to get the "job" they want.
The number of people who aren't in the job they want, either settling for something much lower, or not in any job at all, increased dramatically in the wake of the GFC.
As such, your complaint that people who aren't in the job they want purely through personal reasons means that for as yet known reason, in late 2008 and through to the present a lot of people suddenly got a whole lot lazier. Or possibly the system matters a lot more than you realise. Automatically Appended Next Post: Grey Templar wrote:They may not be lazy, but that still doesn't mean they should be paid any more than what the job is worth.
'Worth' isn't a thing. It's just placing a moral judgement on a system that has nothing to do with morality.
Consider a geologist here in Australia. You commit to a four year degree, with no idea what the market will be like when you graduate - if long term projections for commodities prices are good and the mining companies are looking to expand then you can walk in to a $150k+ plus job. If long term commodities prices are down and there's little exploration, then you will not get a job. The individual is just as hard working, just as 'worthy', but the market changes and therefore so does his pay.
Now, the market is by fair the most efficient means we have for allocating resources. Realising it isn't fair and has nothing to do with the actual worth of a person doesn't mean we have to throw it out. It just means we have to get rid of all this (typically self-congratulating) moral nonsense in which a lowly paid person is only 'worth' so much.
121
Post by: Relapse
Valion wrote:
No kidding.
Are you saying that you're not equating health care and a livable wage to Google-type amenities in a blatant attempt at a strawman?
Yes.
because I'm pretty sure this is what you said:
No, it isn't. I'll explain again, and I will try to use smaller words this time.
If the only key to profitability was happy employees, then there would be zero reason for every business out there not to have Google-style amenities. That of course is not the case. Some businesses in some industries simply do not need to worry about retention because they pull the low-hanging fruit of the labor market.
While I'm sure you find your self-admitted leftist Forbes contributors' opinion piece compelling, it glosses over a massive difference in the way the two companies do business right at the top of the article: Costco brings in half a billion in membership fees that Walmart doesn't.
A better case study would be T-Mobile versus the rest of the American wireless market. T-Mobile goes out of its way to pay its customer support reps more, and trains them for a ridiculously long time. They routinely win JD Power awards for their customer service. They're still losing out massively to Verizon and AT&T.
The question here is if T-Mobile is offering the buyers what they want as opposed to their competitors. You can have an excellent program in place to train people how to make apple pies, as well as treat your employees like gold, but if the customers are wanting peach pie you will lose out to the peach pie maker.
5470
Post by: sebster
Jihadin wrote:You earn a decent wage. No one forcing anyone to stay 20+ years as a cashier. If your stuck in an arse in job would you not take it upon yourself via self motivation and self improvement to improve your lot in life? Or accept that you suck in life?
Who said that being paid a decent wage means a person would want to stay in the job forever? What made you lurch from 'a person could be paid $13 an hour, even if its really menial work' to 'and therefore that person will happily take that $13 an hour for the rest of their lives, living a joyous life of $400 take home pay and the job satisfaction of swiping other people's groceries through a scanner while a machine beeps at you'.
Seriously, what in the hell is your thought process here? Because you're making assumptions that are very, very ridiculous.
And just in case you actually care to think about this for approximately half a second... a higher minimum wage corresponds very directly with a higher social mobility. When a person can earn enough a decent amount in a standard working week, he's much more capable of studying part time (as opposed to working a second job) or building up a savings amount to allow him to study full time for a period. Automatically Appended Next Post: Jihadin wrote:I call BS. I got caught in the same situation before I came to conclusion my best offer in life at the was the military.
Do you not see the bizarreness in claiming your ability to pull yourself up by your bootstraps... by taking a job paid for by the government? Automatically Appended Next Post: Grey Templar wrote:You can raise wages and benefits all you want, but its not going to change the fact there will always be people on the bottom. Which means there's always going to be a place where poverty exists. It isn't a hard fast line you can draw and try to raise all of society above it, instead, poverty is relative to the society its part of.
You're not really thinking this through. Poverty isn't just that some person somewhere will be on the bottom, but what the person on the bottom can actually afford.
So yes, some 10% of the population will always be the poorest 10%, but there's a massive difference between the 1913 norm of 'they and their children suffer from a variety of conditions caused by malnourishment" and the 2013 norm of 'they earn enough to secure enough food and shelter, but any misfortune will likely send them in to a debt spiral'. Improving that again won't stop them being the bottom 10%, but it will mean that many of the things they suffer will be greatly reduced.
Which is, you know, a good thing. Automatically Appended Next Post: Grey Templar wrote:Take all the money the wealthy have and give it to the poor, you will not make the poor any less poor.
Yes, it will. If the poor receive $300 a week instead of $200, they're less poor.
This should be obvious. Automatically Appended Next Post:  Tannhauser42 wrote:That's an exaggeration, but it's how it gets played out in the media whenever union negotiations get involved.
You never hear the good stories about unions anymore.
In direct experience, this is because the unions aren't doing a lot of good. I've seen union members put in work cover claims, had a disagreement (legitimately or not) with how they were treated, and have the union reaction (either militant or utterly passive) do nothing but just gum up the works entirely. The idea that they could just provide accurate, effective advice to their member to help him out and nothing more didn't even seem to be considered.
I really do think the unions need a total change of culture. There's too much rusted on political nonsense that barely made sense a generation go, and not enough basic, honest to goodness help and advice for members.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
Backing off this thread Those of us in the military should know why as someone will remind them like me just now that we have an unfair advantage over civilians.
One hint. Wounded Warriors give a 6K tax break to a private company that hires them is one. Obama pass some laws concerning the WW's and vets from Iraq and Afghanistan to be hired first on the federal side and a tax break on the private sector side.
69173
Post by: Dreadclaw69
Is there a story to go with this link? When I click on it all it shows is a picture with the text "Obamacare premiums in California lower than predicted" and nothing else
37231
Post by: d-usa
I will have to try to fix it when im not mobile
29408
Post by: Melissia
Jihadin wrote:Backing off this thread Those of us in the military should know why as someone will remind them like me just now that we have an unfair advantage over civilians. One hint. Wounded Warriors give a 6K tax break to a private company that hires them is one. Obama pass some laws concerning the WW's and vets from Iraq and Afghanistan to be hired first on the federal side and a tax break on the private sector side.
You're being a hypocrite here. All of that is provided for you... by the government. And yet you say that government assistance is apparently a bad thing. Unless, of course, you benefit from it?
50336
Post by: azazel the cat
Valion wrote:
No kidding.
Are you saying that you're not equating health care and a livable wage to Google-type amenities in a blatant attempt at a strawman?
Yes.
because I'm pretty sure this is what you said:
No, it isn't. I'll explain again, and I will try to use smaller words this time.
If the only key to profitability was happy employees, then there would be zero reason for every business out there not to have Google-style amenities. That of course is not the case. Some businesses in some industries simply do not need to worry about retention because they pull the low-hanging fruit of the labor market.
While I'm sure you find your self-admitted leftist Forbes contributors' opinion piece compelling, it glosses over a massive difference in the way the two companies do business right at the top of the article: Costco brings in half a billion in membership fees that Walmart doesn't.
A better case study would be T-Mobile versus the rest of the American wireless market. T-Mobile goes out of its way to pay its customer support reps more, and trains them for a ridiculously long time. They routinely win JD Power awards for their customer service. They're still losing out massively to Verizon and AT&T.
Defend your strawman harder; that'll definitely stop it from being a strawman!
We're not talking about employee amenities. We are talking about providing health care to employees. You equated healthcare to "google-style amenities" to "[put the employee first]". That is a strawman, and I called you on it. You can get as snippy as you like, it won't change the facts.
And just to return to the actual Costco-Walmart comparison I made, let's put it another way: the consumer is willing to pay that membership fee to Costco. Do you think they'd ever be willing to pay it to Walmart? Or do you think that, if Walmart came out with a membership fee, it would sound its own death knell?
This is a fact of the matter: even your business relies on the "low-hanging fruit" of the labour market, it is still costly to train them, as little training as they receive. And it is even more costly to see that "low-hanging fruit" not give a gak about your company, and basically show up and do nothing for you. And yes, you can definitely fire them for that. And then you can repeat the process over and over and over again, because the problem isn't that the employees suck (well, it somethings parallels things), but the problem is that nobody will do anything of use for you, because you don't pay them enough to. And you can't ever attract better than that "low-hanging fruit" because nobody will even show up unless they need to be there
Time and again, you'll see the same pattern: those companies that treat their employees well or pay a livable wage will prosper in the long term, whereas the ones that only utilize the "low-hanging fruit" basically short-sell themselves.
5534
Post by: dogma
Grey Templar wrote:The market of course.
And not nearly enough opinion exists to make benefits mandatory for such a low end job.
Not yet, but this very thread is evidence that the sentiment exists.
Grey Templar wrote:
Benefits are a portion of whatever the position's Salary is. Its like saying the job's worth 10 times, or whatever amount, the current salary when you say a cashier deserves benefits. Utterly ludicrous.
I don't know of any establishment that pays cashiers according to salary.
Regardless, if you don't know what the specific amount is you shouldn't be upset by people demanding that a given group of workers be compensated differently.
121
Post by: Relapse
Melissia wrote: Jihadin wrote:Backing off this thread Those of us in the military should know why as someone will remind them like me just now that we have an unfair advantage over civilians.
One hint. Wounded Warriors give a 6K tax break to a private company that hires them is one. Obama pass some laws concerning the WW's and vets from Iraq and Afghanistan to be hired first on the federal side and a tax break on the private sector side.
You're being a hypocrite here. All of that is provided for you... by the government.
And yet you say that government assistance is apparently a bad thing. Unless, of course, you benefit from it?
In my mind, government assistance is a good thing, but should be used as a means of getting people on their feet, not a lifestyle. Some may need more assistance due to circumstance, but I think there is always something that could be done to earn that assistance. One way could be to help in public works projects, park maintanence, or other similar efforts. This could be done a couple days a week, allowing for job training or search the rest of the time, giving people pride in themselves and helping them realize they do have value in society and can contribute.
29408
Post by: Melissia
The "government assistance lifestyle" is such a tiny minority of those on government assistance that it's basically little more than the hobgoblin of little minds.
121
Post by: Relapse
Melissia wrote:The "government assistance lifestyle" is such a tiny minority of those on government assistance that it's basically little more than the hobgoblin of little minds.
I saw plenty of it where I lived in three different states, but I think a good part of people that receive it would rather not.
29408
Post by: Melissia
Relapse wrote:I saw plenty of it where I lived in three different states
Your anecdotal evidence suffers from confirmation bias. No empirical evidence has shown that there is any wide number of people abusing the system, certainly fraud is a minuscule problem.
121
Post by: Relapse
Melissia wrote:Relapse wrote:I saw plenty of it where I lived in three different states
Your anecdotal evidence suffers from confirmation bias. No empirical evidence has shown that there is any wide number of people abusing the system, certainly fraud is a minuscule problem.
The point I was trying to make, however, is that it's not a prefered lifestyle. In my mind, something better than what's out there now could be implemented to help people off assistance quicker than failed programs in place now.
29408
Post by: Melissia
Relapse wrote: Melissia wrote:Relapse wrote:I saw plenty of it where I lived in three different states
Your anecdotal evidence suffers from confirmation bias. No empirical evidence has shown that there is any wide number of people abusing the system, certainly fraud is a minuscule problem.
The point I was trying to make, however, is that it's not a prefered lifestyle. In my mind, something better than what's out there now could be implemented to help people off assistance quicker than failed programs in place now.
Sure, "something" could be done, but that's kind of like saying "something" could be done to let us colonize the moon. Not quite so helpful as actually mentioning a real idea
121
Post by: Relapse
Melissia wrote:Relapse wrote: Melissia wrote:Relapse wrote:I saw plenty of it where I lived in three different states
Your anecdotal evidence suffers from confirmation bias. No empirical evidence has shown that there is any wide number of people abusing the system, certainly fraud is a minuscule problem.
The point I was trying to make, however, is that it's not a prefered lifestyle. In my mind, something better than what's out there now could be implemented to help people off assistance quicker than failed programs in place now.
Sure, "something" could be done, but that's kind of like saying "something" could be done to let us colonize the moon. Not quite so helpful as actually mentioning a real idea
I did mention an idea, but I think you missed it. Something along the lines of the TVA, perhaps.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee_Valley_Authority
34390
Post by: whembly
The TVA project is a fantastic idea of "government assistence" that many of us are talking about.
Read up on that whole ordeal (even the eventual snafu at the end). It's enlightening.
73070
Post by: Valion
azazel the cat wrote:We're not talking about employee amenities. We are talking about providing health care to employees. You equated healthcare to "google-style amenities" to "[put the employee first]".
No, I actually didn't. Look, if your reading comprehension is this bad, perhaps you should simply stay out of this discussion.
And of course we're talking about employee amenities, because your ludicrous contention is that all you need to do to run a profitable company is treat your employees like gold, regardless of business model.
And just to return to the actual Costco-Walmart comparison I made, let's put it another way: the consumer is willing to pay that membership fee to Costco. Do you think they'd ever be willing to pay it to Walmart? Or do you think that, if Walmart came out with a membership fee, it would sound its own death knell?
First, let's back up a little bit here. You didn't make that comparison, some misguided guy writing in Forbes did. Continuing to claim that it was your brainchild after posting an article you've damn near been quoting isn't going to convince anyone.
Secondly, I think Costco and Walmart work on considerably different business models. I've said that many, many times. One's a wholesale members' warehouse, one's a discount retail store. You might as well ask me why Pizza Hut has such a better delivery service than Burger King, if we're going to venture this far into fundamental misunderstanding.
Time and again, you'll see the same pattern: those companies that treat their employees well or pay a livable wage will prosper in the long term, whereas the ones that only utilize the "low-hanging fruit" basically short-sell themselves.
You keep making this argument while ignoring the countless successful companies that do the latter. I'm curious if this is an intentional blindspot (i.e., you're aware your argument is bunk, and choose to ignore the many, many, many extant counterarguments to it), or if you genuinely do believe that KFC is an example of your ethos. Either way, I'm pegging you as a humanities major.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote:Relapse wrote:I saw plenty of it where I lived in three different states
Your anecdotal evidence suffers from confirmation bias. No empirical evidence has shown that there is any wide number of people abusing the system, certainly fraud is a minuscule problem.
Link?
121
Post by: Relapse
whembly wrote:
The TVA project is a fantastic idea of "government assistence" that many of us are talking about.
Read up on that whole ordeal (even the eventual snafu at the end). It's enlightening.
I think the concept was initially good, though, and with different implimentation, could have worked well.
5470
Post by: sebster
Relapse wrote:In my mind, government assistance is a good thing, but should be used as a means of getting people on their feet, not a lifestyle. Some may need more assistance due to circumstance, but I think there is always something that could be done to earn that assistance. One way could be to help in public works projects, park maintanence, or other similar efforts. This could be done a couple days a week, allowing for job training or search the rest of the time, giving people pride in themselves and helping them realize they do have value in society and can contribute.
I agree with the focus of government support as a temporary thing, and agree that work programs are a good thing and are one of the best options we have for breaking people off of the welfare trap, but have to point out one thing about my experience with such programs here in Australia - setting up a good system is really hard. It is very difficult to set up a reasonable system that doesn't contain a lot of loopholes that people will manipulate.
That doesn't mean it shouldn't be done, but it does mean that such a system should be entered in to with an understanding it will take a lot of time and a lot of reforms before it's genuinely effective. Automatically Appended Next Post: Melissia wrote:The "government assistance lifestyle" is such a tiny minority of those on government assistance that it's basically little more than the hobgoblin of little minds.
Fraud and abuse is a minor problem, but people on long term unemployment, and often lacking the ability to find decent work, are a significant problem in most countries.
And in a few years time it'll be a fair bit worse, due to the high unemployment rates following the GFC.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
That doesn't mean it shouldn't be done, but it does mean that such a system should be entered in to with an understanding it will take a lot of time and a lot of reforms before it's genuinely effective.
I agree. For something like that to be effective....at most ten yeas to be effective and with active oversight.
121
Post by: Relapse
 sebster wrote:Relapse wrote:In my mind, government assistance is a good thing, but should be used as a means of getting people on their feet, not a lifestyle. Some may need more assistance due to circumstance, but I think there is always something that could be done to earn that assistance. One way could be to help in public works projects, park maintanence, or other similar efforts. This could be done a couple days a week, allowing for job training or search the rest of the time, giving people pride in themselves and helping them realize they do have value in society and can contribute.
I agree with the focus of government support as a temporary thing, and agree that work programs are a good thing and are one of the best options we have for breaking people off of the welfare trap, but have to point out one thing about my experience with such programs here in Australia - setting up a good system is really hard. It is very difficult to set up a reasonable system that doesn't contain a lot of loopholes that people will manipulate.
That doesn't mean it shouldn't be done, but it does mean that such a system should be entered in to with an understanding it will take a lot of time and a lot of reforms before it's genuinely effective.
I think it's worth the investment of time and money. It breaks my heart to see damn good people going to waste like they are now. I say find out what works or almost works for us and other countries and put it through some iterations until we arrive at a usful solution for people.
It's not an easy overnight fix but people are worth the effort and shouldn't be discarde like garbage.
5470
Post by: sebster
Jihadin wrote:I agree. For something like that to be effective....at most ten yeas to be effective and with active oversight.
Yeah, I think it'd probably take three years of reforms and changes to the system to deliver something that worked, and then it'd probably take another few years to actually see results flowing through in a meaningful way. Automatically Appended Next Post: Relapse wrote:I think it's worth the investment of time and money. It breaks my heart to see damn good people going to waste like they are now. I say find out what works or almost works for us and other countries and put it through some iterations until we arrive at a usful solution for people.
It's not an easy overnight fix but people are worth the effort and shouldn't be discarde like garbage.
Yeah, to me it isn't just about the money that long term joblessness costs (though it is a lot of money), but the wasted lives. Seriously, people go on about how sweet a life of welfare dependancy is, but not from what I've seen. It's just a long, tedious bore - a day off work is nice, but after a week, when you can't afford to do much with your time, well there's only so much Judge Judy you can watch.
12313
Post by: Ouze
Relapse wrote:In my mind, government assistance is a good thing, but should be used as a means of getting people on their feet, not a lifestyle.
Honest question - At some point, do you think we shut cut off Tricare and other healthcare benefits for ex-military? Because that is a huge cost driver (so say nothing of military pensions).
I'd totally be on board with this. I wish we'd "invade" the US the same way we did elsewhere and capture hearts and minds by rebuilding critical infrastructure here. Well, maybe with less bombing initially.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
Something like that might worked great during the Great Depression. Those jobs were mostly muscle work. We kick off with something like that again in our time frame we be dealing with medical disability claims after 2-3 weeks or 1-2 months of work. Thinking jobs like concrete mixing, paving, squaring up ditches for cement pipes and what not. Something I notice in Delaware before I left transfer to JBLM to finish of my WW. There were a lot....and I mean a lot of Hispanics on road crews. I thought road crews get good pay and eventually a foot in the door for a start job.
Also I notice. I do have a medical degree but it seems the jobs are becoming more like technical job...job specific...slot job...can't think of the term to nail out what I'm referring to. Example be
Fast Food Job = most be students but breaking you in to a job setting
Specialize jobs = HVAC, Surgical Tech, Medical Coder...something along that nature
General jobs = grass cutting, janitorial, office jobs
(above just a loose field)
My job though I'm specialize. Have a Top Secret. Access to certain programs to help facilitate my "projects". I find it ironic I be making more money from my MOS train job as a Movement Control Specialist then as skilled SurgTech with a degree. I did shoot the breeze on my last interview with a recruiter and we got into it. Basically to them I'm a good hire. The hours are below what's required so I won't get benefits. That's off set though from Disability payments and I do fall under Tricare so my medical is covered. Not cancer yet and I hope they don't try to connect. Medicaid would then have to e payed back in full. I do not trust VA to handle my cancer treatment...they don't have a good track record. Better stop. Meds are smoothing me along
34390
Post by: whembly
 Ouze wrote:Relapse wrote:In my mind, government assistance is a good thing, but should be used as a means of getting people on their feet, not a lifestyle.
Honest question - At some point, do you think we shut cut off Tricare and other healthcare benefits for ex-military? Because that is a huge cost driver (so say nothing of military pensions).
I don't... and I didn't (couldn't) serve.
But, I truly believe we owe it to the ex-military.
I'd totally be on board with this. I wish we'd "invade" the US the same way we did elsewhere and capture hearts and minds by rebuilding critical infrastructure here. Well, maybe with less bombing initially.
I don't know... bombing some areas may not be a bad idea... (I keed... I keed).
There were many faults to the implementations of the TVA... but it was a huge undertaking that I think we could do again.
The problem would be, what would be that big project?
12313
Post by: Ouze
Jihadin wrote:Something like that might worked great during the Great Depression. Those jobs were mostly muscle work. We kick off with something like that again in our time frame we be dealing with medical disability claims after 2-3 weeks or 1-2 months of work.
Good point. I have to wonder if that would negate the value.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
Keep them within the limit of their profile. Not much effort to push a broom. Also a decrease in wage or something to avoid them riding it out. We don't want to give the impression we are slackers. If we do this though and everyone wants in on this would kind of skewer the bar left and right till it settles. So basically....we blew it out the water lol
5470
Post by: sebster
Jihadin wrote:Keep them within the limit of their profile. Not much effort to push a broom. Also a decrease in wage or something to avoid them riding it out. We don't want to give the impression we are slackers. If we do this though and everyone wants in on this would kind of skewer the bar left and right till it settles. So basically....we blew it out the water lol
Yes. I think one of the first mistakes people make with something like this is in thinking that a work for welfare program is going to produce useful end products. Thing is, these days infrastructure is really capital intensive, and as you recognised in your previous answer it involves specialist skills. Putting untrained people in there who have to be there to collect welfare isn't just impractical, in many cases it's probably also pretty dangerous for everyone involved. So instead you look to what is basically just busy work. Picking up rubbish. Clearing garden and park areas. That kind of stuff. The idea isn't to get a product at the end of it, the idea is just to get them turning up regularly for work, get used to some kind of structure, and give them some more motivation to go and get a job.
1206
Post by: Easy E
Perhaps we need to start a cultural shift and start to realize that as we continue to automate there simply will not be work for everyone.
That means we need to start actually reducing the standard "hours' that a person works , increase wages for those lesser hours worked, and get people to retire earlier instead of later.
These steps would free up time that employers will need to fill and hire for. Since employers won't do this themselves; it requires government to make the hard choices that are needed for society.
George Jetson is right. The three day work weeks are the future.
37231
Post by: d-usa
Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Is there a story to go with this link? When I click on it all it shows is a picture with the text "Obamacare premiums in California lower than predicted" and nothing else
Finally was able to pull it up and copy it over here. CNN/Money is a clusterfeth when it comes to linking stories...
Health insurers in California will charge an average of $304 a month for the cheapest silver-level plan in state-based exchanges next year, according to rates released Thursday by Covered California, which is implementing the Affordable Care Act there. But many residents will pay a lot less than that for coverage.
Rates will vary by region, age and level of coverage, and many lower-income Californias will qualify for federal subsidies that will greatly lower the premiums. The plans will come in four tiers, ranging from bronze to platinum. The former will charge lower premiums, but carry higher out-of-pocket benefits, and the latter will have the highest premiums but have the lowest out-of-pocket costs.
Subsidies will be based on the cost of silver-level plans and will be available to those earning up to 400% of the poverty line -- roughly $45,000 for an individual or $92,000 for a family of four.
The state-based exchanges will open for enrollment in October. Coverage under Obamacare, as the act is known, will begin in January.
Just how much people will pay for coverage in the exchanges has been the subject of much speculation in recent months. Several estimates, including some focusing on the California market, have predicted that premium rates in the individual market would soar because more older, sicker folks would enter the exchange.
While Covered California said a direct comparison is impossible because the new plans will provide more benefits, the agency noted that the rates for individuals will be between 29% lower and 2% higher than the average premium for small employers in the state's most populous areas.
Some 13 plans from insurers including Blue Cross Blue Shield and Kaiser Permanente will be available, depending on the region. But other large insurers, including UnitedHealth, bowed out.
The least expensive silver plan for a 21-year-old could cost $216 a month, but those earning only 150% of the poverty line (or $17,235 annually) may pay only $44 after receiving federal subsidies. A 40-year-old may pay $276 a month, or $40 after the subsidies.
States are slowly unveiling details of their plans, but California is the largest by far to release its rates. Some 5.3 million Californians may be eligible for coverage through the exchange, with more than 2.6 million of them qualifying for subsidies.
Oregon and Washington recently posted their rates, as well. They were also lower than some had expected.
"Many people will see rates similar to what they're paying now, or in some cases, lower -- and with substantially better benefits," the Washington Insurance Department wrote in a blog post. "We're definitely not seeing the huge rate increases that some insurers had predicted."
By Tami Luhby, May 23, 2013: 05:06 PM ET
69173
Post by: Dreadclaw69
Thank you for that, I know that California recently had to gut a lot of it's social programs so I was wondering if this would have had an effect.
29408
Post by: Melissia
sebster wrote:Fraud and abuse is a minor problem, but people on long term unemployment, and often lacking the ability to find decent work, are a significant problem in most countries.
And in a few years time it'll be a fair bit worse, due to the high unemployment rates following the GFC.
Long-term unemployment is something the market will have to cure. But it won't without government assistance, because the market is wholly unconcerned with the problem, since it doesn't directly effect the bottom line.
5534
Post by: dogma
There are plenty of bridges that need attention.
Granted, those two examples are no longer with us, but I'm sure there are others.
5470
Post by: sebster
 Easy E wrote:Perhaps we need to start a cultural shift and start to realize that as we continue to automate there simply will not be work for everyone.
That means we need to start actually reducing the standard "hours' that a person works , increase wages for those lesser hours worked, and get people to retire earlier instead of later.
These steps would free up time that employers will need to fill and hire for. Since employers won't do this themselves; it requires government to make the hard choices that are needed for society.
George Jetson is right. The three day work weeks are the future.
Yeah, this is complicated one. I agree that our trend to working more hours is pretty crazy, but I'm not sure the effort to legislate reduced working hours, like in France, is ever going to be all that successful. If people want to work more in order to get more stuff, they're going to do it.
It's something that I think will only really change when there's a social shift, when people start getting enough stuff, and instead want more time to use all that stuff they've acquired. And I suspect that may be a long way off, at this point there's too much status involved in having a nicer car than your neighbour. Automatically Appended Next Post: Melissia wrote:Long-term unemployment is something the market will have to cure. But it won't without government assistance, because the market is wholly unconcerned with the problem, since it doesn't directly effect the bottom line.
Yeah, government needs to put a lot of work in to skills programs and work programs to get people off long term unemployment. Whether it happens, and whether its effective is the big question.
|
|
