babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » walking the talk   » labour and consumption   » Burger King fined for firing teen over dad's job

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Burger King fined for firing teen over dad's job
Hephaestion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4795

posted 20 March 2005 08:43 AM      Profile for Hephaestion   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Edmonton Sun

quote:
SWIFT CURRENT, Sask. -- The owners of a Burger King have been ordered to pay $1,500 to a former employee who says he was fired because his father works as a labour standards officer. Scott Byers, who was 16 when he started work at the restaurant in 2001, told the Saskatchewan Human Rights Tribunal he was sworn at, humiliated and ultimately fired because of his father's job.

Byers told the tribunal he took issue with scheduling at the restaurant and had concerns about overtime soon after his employment started, and told a manager his father was a labour standards officer.

He said the manager told him that "people who challenge the policies of the restaurant don't last long at the job." Days later, the same manager made him clean the washroom and invited staff to watch.

The restaurant claimed it fired Byers because he used vulgar language.



From: goodbye... :-( | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Agent 204
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4668

posted 20 March 2005 09:47 AM      Profile for Agent 204   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Many employers don't want workers who actually know what their rights are. I've heard, for instance, that Sobeys is unlikely to hire you if you have previously worked at Zehrs/Loblaws/Superstore, because those stores are unionized and people who have worked there might expect better treatment than Sobeys wants to give.

[ 20 March 2005: Message edited by: Mike Keenan ]


From: home of the Guess Who | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
Papal Bull
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7050

posted 20 March 2005 02:20 PM      Profile for Papal Bull   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
That is nothing new at all. When I first started working where I do now (nearly 3 years ago), I noticed that A) we never get 5 hour paid breaks (but we've found ways around that) B) we lack various safety protocols and measures (again, we've found ways around that) C) raises and promotions are based on nationality and neopotism and favouritism (I'm the most senior worker in my area, yet some of the new guys come in making a dollar more than me...I've not found a way around this...).

Bosses are going to find ways to make money, challenge workers rights and generally attempt at all given oppurtunities to shaft their employees.


From: Vatican's best darned ranch | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Amy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2210

posted 20 March 2005 02:20 PM      Profile for Amy   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Oh man, I can only imagine the managers thinking "well, 1500 dollars is better than having to deal with a union."
From: the whole town erupts and/ bursts into flame | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
PereUbu
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8187

posted 20 March 2005 03:44 PM      Profile for PereUbu     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Papal_Bull:
That is nothing new at all. When I first started working where I do now (nearly 3 years ago), I noticed that A) we never get 5 hour paid breaks (but we've found ways around that) B) we lack various safety protocols and measures (again, we've found ways around that) C) raises and promotions are based on nationality and neopotism and favouritism (I'm the most senior worker in my area, yet some of the new guys come in making a dollar more than me...I've not found a way around this...).

In the three years you've been working at your job, has it not occurred to you that there might be a connection between 'A' and 'B'?

To speak plainly, you boast of defrauding your employer of five hours of work, daily -- yet you continue to dishonestly accept your paycheque under false pretenses.

How does this differ from any other kind of theft? It doesn't.

You brag about being thief who steals from his employer -- and then you have the gall to complain that newer employees are being paid more. What I can't understand, is why you haven't been fired a long time ago.

quote:

Bosses are going to find ways to make money, challenge workers rights and generally attempt at all given oppurtunities to shaft their employees.

Here's a bit of a newsflash: you live in a free country. You are not obligated to continue working for an employer, if you feel the circumstances of the arrangement don't suit you. You are free to quit and find more agreeable employment any time you like, without notice. So why haven't you done that? Does dishonesty come more easily than a job hunt? Or are there just not that many openings available to thieves?

[ 20 March 2005: Message edited by: PereUbu ]


From: out there | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Anchoress
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4650

posted 20 March 2005 04:02 PM      Profile for Anchoress     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
PU, you *slay* me. Are you really that thick, or are you just pretending to be to get some of that attention you so desperately crave?

PB is not defrauding his employer out of five hours of work. PER DAY.

HE is being denied by his employer the legislated paid break he is entitled to after a certain number of hours of work.

Thank you for the best laugh I've had since reading about the Pink Panthers at the CPC convention.


From: Vancouver babblers' meetup July 9 @ Cafe Deux Soleil! | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
PereUbu
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8187

posted 20 March 2005 04:12 PM      Profile for PereUbu     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
we never get 5 hour paid breaks

Reads to me like he's complaining he doesn't get a five-hour paid break.

The wording is sufficiently awkward, I suppose it could possibly be taken either way.

I'll come back to it, should "Papal Bull" wish to clarify what he meant.


From: out there | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014

posted 20 March 2005 04:18 PM      Profile for Hinterland        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Here's a bit of a newsflash: you live in a free country. You are not obligated to continue working for an employer, if you feel the circumstances of the arrangement don't suit you. You are free to quit and find more agreeable employment any time you like, without notice. So why haven't you done that? Does dishonesty come more easily than a job hunt? Or are there just not that many openings available to thieves?

Ignoring the fact that this little outburst was based on PU not understanding something....sheesh, what a weakling you are, PU. Someone abuses an explicit contract and you suggest the person should just suck it up?

Karma, PU, karma. Those words might come back to haunt you.


From: Qubec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Anchoress
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4650

posted 20 March 2005 04:21 PM      Profile for Anchoress     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by PereUbu:

Reads to me like he's complaining he doesn't get a five-hour paid break.

The wording is sufficiently awkward, I suppose it could possibly be taken either way.

I'll come back to it, should "Papal Bull" wish to clarify what he meant.



Aah, thank you for answering my question. I'll keep that in mind in my future correspondence with you.


From: Vancouver babblers' meetup July 9 @ Cafe Deux Soleil! | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014

posted 20 March 2005 04:41 PM      Profile for Hinterland        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
The wording is sufficiently awkward, I suppose it could possibly be taken either way.

By some type of people, certainly. Hands up anyone else who thought PB was talking about 5 hour breaks a day?


From: Qubec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
pogge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2440

posted 20 March 2005 04:49 PM      Profile for pogge   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
*sits on hands*
From: Why is this a required field? | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Anchoress
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4650

posted 20 March 2005 04:57 PM      Profile for Anchoress     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Aw, give the guy a break. From his room in his mother's basement, PU might lack the basic knowledge of labour standards enjoyed by most people who have actually *had* a job.
From: Vancouver babblers' meetup July 9 @ Cafe Deux Soleil! | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
charlieM
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6514

posted 21 March 2005 10:42 AM      Profile for charlieM     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
PU sounds much more like a manager of McDonald’s than a teenager living in his mother’s basement (I realize one could be both).

I work at McDonald's and they SEEM to treat their employees the best of all the fast food restaurants. I am the most intelligent person who works there, so it is not surprise that I am there biggest thorn. They have spent 40 years finding out how to bend every law or rules to its fullest extent in order to "rip-off" their employees. Therefore, it is hard to accuse them of 'breaking" any rules, since they are only "bent". Luckily I realized a while ago that they don't pay you for good work, they pay you for satisfactory work. Anyone who puts in any more than satisfactory is schmuck. Sure, you may get promoted to manager after two years if you work REALLY well, but what does that get you? $2-$4 more, and twice the responsibility.


From: hamilton | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Gir Draxon
leftist-rightie and rightist-leftie
Babbler # 3804

posted 21 March 2005 03:09 PM      Profile for Gir Draxon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Charlie, yours is the kind of attitude that keeps wages down. Employers can't afford to pay high wages for half-assed work.

As for Burger King, I suggest a boycott. Don't work there, and don't eat there. Let's see if we can make this cost BK more than just $1500...


From: Arkham Asylum | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
audra trower williams
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2

posted 21 March 2005 03:24 PM      Profile for audra trower williams   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
You really think McDonald's can't afford to pay people more?
From: And I'm a look you in the eye for every bar of the chorus | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Gir Draxon
leftist-rightie and rightist-leftie
Babbler # 3804

posted 21 March 2005 03:34 PM      Profile for Gir Draxon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by audra trower williams:
You really think McDonald's can't afford to pay people more?

McDonald's pays more than any other fast food restaurant. Around here, I beleive the full-time starting wage is about $8-8.25/hour.

And yes... if the employees really put effort into keeping the restaurant as clean as possible, getting the order right and making them as fast as possible while still keeping the quality good; then McDonald's could pay the employees more.

But if it's a bunch of 16 year old kids who barely clean anything, mess up the orders all the time, and take forever to do anything, then paying them $18/hour is a recipe for bankruptcy. And they wouldn't deserve it... I beleive that the more effort people put into doing their job well, the more they should get paid.


From: Arkham Asylum | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Ethical Redneck
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8274

posted 21 March 2005 03:54 PM      Profile for Ethical Redneck     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Here's a bit of a newsflash: you live in a free country. You are not obligated to continue working for an employer, if you feel the circumstances of the arrangement don't suit you. You are free to quit and find more agreeable employment any time you like, without notice.

Ah yes, the grand dishonest dream: what free society we live in--where most of our economy is under the dictatorial thumb of unsustainable sweatshops that suck billions of dollars out of the economy in wealth created by other people and blackmail them with it.

Don't stand up for your rights on the job and demand a bigger more sustainable chunk of the wealth you create by demanding better wages, opportunities, benefits, safety, fair and due process etc., let alone ask for a say in running the business you work in? Why that's utopian communistic thinking!

Nope. Just quit your job, put what little economic security you might have in jeopardy and go try to be the same old wage slave for some other corporate bureaucracy.

Oh, BTW, if you quit your job without giving sufficient notice, as set by the boss, the company can withhold certain parts of your pay. Just keep that in mind.

quote:
Does dishonesty come more easily than a job hunt? Or are there just not that many openings available to thieves?

It seems the situation described at this particular McDonalds outlet is the standard display of demoralization, self-contained dissatisfaction, lack of input in making the job happen and the natural resentment you find most non-union firms--especially low-paying go-nowhere outfits like McDonalds.

Then again, our whole capitalistic economy is based on various forms of thievery by various privileged parasitic cliques and lobbies ripping off workers and consumers and hiding the money.

quote:
Employers can't afford to pay high wages for half-assed work.

This is the usual dogma of corporate apologists. Who decides what "half-assed" work is? The people on the job site doing the work and dealing with the risks and problems there, or some overpaid ivory tower corporate bureaucrat or over-priced consultant who never does the job and isn't held accountable for the results?

For most corporate establishments, the latter is the case, including at McDonalds, and that is why things are often so screwed up.

quote:
You really think McDonald's can't afford to pay people more?

Exactly. A $30 Billion a year operation based mostly on sweatshop wage conditions, that don't pay enough for people to significantly re-invest in the economy, is nothing more than a big drain on the economy. Period.

If it paid more, it would likely get more investment of workers' labour skills and productivity, as well as re-circulating more money back into the economy via higher wages leading to greater consumer spending power.

quote:
But if it's a bunch of 16 year old kids who barely clean anything, mess up the orders all the time, and take forever to do anything, then paying them $18/hour is a recipe for bankruptcy.

Yep, them kids are just plain stupid ain't they? We should just let McDonalds and similar tyrannies pay them shyte and suck billions of dollars year out of the economy off of their labour while putting as little resources into training, education and apprenticeships as they can.

Skipper, you do realize that the reason outfits like McDonalds want to hire 16-year old kids is that they don't have to pay them sustainable wages or invest in extensive training since those kids aren't expected to be working there for long periods of time or invest in the job as a career.

I don't patronize McDonalds or Burger King. But when I used to, years ago, I noticed the places weren't exactly super clean. Know what? Nobody seemed to care, since most folks were in and out of there in a hurry, so it didn't matter that much to them. That's a key feature in the "fast food" industry. That's how come firms like this can get away with it.

Don't blame the 16-year-olds. It's obvious the whole major corporate service industry is based on this unscrupulous fly-by-night philosophy.


From: Deep in the Rockies | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Gir Draxon
leftist-rightie and rightist-leftie
Babbler # 3804

posted 21 March 2005 04:07 PM      Profile for Gir Draxon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
This is the usual dogma of corporate apologists. Who decides what "half-assed" work is? The people on the job site doing the work and dealing with the risks and problems there, or some overpaid ivory tower corporate bureaucrat or over-priced consultant who never does the job and isn't held accountable for the results?

Both are affected. I don't know first hand what it's like at the burger joints, but I work as a short order cook. My opinion of half-assed work is that the people who stand around and watch me work, take half-hour smoke breaks, or sleep for a couple hours of their shifts are not exactly value-for-money for my employer.

It affects me because it makes my job harder. It affects the corporate guys because messed-up orders and taking too long to make them costs money. And when the numbers aren't as good as they should be, it's their job at risk.


From: Arkham Asylum | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Timebandit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1448

posted 21 March 2005 04:08 PM      Profile for Timebandit     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by PereUbu:

Here's a bit of a newsflash: you live in a free country. You are not obligated to continue working for an employer, if you feel the circumstances of the arrangement don't suit you. You are free to quit and find more agreeable employment any time you like, without notice. So why haven't you done that? Does dishonesty come more easily than a job hunt? Or are there just not that many openings available to thieves?

[ 20 March 2005: Message edited by: PereUbu ]


Leaving an "unsatisfactory" job situation is often easier said than done, especially if you are either very young or without a good deal of experience or education. Certainly, I worked in "unsatisfactory" work environments periodically, especially as a teenager, and finding a new job could be a challenge. Add to that the factor of having short stints on your resume makes you look like a poor risk as an employee. Also a bad reference from an employer, whether it is a fair one or not, can affect one's ability to change jobs.

Didn't a Dickens character once say something to the effect that the poor were free to starve? I'll have to go look that up.


From: Urban prairie. | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 21 March 2005 04:16 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Exactly. A $30 Billion a year operation based mostly on sweatshop wage conditions

Hehe. "Sweatshop conditions"? Sure, minus the minimum wage, the forced double shifts, the lack of safety equipment or procedure, the 12 year old labourers, the violence and intimidation, and the sweat.

quote:
as well as re-circulating more money back into the economy via higher wages leading to greater consumer spending power.

You don't think the money a young person earns at a part time job ends up back in the economy? I doubt they're tying their money up in bonds.

quote:
Skipper, you do realize that the reason outfits like McDonalds want to hire 16-year old kids is that they don't have to pay them sustainable wages or invest in extensive training since those kids aren't expected to be working there for long periods of time or invest in the job as a career.

Under a different plan, who would be?? If McDonald's (or any other fast food joint) tripled their wages, would regular adults leave the usual career streams to become counter jockeys at a Mickey D's? To me that's like suggesting that if the money were a bit better, you'd babysit, or bag groceries at the local Sobeys.

The wages aren't relatively low because McDonald's is evil. They're relatively low because putting a hamburger and an order of fries into a bag, and making change from a till just isn't all that tough, physically or intellectually. That makes it a great transition job. Work at it for a while and move up to something a little more challenging and better paying, and with some valuable experience on your resume.

When I was young, I worked on a "chip wagon": a panel truck, with a large propane griddle and two large deep fryers in the back. We received no general or fire safety training, no food safety training, we had no air conditioning (not even a fan), and at the end of each night we were expected to lift a fryer basin with 5 gallons of hot oil (fry bits still sizzling in it) and pour it into a large bucket through a funnel. Needless to say, we had no union. And we sure as hell didn't make $8.25 an hour. Such is the nature of being a young person with no experience, needing a part-time job.


From: `,_,`,_,,_,, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Nam
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3472

posted 21 March 2005 04:36 PM      Profile for Nam     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:

Under a different plan, who would be?? If McDonald's (or any other fast food joint) tripled their wages, would regular adults leave the usual career streams to become counter jockeys at a Mickey D's?


Actually, here in Calgary a guy called Gus Peters runs a local burger joint called Peter's Drive-In. Believe me, this is Calgary's favourite burger palace. Gus pays his employees a starting wage of $16.00, and longtime employees, (some have stayed with him for over 20 years) earn well over $20.00/hour. He has been featured on a show that CBC did on living wage, and he is proof that the usual paradigm about fastfood and wages isn't true. So yes, some people would chose to be counter jockey's if they were treated with respect.


From: Calgary-Land of corporate towers | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 21 March 2005 04:48 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Fair enough. What's a hamburger cost there?
From: `,_,`,_,,_,, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Ethical Redneck
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8274

posted 21 March 2005 04:50 PM      Profile for Ethical Redneck     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Hehe. "Sweatshop conditions"? Sure, minus the minimum wage, the forced double shifts, the lack of safety equipment or procedure, the 12 year old labourers, the violence and intimidation, and the sweat

Hey, what are you laughing at? These conditions appear to be quite common in the service sector. BTW, the minimum wage and the usual lack of benefits, seniority rights and fair grievance procedures in these types of outfits I think accurately classify them as sweatshop conditions.

quote:
You don't think the money a young person earns at a part time job ends up back in the economy? I doubt they're tying their money up in bonds.

Of course it does. That's my whole point. If you pay them the scraps they get now, that's a whole lot less money that goes back into the economy. Less rents. Less money for tuitions. Less money for consumer and retail investments. Less recreational investments, etc.

quote:
If McDonald's (or any other fast food joint) tripled their wages, would regular adults leave the usual career streams to become counter jockeys at a Mickey D's? To me that's like suggesting that if the money were a bit better, you'd babysit, or bag groceries at the local Sobeys.

There are no Sobey's where I live. That's for you Eastern types.

Besides that, your scenario is pretty whacko. First, people who have invested their time and money and skills into getting a trade or profession and have managed to find decent steady work in their chosen field with relatively good pay and benefits are not very likely to walk away from this in order to take what would still likely be a lower paying (although much higher than now) job like you mention that doesnt motivate or interest them.

But I think you know this.

Second, historic economic trends show that when lower end wages, like the McDonald's variety, rise, start paying benefits, offer trade and skill advancement, etc, it has a similar effect on the whole economy over time. This is a very good thing because history shows that living standards rise when this happens.

So don't just draw some whacko conclusion that kitchen staff at Burger King is going to earn as much as a dentist.

quote:
The wages aren't relatively low because McDonald's is evil. They're relatively low because putting a hamburger and an order of fries into a bag, and making change from a till just isn't all that tough, physically or intellectually.

No professor, that's not why McDonalds pays the low rates it pays. Evil is a moral judgment, but that's not necessarily why it pays so low either.

It's because they aim their hiring toward younger people with few skills and little market savvy. People who largely expect, because they are repeatedly told, that these are just temporary stepping stone jobs to something better when they go to school and get a trade, etc. So, these young folks dont invest a lot of confidence, long-term goals or real interest in the job, since it pays low and they're not expected to stay there long.

Thats how McDonalds gets away with this low pay crap.

How tough the job can be, as you and I both know from working in such places, is not a consideration as to how much it pays. You surely remember, as you describe, just how tough and physically and mentally taxing those jobs can be.

Rather, it is the fact that, especially nowadays during what is largely permanent hard times, there is a large supply of low-skilled youth labour out there to exploit. If that's supply was to suddenly decrease in some way--like say youth started to get more organized and educated about these things--McDonalds and similar firms would have to consider raising the pay and improving the conditions.

The fact is these mega-corporations in the service industry (McDonalds, Wal-Mart, Burger King, etc.) do serious damage to the economy by refusing to pay more sustainable wage rates, basic benefits and long-term training. The low wages they pay do not allow for people to freely re-circulate money. This robs markets of much needed consumer investments that keep our economy going.

And their own records show they clearly can afford it.


From: Deep in the Rockies | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Gir Draxon
leftist-rightie and rightist-leftie
Babbler # 3804

posted 21 March 2005 04:56 PM      Profile for Gir Draxon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
[drift]Peter's sucks. I'd rather go to Wendy's where a vegetarian can actually get a meal.[/drift]

His business works for a few reasons. There is only one location, so he has more control over who gets hired. Anyone can go work at a typical fast food joint, but I sincerely doubt you can just walk into Peter's and get hired on the spot. And after you do get hired, do you really think the boss would tolerate you slacking off for $16/hour? Kids like Charlie who make a point of being mediocre wouldn't keep their jobs for very long.

And it's also a novelty with a following. It may not last, and I know for sure that it would never work on a large scale.


From: Arkham Asylum | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 21 March 2005 05:00 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
You surely remember, as you describe, just how tough and physically and mentally taxing those jobs can be.

True. But we also knew that we had no marketable skills coming into our first job, and we knew that the minute something preferable opened up, we were outta there. And if the wages had been a bit better I'd certainly have been happy, but it wouldn't have made me loyal to my employer. I'd still take off if a better job presented itself.

quote:
The low wages they pay do not allow for people to freely re-circulate money.

I think that when we're talking about the 16-20 year old crowd, we're mostly talking about people who don't have the entire financial weight of their existence on their shoulders. I think most teens take their part-time job money and buy an iPod, not pay property tax. Similarly, when service sectors hire seniors, that job supplements their pension; it's not the only thing between them and an income of zero.

As I see it, an employer can go one or the other of the two ways: provide a good wage and hope that attracts excellent employees, support those employees and hope this translates into a reciprocal commitment from the employee

or...

Pay low wages but make getting employment relatively simple, accept that turnover will be high as people find better options, and let the experience on the resume be the perk rather than full dental (which many McD's employees probably get from their parents' coverage anyway).

Here's a question: if your employer offered to increase your wage by 50% in exchange for you promising to stay with the company for the next 10 years, would you?


From: `,_,`,_,,_,, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
charlieM
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6514

posted 21 March 2005 05:12 PM      Profile for charlieM     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Someone may have mentioned it, it is fairly obvious and can actually turn into an enormous social problem.
The businesses have enormous turn-over rates. So they treat their employees poorly knowing that it does not matter if they quit. They are not going to go the labour board over any of the kind of treatment this burger-king kid experienced. In fact, i have no doubt that the only reason it did go so far is because of the job the kid's dad has.
this can turn into a huge social problem because it is destroying young people's work ethics. There has been no psychological work on this. manner.

[ 21 March 2005: Message edited by: charlieM ]


From: hamilton | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
charlieM
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6514

posted 21 March 2005 05:16 PM      Profile for charlieM     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gir Draxon:

Both are affected. I don't know first hand what it's like at the burger joints, but I work as a short order cook. My opinion of half-assed work is that the people who stand around and watch me work, take half-hour smoke breaks, or sleep for a couple hours of their shifts are not exactly value-for-money for my employer.

It affects me because it makes my job harder. It affects the corporate guys because messed-up orders and taking too long to make them costs money. And when the numbers aren't as good as they should be, it's their job at risk.


I do not see how you equate my doing satifactory work with your idea of half-assed work. In fact, your idea of half-assed work is more like bad work, and employees who should be fired.


From: hamilton | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
angrymonkey
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5769

posted 21 March 2005 06:03 PM      Profile for angrymonkey     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
As I see it, an employer can go one or the other of the two ways: provide a good wage and hope that attracts excellent employees, support those employees and hope this translates into a reciprocal commitment from the employee

So, the only reason an employer should treat their employees well is if the employee agrees not to leave the company for a long time?

How does this explain all the well paid and mobile professionals out there? Should they be paid low wages and no benefits since they aren't very loyal either?


quote:
I'd rather go to Wendy's where a vegetarian can actually get a meal

Nobody's arguing that these places don't try to cater to their customers. But like Wal Mart they seem to care more for customers than employees. The opposite of the Peter's example.


From: the cold | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
Papal Bull
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7050

posted 21 March 2005 06:12 PM      Profile for Papal Bull   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I'd respond to PU, but really my future children will find the internet and find me arguing with the most moronic troll since ConservativeMark. They will be more ashamed of their father for that fact than the fact that he owns Prozzac CDs.

On the plus side of this, I quit today. On my last shift I'm going to let loose after I officially stop being an employee and tell my bosses about the joint they run. But man, the lack of the paid breaks sucked... I'm actually going to start working for either a pharmacy (pure awesome) or a Bell call centre (nerds unite!). I'm not sure, but I'm honestly thinking of seeing if I can sneak a union into my old work place. You know, just to straighten it up a bit and make the place easier on the friends I'm leaving behind.


From: Vatican's best darned ranch | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Gir Draxon
leftist-rightie and rightist-leftie
Babbler # 3804

posted 21 March 2005 06:27 PM      Profile for Gir Draxon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Papal, I work 8 hour shifts without a scheduled "break". Instead, we use our discretion and relax a bit during the slow times. It works better that way.
From: Arkham Asylum | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Papal Bull
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7050

posted 21 March 2005 06:39 PM      Profile for Papal Bull   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gir Draxon:
Papal, I work 8 hour shifts without a scheduled "break". Instead, we use our discretion and relax a bit during the slow times. It works better that way.

We get yelled at for slacking during the down times if the big wigs are on the floor. We aren't even allowed to talk when they are around But, after you work there for a year or so, they really stop caring.


From: Vatican's best darned ranch | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
charlieM
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6514

posted 21 March 2005 06:44 PM      Profile for charlieM     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gir Draxon:
Papal, I work 8 hour shifts without a scheduled "break". Instead, we use our discretion and relax a bit during the slow times. It works better that way.

It's all abotu preference, i see how that system is reasonable, but ultimately they aren't giving you a break if there is no work to do. like at mcdonalds, at slow times they tell you to go on your break, and that makes perfect sense. I just don't like it takes away the meaning of a break, although i don't see a solution.

From: hamilton | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Anchoress
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4650

posted 21 March 2005 06:51 PM      Profile for Anchoress     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
[drift]When I was a teen I worked at a cafeteria-style restaurant where the owner used to call me and ask if it was busy. If my answer was no, he told me to go sit down and clock out until a customer came in, lol.
From: Vancouver babblers' meetup July 9 @ Cafe Deux Soleil! | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
Nam
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3472

posted 21 March 2005 06:56 PM      Profile for Nam     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gir Draxon:
[drift]Peter's sucks. I'd rather go to Wendy's where a vegetarian can actually get a meal.[/drift]

His business works for a few reasons. There is only one location, so he has more control over who gets hired. Anyone can go work at a typical fast food joint, but I sincerely doubt you can just walk into Peter's and get hired on the spot. And after you do get hired, do you really think the boss would tolerate you slacking off for $16/hour? Kids like Charlie who make a point of being mediocre wouldn't keep their jobs for very long.

And it's also a novelty with a following. It may not last, and I know for sure that it would never work on a large scale.


Well, a few points. First off, only a few ever get hired at Peter's, because his staff is very loyal. Geez, he pays a living wage for flipping burgers!!! The turnover is almost nil, and employees stay for a long time. The few that do get hired work hard, but I believe your point about the Charlies of world being mediocore and getting paid poorly for it is ass-backwards - that is, I believe many people put little into their work because they are paid very poorly, not the other way around.

Peter's is novelty, and may not last?? Well, it has been around over 20 years, and how do you know for sure it wouldn't work on a larger scale? Inquiring minds want to know.


From: Calgary-Land of corporate towers | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Gir Draxon
leftist-rightie and rightist-leftie
Babbler # 3804

posted 21 March 2005 06:57 PM      Profile for Gir Draxon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
PB, that's crazy. I don't know how I would deal with it... it's never come up because my boss goes home before things really slow down.

quote:
Originally posted by charlieM:

It's all abotu preference, i see how that system is reasonable, but ultimately they aren't giving you a break if there is no work to do. like at mcdonalds, at slow times they tell you to go on your break, and that makes perfect sense. I just don't like it takes away the meaning of a break, although i don't see a solution.

Huh? What is taking away from the meaning of a break? The fact that you're not actively ignoring work that needs to be done? I don't understand what you mean...

The difference for me is that sometimes I end up having to make an order or two during the time I'm trying to take a break. But that minor annoyance is better than making people wait an extra half hour for their food.


From: Arkham Asylum | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Ethical Redneck
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8274

posted 21 March 2005 07:28 PM      Profile for Ethical Redneck     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
But we also knew that we had no marketable skills coming into our first job, and we knew that the minute something preferable opened up, we were outta there.

But Magoo, this is what I'm trying to get at. You in many ways were in a captive market that has few employment options--the ideal cheap labour force that bosses depend on to exploit.

Having few marketable skills, not much work experience and probably not much market savvy or understanding of your rights are the main things that make so many people targets for low-wage anti-union sweatshop firms.

Just because someone has few marketable skills doesn't legitimize them being paid unsustainable wage rates, forced to work under unsafe or unhealthy conditions, denied their rights under employment standards, putting up with nepotism or discrimination, etc.


The fact that a person, whoever it is, is working and creating a large amount of marketed wealth, as in someone working for McDonalds or some similar firm, then they should be entitled to a reasonable return of that wealth based on their investment of the time and labour in the job. They should also have the right to negotiate what exact amounts those might be as in the form of a union.

quote:
And if the wages had been a bit better I'd certainly have been happy, but it wouldn't have made me loyal to my employer. I'd still take off if a better job presented itself.

No disagreement there. But if the pay had been higher and the conditions somewhat better, it would have given you more time to consider your options, look around and make plans, maybe even save some money, etc., like it would for most people. In other words, your life would have been, at least in an economic sense, better.

Now if in addition to better pay and benefits, the job offered training, apprenticeship or other advancement skills, that might give your the option of considering staying with that firm to pursue a trade of interest. In other words, you would have had more serious options, which gives you greater freedom of choice and security.

quote:
I think that when we're talking about the 16-20 year old crowd, we're mostly talking about people who don't have the entire financial weight of their existence on their shoulders. I think most teens take their part-time job money and buy an iPod, not pay property tax.

Largely true, although there is a growing sector of working poor (thanks to falling wages overall) where kids can't just rely on their parents' incomes to carry them through. Thats a severe problem.

But again, as said, so what if the kids are at home and don't pay rent or property taxes. Higher paying jobs would give them more buying power, more saving power and, like said, more options and freedom of choice.

If these service jobs paid better, youths could have more money for post-secondary schools, that could ease funding problems, reduce barriers to access, alleviate tuition concerns and maybe even lead to less reliance on strapping student loans. It could even allow them to save money for the future, like to buy a house.

If they offered some basic benefits, like health care coverage, they wouldn't have to worry about paying health care premiums once they turn 19.

If they offered training or advancement opportunities, youth could get a trade right there via apprenticeship programs, etc.

They just use the money to buy iPods or CDs, that's more people buying iPods and CDs, which translates into more manufacturing and retail jobs (hopefully better paying ones too). This is not to say that I'm encouraging more cheap retail junk either. I'm just saying that the greater chunk of the wealth that these workers create that goes back to them translates into a more prosperous economy.

And please remember, we're not talking about some tiny mom-pop single outlet outfit constantly on the verge of bankruptcy where the lousy-paid employees make about as much as the proprietor because there no market to sustain it.

The service industry, like most others, is dominated by huge mega-corporations that exert such an influence on the labour market that they can force wages to stay low, thereby hurting the whole economy, not just the affected workers. That has to change.

quote:
Here's a question: if your employer offered to increase your wage by 50% in exchange for you promising to stay with the company for the next 10 years, would you?

Interesting question. It would depend on other things in addition to the pay, as in what I would be doing over the time, what else would be expected, and what other guarantees or benefits, if any, were involved. It would also matter on what my family would want (especially it if involves changing locations or other major shifts in lifestyle).

But in my case it's a theoretical issue. I have been working in a union position in the same industry for almost 20 years, got a Journey ticket and a technical degree and considerable seniority with further advancement if I want it.

So the answer in my case would be yes. However, I will likely stay there even without such an offer.


From: Deep in the Rockies | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
ShyViolet
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6611

posted 21 March 2005 07:37 PM      Profile for ShyViolet     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Papal_Bull:

We get yelled at for slacking during the down times if the big wigs are on the floor. We aren't even allowed to talk when they are around But, after you work there for a year or so, they really stop caring.


been there. i worked in a gorcery store last summer and when we had no customers, we were supposed to (a) clean (b) stock shelves or (c) retrieve carts from the parking lot.

i had some problems of my own...most of the time, i was the only cashier 18 or older. if you're under 18, you can't touch the alcohol. period. so, that meant that if another cashier got someone with alcohol, i had to stop whatever i was doing and scan and bag (b/c most of the bagboys were under 18) the alcohol. i know it doesn't sound like a big thing, but add to that long lines AND that they time us, and y'all can see the problem.


From: ~Love is like pi: natural, irrational, and very important~ | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
Gir Draxon
leftist-rightie and rightist-leftie
Babbler # 3804

posted 21 March 2005 07:46 PM      Profile for Gir Draxon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ethical Redneck:

The fact that a person, whoever it is, is working and creating a large amount of marketed wealth, as in someone working for McDonalds or some similar firm, then they should be entitled to a reasonable return of that wealth based on their investment of the time and labour in the job.

I agree. Except that the investment of time and labour in being a fry jockey is not exactly stellar.

quote:
Originally posted by Ethical Redneck:

No disagreement there. But if the pay had been higher and the conditions somewhat better, it would have given you more time to consider your options, look around and make plans, maybe even save some money, etc., like it would for most people. In other words, your life would have been, at least in an economic sense, better.

Yeah, so? I wouldn't eat at a restaurant that charged $25 for a typical burger* and fries just so that the 16 year old who scooped my fries into the box can buy a new car.

*- assuming they have the good sense to serve veggie bugers. Lousy Peter's.

quote:
Originally posted by Ethical Redneck:

Now if in addition to better pay and benefits, the job offered training, apprenticeship or other advancement skills, that might give your the option of considering staying with that firm to pursue a trade of interest. In other words, you would have had more serious options, which gives you greater freedom of choice and security.


Trade of interest? At McDonald's? Puh-lease. It's not as if they have a fine dining room that cooks can move up to. Except for upper management, all jobs at McDonald's require minimal skills. Washing the deep frier does not constitute a "trade".

From: Arkham Asylum | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
angrymonkey
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5769

posted 21 March 2005 08:01 PM      Profile for angrymonkey     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Huh? What is taking away from the meaning of a break? The fact that you're not actively ignoring work that needs to be done? I don't understand what you mean...

The difference for me is that sometimes I end up having to make an order or two during the time I'm trying to take a break. But that minor annoyance is better than making people wait an extra half hour for their food.


Gee Gir, you're the perfect worker. Does it get rewarded? A break should be an agreed time between the employee and employer upon hiring. Not whenever it's not busy. And then you go back to work while on your break? That isn't a break. But it's nice that you subvert your needs for others.
People taking breaks seem to be so feared in some jobs. I worked in a computer based job that would rather have people do useless activity when a blackout occured than just relax for 5 or 10 minutes. It was interesting to see the business professionals next door go out in the parking lot to relax while us lower paid peons were shuffling papers in the dark.


From: the cold | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
Gir Draxon
leftist-rightie and rightist-leftie
Babbler # 3804

posted 21 March 2005 08:07 PM      Profile for Gir Draxon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
angrymonkey, how would you like to be in a restaurant and have to wait an extra hour for your food because the cook was on aa 30 minute break, then had to catch up on a number of other orders before he even gets to start yours?
From: Arkham Asylum | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
faith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4348

posted 21 March 2005 10:04 PM      Profile for faith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
The wages aren't relatively low because McDonald's is evil. They're relatively low because putting a hamburger and an order of fries into a bag, and making change from a till just isn't all that tough, physically or intellectually. That makes it a great transition job. Work at it for a while and move up to something a little more challenging and better paying, and with some valuable experience on your resume.

This statement made me stop reading and reminisce about my first job at KFC. I was 15 years of age and had the responsibilities of cooking chips, making up boxes and serving utensils, filling salad containers, making coffee, taking cash, serving customers, refilling all dispensers,cleaning everything, and all the while making less money than the guys in the back who cooked the chicken. We worked 9 hour shifts and by the time we got home absolutely exhausted all I wanted to do was go to sleep but the throbbing pain in my legs after standing on cement floors all night made it difficult to sleep. Workers in fast food places earn every penny , the work is physically hard, mentally repetitive and boring, and socially and financially demeaning.

From: vancouver | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
charlieM
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6514

posted 21 March 2005 10:31 PM      Profile for charlieM     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gir Draxon:
angrymonkey, how would you like to be in a restaurant and have to wait an extra hour for your food because the cook was on aa 30 minute break, then had to catch up on a number of other orders before he even gets to start yours?

If you owned the business it is an entirely different story. As a "McDonald's Employee" i could care less if customers sit around waiting for me to get off my break. I don't care if they buy their five dollar meal or not. By the time the restaurant notices it needs to downsize because it isnt making enough revenues due to long breaks, Ill be gone due to the high turn-over rate. That obviously may seem like selfish thinking, but McDonalds is the real selfish one in the battle, not the exploited employee.
If this were my dads restaurant that puts food on the table, Im going to work harder. So what does that mean? It means that big corporations like McDonalds need to make their employees feel need, not easily expendable. Ironically, from what I know McDonalds make the biggest attempt to reach this goal, but, it still I just not enough (for me, at least).


From: hamilton | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Gir Draxon
leftist-rightie and rightist-leftie
Babbler # 3804

posted 21 March 2005 11:48 PM      Profile for Gir Draxon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Well faith, just be glad you didn't decide to make a career there if it's just too hard for you to walk around and move objects under 1kg.

quote:
Originally posted by charlieM:

If you owned the business it is an entirely different story. As a "McDonald's Employee" i could care less if customers sit around waiting for me to get off my break. I don't care if they buy their five dollar meal or not. By the time the restaurant notices it needs to downsize because it isnt making enough revenues due to long breaks, Ill be gone due to the high turn-over rate.



No, you'll be gone due to the fact you're a lousy employee if you don't care about the customers.

quote:
Originally posted by charlieM:
That obviously may seem like selfish thinking, but McDonalds is the real selfish one in the battle, not the exploited employee.
If this were my dads restaurant that puts food on the table, Im going to work harder. So what does that mean? It means that big corporations like McDonalds need to make their employees feel need, not easily expendable.


So let me get this straight: YOU are the one who looks out for number one, but the person who manages a McDonald's cannot, in fact they must bend over backwards for your benefit out of the goodness of their hearts. Never mind everything they have to lose... Why don't you try putting yourself in the shoes of the person trying to make a living by attempting to make a profit from selling $1.50 burgers while their employees don't give a shit...

From: Arkham Asylum | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
ShyViolet
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6611

posted 21 March 2005 11:59 PM      Profile for ShyViolet     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gir Draxon:
Well faith, just be glad you didn't decide to make a career there if it's just too hard for you to walk around and move objects under 1kg.

hey, gir, you would have to move stuff 30-50 lbs (13.16-22.68 kg) in that job. i know 'cause i applied to my local kfc last summer and on the application it states that that is a necessary ability for the job. no, it's not a highly skilled job, but grunt work is required. it's not like you just stand there and say "can i take your order?" or push a broom around once in a while.

[ 22 March 2005: Message edited by: ShyViolet417 ]


From: ~Love is like pi: natural, irrational, and very important~ | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
Gir Draxon
leftist-rightie and rightist-leftie
Babbler # 3804

posted 22 March 2005 12:12 AM      Profile for Gir Draxon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ShyViolet417:

hey, gir, you would have to move stuff 30-50 lbs (don't know how many kgs that is...sorry) in that job. i know 'cause i applied to my local kfc last summer and on the application it states that that is a necessary ability for the job. no, it's not a highly skilled job, but grunt work is required. it's not like you just stand there and say "can i take your order?" or push a broom around once in a while.


Perhaps I spoke too soon... never worked at KFC or any burger/taco joint like that. But I do currently work as a cook, and it is not physicially tiring like that. Standing still for that long would be hell, but I'm always walking around or sitting so it's not that bad.

And yeah I understand that jobs like that suck. That's the nature of the job though. That's why people go learn skills to get other kinds of jobs, or even stay on the job and put some effort into it so that they get promotions.

I'm sorry, but no matter how you slice it, being a simple fry jockey for a full career is a waste of potential for most people. It is therefore absurd to expect the businesses to provide huge benefits and high wages in order to keep the good people in the bottom positions. It's just not worth it for either party.


From: Arkham Asylum | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
ShyViolet
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6611

posted 22 March 2005 12:31 AM      Profile for ShyViolet     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gir Draxon:

Perhaps I spoke too soon... never worked at KFC or any burger/taco joint like that. But I do currently work as a cook, and it is not physicially tiring like that. Standing still for that long would be hell, but I'm always walking around or sitting so it's not that bad.

And yeah I understand that jobs like that suck. That's the nature of the job though. That's why people go learn skills to get other kinds of jobs, or even stay on the job and put some effort into it so that they get promotions.

I'm sorry, but no matter how you slice it, being a simple fry jockey for a full career is a waste of potential for most people. It is therefore absurd to expect the businesses to provide huge benefits and high wages in order to keep the good people in the bottom positions. It's just not worth it for either party.


well, i haven't worked in fast food either, because i took a job at a grocery store. i thought that would be better. and, yeah, the standing part is hell (i was a cashier). i had a 6 hour shift my first day, and by the time i got home, i couldn't even stand up straight and i was walking funny. you do get used to it after a while though.

yep...that's why i tried to build up my speed when scanning and bagging, never skipped work, and was usually punctual when arriving and coming back from break. that's why, even when i had people spit at me, throw their groceries (happened once!), or chew me out for things i couldn't control (like we didn't sell a certain item or were out), i would keep smiling as sweetly as i could and tell them to have a great day. and it worked...no one ever complained about me to the management and when we went in the other day the assistant manger told me i'd better come back this summer. and that job sucks, honestly, and i ahve no intention of getting a carerr out of it. but...it gets me work experience and money, two things that i need right now. as for effort, well, i like to think that you get what you put in.

and i understand what you mean in the 3rd part of your post. i'm just saying it's not as easy as people seem to think. and i have a whole long speech on that, but i think i'll save it for another time.


From: ~Love is like pi: natural, irrational, and very important~ | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
John_D
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5620

posted 22 March 2005 01:06 AM      Profile for John_D     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:

When I was young, I worked on a "chip wagon": a panel truck, with a large propane griddle and two large deep fryers in the back. We received no general or fire safety training, no food safety training, we had no air conditioning (not even a fan), and at the end of each night we were expected to lift a fryer basin with 5 gallons of hot oil (fry bits still sizzling in it) and pour it into a large bucket through a funnel. Needless to say, we had no union. And we sure as hell didn't make $8.25 an hour. Such is the nature of being a young person with no experience, needing a part-time job.

Magoo - did you have to walk to this job? Say, twenty-five miles or so? Uphill both ways, through six feet of driving snow?

That's nothing. When I started working, I had to pay my employer just for the privilege of gaining some experience. I worked 27 hour shifts, seven days a week, and if the boss thought I was slacking off he'd throw burning hot coals at my face! I tell ya, kids today don't know how easy they have it!


From: Workin' 9 to 2 in the 902. | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 22 March 2005 01:08 AM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Magoo - did you have to walk to this job? Say, twenty-five miles or so? Uphill both ways, through six feet of driving snow?

Sort of. The walking part. Although driving that panel truck back to town one night was one of my few driving experiences (I have no licence, never have). I think I got 'er up on two wheels.


From: `,_,`,_,,_,, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Gir Draxon
leftist-rightie and rightist-leftie
Babbler # 3804

posted 22 March 2005 01:22 AM      Profile for Gir Draxon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Ah. But you see Shy, if you're not breaking their eggs and spitting on their change, you're being exploited by some rich greedy capitalist bastard. You try to do a good job, you collaborationist scum!

Although if your employer doesn't provide you with one of those funny pressure mat thingies to stand on, they're lousy. Even the non-union grocery stores with the worst reputations do that around here (well, at least the big chains, possibly not for the mom-and-pop corner stores).

There was an original topic I think... oh yeah the kid who got fired from BK. Not much to say on his case specifically, except that he should take a complaint to the employment stadrards office. (No, not his dad, I mean go through the standard process)


From: Arkham Asylum | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
ShyViolet
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6611

posted 22 March 2005 01:42 AM      Profile for ShyViolet     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gir Draxon:
Ah. But you see Shy, if you're not breaking their eggs and spitting on their change, you're being exploited by some rich greedy capitalist bastard. You try to do a good job, you collaborationist scum!

Although if your employer doesn't provide you with one of those funny pressure mat thingies to stand on, they're lousy. Even the non-union grocery stores with the worst reputations do that around here (well, at least the big chains, possibly not for the mom-and-pop corner stores).

There was an original topic I think... oh yeah the kid who got fired from BK. Not much to say on his case specifically, except that he should take a complaint to the employment stadrards office. (No, not his dad, I mean go through the standard process)


well, i guess i'll have to keep being a suck-up then, won't i?

you mean the thing that looks like thick black rubber bubble wrap? i had one, but it kept migrating and they took it away around 8:30-9ish every night. it was nice when i had it though...but it doesn't stop your feet,back, and legs from aching (better it though than w/o!)

ok, ok...point taken!


From: ~Love is like pi: natural, irrational, and very important~ | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
Gir Draxon
leftist-rightie and rightist-leftie
Babbler # 3804

posted 22 March 2005 02:04 AM      Profile for Gir Draxon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ShyViolet417:

you mean the thing that looks like thick black rubber bubble wrap? i had one, but it kept migrating and they took it away around 8:30-9ish every night. it was nice when i had it though...but it doesn't stop your feet,back, and legs from aching (better it though than w/o!)


What? They actually send people to come around and steal the mats out from under you?

And yeah it doesn't stop legs from getting tired, but like walking it helps. And I admit that I look forward to relaxing at home after work. Yet I don't feel as if I am somehow being abused by my employer when the clock is running...


From: Arkham Asylum | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
ShyViolet
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6611

posted 22 March 2005 02:22 AM      Profile for ShyViolet     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gir Draxon:


What? They actually send people to come around and steal the mats out from under you?

And yeah it doesn't stop legs from getting tired, but like walking it helps. And I admit that I look forward to relaxing at home after work. Yet I don't feel as if I am somehow being abused by my employer when the clock is running...


yes. every night, around that time, the baggers take away all the mats. i don't know why, but they do.
yes, i know. but i don't have many places to walk to. now, i could walk the length of my stand (can't come up with a better word) when bagging, and that helped. so did taking a trip to the bathroom or putting items away. i had my assortment of tricks....
um, i didn't think i was being abused, though, maybe i'm misunderstanding you. i think i probably am...


From: ~Love is like pi: natural, irrational, and very important~ | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
Gir Draxon
leftist-rightie and rightist-leftie
Babbler # 3804

posted 22 March 2005 02:43 AM      Profile for Gir Draxon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ShyViolet417:

um, i didn't think i was being abused, though, maybe i'm misunderstanding you. i think i probably am...

No, that was not directed at you. It was directed at Ethical Redneck and anyone else who thinks that owner profit is theft from the worker.


From: Arkham Asylum | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Ethical Redneck
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8274

posted 22 March 2005 03:13 AM      Profile for Ethical Redneck     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
It was directed at Ethical Redneck and anyone else who thinks that owner profit is theft from the worker.

Well, Gir Draxon. In fact if the owners themselves are not workers playing a direct role in the production and creation of the wealth, have no accountability to those they work with and don't participate in re-investing in the economy like workers do, then, well, yep, it pretty much is theft.

It's one of the biggest problems with our economy that leads to all sorts of other problems: poverty, unemployment, oppression, corruption, greed, abuse of positions of power and confidence, etc.

As for hurling abuse, that seems to be a pretty common thing around here, especially from the corporate apologists, neo-conservative capitalists, anti-union flakes and other fringe political clubs.

I haven't been here long enough to read much of what you write. But so far I get the impression that such "trolling" (as some folks call it here) is not part of your lexicon. I think that's admireable. Try to keep it that way.


From: Deep in the Rockies | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Gir Draxon
leftist-rightie and rightist-leftie
Babbler # 3804

posted 22 March 2005 03:35 AM      Profile for Gir Draxon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I don't have any special love for capitalists, it's just that I don't have it for workers either. As groups, that is. I have worked with some very good people, and had some very good bosses. I've also worked with dog-f***ers who only keep their jobs because it's unionized and they have seniority, as well as having a boss who was a total control freak.

The point is that mutual respect is the key. Employers should respect their employees, that is true (this is why the BK guy is a total sh*thead). But why shouldn't they expect something more of their employees than the bare minimum for what they get paid? Why should employees not try to do their jobs such that the business doesn't go under?

I don't know, the whole "sticking it to the man" thing just seems so unproductive most of the time...


From: Arkham Asylum | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
charlieM
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6514

posted 22 March 2005 12:37 PM      Profile for charlieM     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gir Draxon:
Well faith, just be glad you didn't decide to make a career there if it's just too hard for you to walk around and move objects under 1kg.


So let me get this straight: YOU are the one who looks out for number one, but the person who manages a McDonald's cannot, in fact they must bend over backwards for your benefit out of the goodness of their hearts. Never mind everything they have to lose... Why don't you try putting yourself in the shoes of the person trying to make a living by attempting to make a profit from selling $1.50 burgers while their employees don't give a shit...


Yeah, i know it is weird that i go to work because I am looking out for me (number one). I know that most people go to work because they want big corporations to profit and therefore help society by making them extremely over-weight....(sarcasm).
Managers bend over backwords because they are looking out for number one. They need the employees to work hard so HEorSHE can bring home a pay check. Managers don;t go home at night and think to themselves "i love johnny, what a great guy. I'm so glad he works so hard, without him I wouldn't be eating this steak while he eats his TV dinner"
The managers at my mcdonalds are highschool drop-outs or dumbasses. They manage the mcdonalds because if you work there long enough you will become a manager.
Mcdonalds is no damn ma&pa diner like the place you work at. You are not NEARLY as expendable as me, if I don't come in for a shift they'll easily make up for it. And I am actually one of the best employees there because i do a satisfactory job.


From: hamilton | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
faith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4348

posted 22 March 2005 01:52 PM      Profile for faith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
gir Draxon your answer to my post was unnecessarily condescending. The indication that nothing over a kilo was lifted and that lazy little me had a problem with it assumed a lot about me on your part, and you would be dead wrong in your assumptions . I held that job for a year, and everyone that I worked with was under 23 except the(drunken)manager- you know why?- because young strong bodies with lots of energy were required for that job, it was hard physical labour and the cleaning required would be considered heavy work as well.
The problem I have with this kind of work , particularly now that I have children in the work force, is that people like you along with the employers constantly undervalue the work while profiting from it.
When I watch my daughter work in the coffee house she works in I am amazed at how efficient and diligently the young girls work. The people that own the place pay minimum or close to minimum wage and they hire young hard working pretty girls for a reason , they generate profits with their efficiency and bring in the customers with their smiles.
The employers seem to denigrate the rights of these young people with the excuse that they are inexperienced while constantly hiring a new crop of young people to replace the ones that leave. If young people are so undesirable as employees then why not hire older more experienced people? There are lots of moms looking for part time hours while the kids are in school , lots of people looking for a second job to make ends meet, so why not hire them?
I feel that the employers want these young people, that the vitality and strength of youth is exactly what they are looking for but to admit that you would have to admit to a symbiotic relationship where the employee was as important as the employer .Respect for workers might result in paying the worker what they are really worth instead of pretending that you're doing them some kind of favour in paying them the least amount you can legally get away with.

From: vancouver | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
charlieM
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6514

posted 22 March 2005 05:37 PM      Profile for charlieM     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by faith:
The people that own the place pay minimum or close to minimum wage and they hire young hard working pretty girls for a reason , they generate profits with their efficiency and bring in the customers with their smiles.

The people that own the place pay minimum or close to minimum wage and they hire young hard working pretty girls for a reason , they generate profits with their efficiency and bring in the customers with their smiles.

Which is what i was (minus the female part) until i realized i was being ripped off as an employee. I guess i'm too much of a marxist to work in a job like that.


From: hamilton | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca