Does the admin work three times as hard as that person’s predecessors?
Because they have no claim to it. The drive-thru employee didn’t come up with, or invest in, the system that makes him/her more productive. Nor were they being paid a commission of sales. Like in the OP, they are paid an hourly wage regardless of productivity. If they wanted a cut in the profits, they should have invested in a franchise. And should that fast food joint go out of business, the drive-thru teller can avoid losing any capital.
Dammit! You are making me side with Shodan and Chessic! And me! A liberal!
Guy has a low wage job and few marketable skills** and** bought a house and a new car. (I am assuming new, because of the payments)
I get that point the point that a lot of management types are over-paid (for what value they* actually* bring) and are a bit out of touch. Others are really smart and work really hard.
My commute is 35-40 minutes in the San Fernando Valley. It does NOT cost me $10 a day in gas. And I drive an SUV. If that were to be too much, I would either move closer to work, find a new job, of find other transportation options.
The story sounds…untrue. I have heard a lot of gripes in my day, and griped a bit myself. But anyone who tells me they can’t afford to go work is yanking my chain.
Obviously I don’t know how true the article is or not, and I’m sure as hell not going to say someone in a bad way should just go get another job, as if it’s that easy.
But there’s somethng about this article that smells… well, fictional.
Here’s the thing; he goes on and on about how all the managers and supervisors are getting enormous bonuses and expensive gifts while he gets shafted.
But in companies, managers and supervisors DON’T get showered with lavish stuff. That just does not happen. The senior people - the owners and directors - will sometimes loot a company, but why on earth would they give any of the money to a supervisor? I’ve seen some fantastically tyrannical companies and I’ve never, ever seen a company that gave away money like that to mid level managers and supervisors; that simply does not happen, and there’s no reason why it would happen. A lower manager or supervisor is just another employee, and a company looking to cut costs will lay them off and cut their salaries and benefits too, and in fact will usually slash them first, because there’s more money to save per head.
For that reason, I find the story really suspicious. It reads like someone trying to write an account of a horrible company but piling stuff on in an effort to make it sound really horrible and carrying it beyond the limits of his understanding of how it really is in a workplace, not someone writing a true account.
Doesn’t anyone who writes a nobody knows the trouble I’ve seen and I’m being shafted by the man blog ever know what a carpool is?
And this gem:
I think that about sums it up. My work schedule changed and now I can’t take my daughter to practice. Oh noeesss! We are powerless and there is no possible way we could make this work, like freaking ask a teammate for a ride!
Yes, I am.
And the moment we start to use Catholic teaching as a who,e to develop and implement social and legal policy in this country, I’ll agree that this is authoritative.
But why do I suspect you’re not in favor of other teachings and other encyclicals?
And have you ever seen me argue on these boards that we should adopt a law or regulation because the Church teaches it?
I’m saying I can’t tell your wife to wear the purple dress instead of the green one.
What your wife wears is her decision.
By the same token, I can’t tell a willing employer what to pay a willing employee.
So, there is no reason to get better at your job since you think the boss has no reason to pay you more. The guy might as well be a slow as possible without getting fired since why get frazzled for no reward? Judging by the service I get at a lot of places, this is exactly what managers and employees do.
When they put that system in, they dumped one employee, and I trust they dumped the less efficient one. But why would anyone learn a new system well in order to make more money for the company and get a hearty “fuck you, be happy you have a job” in return?
BTW, CEOs don’t own the company either. Why do they get big bucks for supposedly making the company more money (even when they lose money) but the regular guy gets nothing?
ahem minimum wage laws. They put a floor on pay. To keep with your pointless analogy, the law doesn’t say what color my wife wears, but it does say she has to wear something.
In any case I said nothing about legally mandating this. Even a living wage doesn’t do it for people making well above the living wage. We are talking ethics here, actually.
The article did state that the company is doing fairly well. So his story is not inconsistent with a company that would cut managers and supervisors first in a downturn, because the writer has yet to experience the company in a downturn.
But if things are going WELL they’re still not going to give a supervisor money for no reason, if they’re greedy.
People tend to think workplaces are divvied up into “managers” and “workers” but that’s not how it works. A supervisor is quite low on the food chain, and in a company as large as described most people with “manager” titles are too. “Manager” does not mean “top boss.” “Manager” in a company of 50-200 people is where the shit piles up; they supervise but have masters to answer to. They’re not getting huge bonuses for no reason. The owners don’t see the first line supervisor or purchasing manager as being one of them. They see them as being headcount, just like the guys working the floor.
As treis points out, too, the claim of 6-figure salaries for managers is ludicrous. At a facility of the sort described a typical salary for a supervisory role wouldn’t be that much more than the workers, and for the professionals and middle to low managers you’d be talking the kind of salaries a schoolteacher makes. And supervisors invited to high-level meetings? Huh? No, that doesn’t happen, either.
Obvoiusly it is possible, in theory, that this guy works for an employer who is both ruthless and amazingly generous all at the same time - he’d have to be, to pay a manager worth $35,000 a year three times that, or to give a supervisor $25 an hour when he could give them half that - in some weird industry that totally defies what pretty much every other industry pays people. But like I said… it’s just too much. The whole thing smells fishy. It just feels like it’s made up bullshit to get people angry. I can’t prove it, but there it is.
I wasn’t addressing that part of your post. I have no opinion on it one way or another. I know that the managers at my work can get low 5 digit bonuses, more if they’re deemed good, so it wouldn’t seem that out of the ordinary to get high five digit bonuses. But I don’t want to defend that too much, one way or the other, because the article is pushing the boundaries of what seems believable.
But I agree that the wage disparity between the “unskilled workers” and the managers and supervisors doesn’t seem terribly realistic.
In your first post, it sounded to me like you personally didn’t agree with the encyclical of your church that Thudlow Boink cited, Bricker, not that you simply didn’t believe that it should be the basis for social and legal policy. Do you agree with your church, but don’t want it turned into legal policy? Or do you disagree with the encyclical? As an atheist, I believe that Catholic teachings as a whole should not be used for legal policy, but I still think the encyclical cited makes a good point.
Its always easy to imagine people other than you are getting lavish bonuses - and maybe some of them are…Frankly a nice $2k or so bonus isn’t unusual at all for salaried employees and for someone making $16k a year, that’s lavish - but I doubt that mere supervisors are seeing five figure bonuses in many places. And salaried folks who stayed employed have been taking a hit this recession, his company probably isn’t hiring and they are expecting their salaried folks to just work a “few” more hours. But honestly, its more likely that the guy who goes out and buys a brand new Lexus has car payments, a wife who works, and/or other sources of income. A few years ago I was taking my family on a really nice vacation and my boss - who knew what I made - said “how can you afford this” - “two incomes.” A friend has “normal” income - spends lavishly - but no kids. Someone I know from another message board is a stay at home mom, her husband has a “normal” job, they make less than the median household income each year, they are doing well with four kids and can afford luxuries like vacations - they inherited their house and have never had a mortgage payment.
If you are a single parent living alone on anything but a very high income (or financial independence), life is going to suck. You aren’t going to be able to take your kids to every practice and game - we can’t and there are two of us, sometimes they have to get rides with neighbors or my mother drives them. We had this conversation in a previous thread on “what percent are you.” Two incomes makes a huge difference when they are similarly scaled.
Someone pointed out here years ago that minimum wage isn’t meant to “raise a family” on. Its the amount we want McDonalds to pay high school help. Hopefully, when he conceived his daughter, his realistic prospects were better than “I’ll work at a distribution warehouse for a little more than minimum wage.”
One of my girl scouts is in this situation. Single dad who just told me he is finally getting 40 hours a week - until recently he was lucky to get twenty - although he does have some skills (he’s a sheetmetal worker, I think he said at one time he makes around $15 an hour - which when times are good and he’s getting overtime, was giving him a “respectable” income, and when he gets less than twenty hours a week, means its a struggle to eat.). The family has FINALLY moved in with Grandma, thank God - which means I’m no longer worried if she is eating.
By the way, anyone else figuring this guy is getting something around 10 MPG?
But this guy’s wage already meets the criteria. He makes above minimum wage. Consider that the Catholic church is a global organization. Consider what most people on this globe have. Then consider that this guy is bitching about having to take his daughter out of basketball practice after his 8-hour work day for which he was paid over $8 per hour…per hour!
I don’t know if “willing” is a valid term. Although America is not an “if you don’t work you don’t eat” place the social safety net is in tatters. If you don’t work, you can DEFINITELY wind up on the street. So participation in the job market is not voluntarily. It’s not the meeting of equals you libertarians keep saying it is. One side is being compelled to accept the bargain to meet basic human needs. It’s not QUITE a bargain made at the point of a gun, but it’s hardly the free marketplace you imagine.
In this particular society, I do not believe that merely because someone works hard, they are somehow entitled to some unspecified minimum standard of living.
In a society wholly or even mostly governed by Catholic teaching, I would absolutely support the idea.
I don’t believe its valid to pick and choose the teachings you like and fail to adopt them in toto. The Church’s encyclicals and not intended to be read tabula rasa, but together as a seamless set of instruction, giving full effect to each and harmonizing them into a whole.
Yes, but since no one is entitled to eat without working, I regard that as simply the natural state of affairs, a consequence of the natural world. Sixty thousand years ago, man facing a hungry sabertooth tiger did not have recourse to the argument that the contest was unequal, and that the sabertooth had more muscles and sharper claws than the man did. What was necessary to that battle was to win it in fact: use our abilities to our advantage by crafting tools and thus defeat the sharpest-clawed creature with even sharper, longer-reaching, and more potent weapons.
Of course the job market is not voluntary. And for the employer, too, if he fails to attract and keep a decent work force, his business will ultimately be swept away by others that do. None of it is voluntary in the sense you propose; mankind does not live in the Garden of Eden with our every wish fulfilled. Physical laws of the universe control the situation, and they dictate that food and shelter do not appear out of the sky. They must be taken from the world by physical effort.
So I guess women never ate meat?