Paying a "living wage" for menial jobs

I believe the phrase someone used for the ideal (from corporations' standpoint) was "hot and cold running workers."

Hypatian wrote:
Seth wrote:

Pets, kids, cars, and living alone all count as luxuries in this demographic -- just like vacation homes, yachts, memberships at country clubs, and a room of rare saltwater fish all count as luxuries for my demographic.

So you think more than 15% of the population* should live in households where these are luxuries? (* More than 15% because 15% is the proportion of American residents living below the poverty line, and working full time for Federal minimum wage puts you above that if you're a single-person household.)

I haven't made any value judgments in this thread. What percentage of Americans should live in households where a beach house and a Ferrari are luxuries?

Also note that the situation that article was describing is not the situation you are projecting onto the description:
Seth wrote:

The schedule comes out every two weeks, you write down your hours and work them.

NPR wrote:

"Workers can get called in at any time, and sometimes you only get a couple of hours of notice before you have to start work," says Wilder.

That's one quote, from one 18 year old kid, and is not referencing the actual study. Honestly it's a pretty misleading quote on NPR's part. I've been the recipient of and the placer of that frantic last minute call begging someone to cover a shift that has been suddenly vacated. It's extra hours for the recipient, and if they can make it, they just helped someone out of a jam. If they're in class or their other job, then the caller has to keep going down the list. It's just reality for this employment group.

Hypatian wrote:

Many of us in this thread [em]are[/em] making value judgements.

Thanks for writing the post I couldn't manage to phrase without coming off combative.

Seth wrote:
Hypatian wrote:
Seth wrote:

Pets, kids, cars, and living alone all count as luxuries in this demographic -- just like vacation homes, yachts, memberships at country clubs, and a room of rare saltwater fish all count as luxuries for my demographic.

So you think more than 15% of the population* should live in households where these are luxuries? (* More than 15% because 15% is the proportion of American residents living below the poverty line, and working full time for Federal minimum wage puts you above that if you're a single-person household.)

I haven't made any value judgments in this thread. What percentage of Americans should live in households where a beach house and a Ferrari are luxuries?

Many of us in this thread [em]are[/em] making value judgements. Specifically that people should not have to live the kind of life you can live when making these small amounts of money. That businesses that employ people for these small amounts of money are harming society.

Hypatian wrote:

Also note that the situation that article was describing is not the situation you are projecting onto the description: {...}

Seth wrote:

That's one quote, from one 18 year old kid, and is not referencing the actual study. Honestly it's a pretty misleading quote on NPR's part. I've been the recipient of and the placer of that frantic last minute call begging someone to cover a shift that has been suddenly vacated. It's extra hours for the recipient, and if they can make it, they just helped someone out of a jam. If they're in class or their other job, then the caller has to keep going down the list. It's just reality for this employment group.

Um. Read more closely, please. The quote wasn't from an 18 year old kid at all. Here's the context just prior to the quote, along with the quote:

Article wrote:

With so many people working in so many part-time positions, frustrations are growing, according to Michael Wilder, coordinator at Wisconsin Jobs Now, a union-supported group that advocates for low-wage workers.

"Workers can get called in at any time, and sometimes you only get a couple of hours of notice before you have to start work," says Wilder. "That makes it harder to deal with child care," as well as with transportation, doctor appointments and so on, he says.

As for the study that you say wasn't referenced:

Study wrote:

“On Call” shifts. Twenty percent of workers surveyed must always or often be available for “call-in” shifts. Call-in (or “on call”) shifts are days when workers are expected to call the store the morning of the shift or the night before to know if they are scheduled that day. Companies have increased the use of “call-in” shifts, so that they are not committed to paying workers unless they need them based on customer flow. This makes it harder for workers to arrange for childcare and other obligations. A worker at Club Monaco, a highend retailer, reported that she was often scheduled for just one guaranteed shift and four on-call shifts in a week. Surveyed workers reported that they were both on-call several days a week and that they rarely got work when they called. A part-time sales associate at the Children’s Place, who had frequently been given “call-in” shifts reported that she has only worked one call-in shift in 18 months of employment. Workers are increasingly expected to hold their availability for “call-in” shifts that don’t materialize into work, posing challenges for workers to make plans in advance or work second jobs.

and from a couple of paragraphs later:

Study wrote:

Schedule changes by the hour. Surveyed workers reported erratic scheduling that could change hourly, especially with the use of computerized or online scheduling systems that can track projected hourly sales and adjust labor costs accordingly.19 A JC Penney worker stated, “They switch the schedule around a lot and they expect that you look on the computer every half hour to know your schedule. They change my time and if you didn’t print your schedule that week as evidence of the change, they will disregard your complaint.” The practice of hour-to-hour scheduling adjustments means that workers are expected to be nearly always on call. An Old Navy worker shared that her manager
called her one evening around 7 pm asking her to come in at 6 am the next day. For students and parents, or people with two jobs, unstable schedules are particularly stressful.

Rezzy wrote:
Hypatian wrote:

Many of us in this thread [em]are[/em] making value judgements.

Thanks for writing the post I couldn't manage to phrase without coming off combative.

She's good at that.

Wow. You guys really hate poor people.

Sweet, I'm out. Feel free to have the last words.

Seth wrote:

Wow. You guys really hate poor people.

Whaaaaat?

Edit to add: I'm not sure how storming out contributes to the discussion. I think I've adequately demonstrated that a closer inspection of these materials does not, in fact, support your thesis that the thing they're talking about is nothing new--that people have simply gotten whiny about things that haven't changed, and which you yourself experienced when younger. I'd like to invite you to address that, if you wish, or to make further arguments supported by the text or by other sources.

For the record, I'd agree that it's not new--but it's not the same thing you're remembering. It's the kind of practice that was common before laws and regulations were put in place to enforce fair labor practices. It harks to the beginnings of the industrial era, when major population shifts to urban centers began, and it was at the time associated with a massive difference in power between laborers and employers, and with a permanent underclass laboring in extremely unsafe and unpleasant conditions for lack of any other choice.

It's the kind of treatment that was given to workers who showed up and fought daily for a chance at work. It's not the kind of thing that should be happening to people who are theoretically permanently employed by a business.

That environment, of course, lead to a great deal of social unrest as laborers sought to improve their situation. It led to the invention of such ideas as labor unions, and the political philosophy of socialism, and the economic philosophy of communism.

There are a great number of reasons for people to feel concerned with this situation, even if they [em]aren't[/em] sympathetic to the plight of the working poor. Those of us who are sympathetic? Well, we're more than a [em]little bit[/em] concerned.

Seth wrote:

Wow. You guys really hate poor people.

I love you so hard right now! I was feeling really bad about not being able to craft a respectful response to your posts that adequately touched all the misconceptions you were spewing. But now I don't. Don't ever change!
Kisses,
Rezzy.

I'm kind of blown away by Seth's conclusion.

Seth wrote:

Feel free to have the last words.

Man, this makes you sooooooo cool.

That is the most confusing response to having facts debunked I have ever seen

Maybe people here have gotten the wrong impression that I hate poor people or see them all as lazy and entitled. That's not true, and I recognize that there are plenty of people who are just using minimum wage jobs as a stepping stone.

I still see a place for minimum wage jobs as entry level work, and attempts to turn those jobs into middle wage family jobs is going to be counterproductive. Also, I have a problem with the leaders of cities like DC and now Seattle (the mayor just announced his support of demanding $15/hour for new big box stores) as easy political ploys that really don't address core issues. So now the WalMart cashier is getting $12-15/hour, but the Starbucks barista or Mickey D clerk is still making $8-9, the Apple Store and Best Buy clerks are making say $10-11, and the call center or sales reps are still making crap commissions. In DC, don't forget the many Congressional staffers who make less than $30K/year but on average work 60-80 hours a week without overtime. Congratulations, you've just stuck it to the big WalMart baddie and look good in the press, without passing legislation that will help a larger number of people.

I really respect Bombsfall's post, but he points to some things that politicians should IMHO be focusing on instead - fixing infrastructure, improving schools, etc. Tinkering with wages at the bottom seems to me be a lot less important than trying to fix things so people can move up to bigger and better jobs. The on-call situation is a bit disturbing. I'd need to know more before saying I think government should step in, but employees do deserve a certain number of hours if they're going to be constantly put on-call.

In conclusion, I'm not trying to brag or lord it over people. I just see plenty of people who have succeeded despite major difficulties, and still believe it's very possible. That's the American way - pursuit of happiness, not guarantee of happiness.

jdzappa wrote:

Also, I have a problem with the leaders of cities like DC and now Seattle (the mayor just announced his support of demanding $15/hour for new big box stores) as easy political ploys that really don't address core issues.

Do you have a problem with the leaders of cities like DC when they give tens of millions of dollars in subsidies to those big box stores? I mean, right in the article you linked:

Gray pressed Wal-Mart representatives at a Las Vegas retail conference two years ago to open a store at Skyland and then personally called Bill Simon, president and chief executive of Wal-Mart U.S., to ask that a store be expedited there.

Wal-Mart, the world’s largest retailer, complied. The company signed a commitment with McLean-based Rappaport Cos. to serve as the top retailer in Skyland Town Center, a mixed-use project with a town square and 476 apartments. Skyland, which could break ground next year, would be the largest project built in a D.C. neighborhood east of the Anacostia River, and the city has put up $40 million in subsidies and spent $28 million on other expenses to advance it.

I trust you don't hate poor people, but when you read an article like that and the thing that jumps out at you to complain about is the government passing laws to benefit poor people and not the government passing laws to benefit the owners of Wal-Mart, or when you lump the government raising the minimum wage with workers going on strike, it's a little uncomfortable.

I'm trying not to post much here because this hits close to home and I don't want to go off the deep end. I'm sure many here think of me as "blowing threads up," but most of that really is other posters reacting very negatively to something I said, usually something that's beside the point I'm trying to make.

That said, I'm with bombsfall here. We grew up poor, and it was never a forgone conclusion for me to have a good profession. There was always that chance I was going to end up with a permanent minimum wage job with no opportunities anywhere. Still true for many people. Even today I can feel a class ceiling in earning and professional advancement that I cannot surpass because I don't know the right people, move in the right circles, or just have enough money. Classism sucks.

jdzappa wrote:

In conclusion, I'm not trying to brag or lord it over people. I just see plenty of people who have succeeded despite major difficulties, and still believe it's very possible. That's the American way - pursuit of happiness, not guarantee of happiness.

You may not be, but plenty of people are. Do you remember the presidential campaign of one Herman Cain? To hear him speak, he was born with a bow and arrow in his hand, fully capable of walking, talking and rationale thought, stalking his prey for dinner, building his shelter within hours after leaving his mother's womb, and, within a few decades, becoming CEO of his own pizza chain and a multi-millionaire with not so much as a stitch of help from anyone one. And, by gosh, if he can do it, you can do it, too!

Phoenix Rev wrote:

And, by gosh, if he can do it, you can do it, too!

If only that were the message all of the time. Unfortunately it tends to be "if you didn't do it, there's something wrong with you and it's all your fault."

Phoenix Rev wrote:
jdzappa wrote:

In conclusion, I'm not trying to brag or lord it over people. I just see plenty of people who have succeeded despite major difficulties, and still believe it's very possible. That's the American way - pursuit of happiness, not guarantee of happiness.

You may not be, but plenty of people are. Do you remember the presidential campaign of one Herman Cain? To hear him speak, he was born with a bow and arrow in his hand, fully capable of walking, talking and rationale thought, stalking his prey for dinner, building his shelter within hours after leaving his mother's womb, and, within a few decades, becoming CEO of his own pizza chain and a multi-millionaire with not so much as a stitch of help from anyone one. And, by gosh, if he can do it, you can do it, too!

Along with the hilarious/terrifying infographic listing out all the luxuries American poor possess, including (among other things) refrigerators and ovens. I believe that happened during the election. Essentially, it tried to define implements that are vital for survival in the urban environment where most of us live as luxuries. Now it seems the basic components of existence are getting similar treatment. If things like the time to get an education for the sake of advancement, you know, that central tenet of working in America that you can improve your lot, gets redefined as a luxury, we have a way, way bigger problem in this country than even I thought.

LarryC wrote:

I'm trying not to post much here because this hits close to home and I don't want to go off the deep end. I'm sure many here think of me as "blowing threads up," but most of that really is other posters reacting very negatively to something I said, usually something that's beside the point I'm trying to make.

That said, I'm with bombsfall here. We grew up poor, and it was never a forgone conclusion for me to have a good profession. There was always that chance I was going to end up with a permanent minimum wage job with no opportunities anywhere. Still true for many people. Even today I can feel a class ceiling in earning and professional advancement that I cannot surpass because I don't know the right people, move in the right circles, or just have enough money. Classism sucks.

Ya. I could have written every word of this.

SpacePPoliceman wrote:

Along with the hilarious/terrifying infographic listing out all the luxuries American poor possess, including (among other things) refrigerators and ovens. I believe that happened during the election. Essentially, it tried to define implements that are vital for survival in the urban environment where most of us live as luxuries. Now it seems the basic components of existence are getting similar treatment. If things like the time to get an education for the sake of advancement, you know, that central tenet of working in America that you can improve your lot, gets redefined as a luxury, we have a way, way bigger problem in this country than even I thought.

That plays out here in Phoenix all the time in the summer. When we hit temperatures in the 110 degree range you inevitably get people complaining about local governments providing air conditioned shelter for poor people. There is lots of talk about how people survived for generations without air conditioning, at which time I point out that human beings survived for generations without indoor plumbing, antibiotics, vaccines, etc.

Oddly, but not surprisingly, I never seem to get a response to that.

I've worked a lot of minimum wage jobs: I've cleaned hotel rooms, worked in fast food, had several retail jobs, and also had periods in my life where I couldn't manage to get work because either no one was hiring, or they were, but I didn't have that all important piece of paper from a university (that whole Catch-22 of not being able to get a job because you have no experience, but no one will give you a break so you can get the experience was also a real problem pre-piece of paper).

I'm the first in my family (immediate and extended) to want out of the cycle of low-paying jobs badly enough to get a university degree - so I put myself in about $30k of debt to get my degree. And after university, I ended up taking more low-paying jobs (sometimes a couple at a time) to pay off the student loans and pay my rent (never less than $400 a month anywhere I've ever lived)/hydro/phone bill/share of groceries etc. I had no kids, no car, and I didn't buy much in the way of luxuries like travel, or brand-name clothes or anything else. My degree opened a few doors, but nothing like I had expected. The jobs on offer were still minimum wage, or run by temp agencies who made it impossible to work full-time at anything. I got out of the cycle through nepotism - my boyfriend at the time got me hired where he worked as a programmer. I scanned in documents. It wasn't my dream job, but it sure beat retail and the pay was about $5 more an hour.

It seemed a little ludicrous that I could do less skilled work for more money (getting a large fast food order correct is far more complicated than scanning paper), but you can bet I took the job very happily. And when they needed more people to do what I was doing, I tried to get other people I knew who were struggling into the open positions.

I never exactly minded the retail and fast-food jobs I worked in and of themselves (though I'll admit to not loving them), but I sure minded the rubbish pay considering the unstable and long hours, some of the well-heeled customers who thought a minimum wage worker could be treated poorly because they are working a minimum wage job, and managers who seemed to think that we were all tireless automatons with no humanity worth respecting.

I've now had the experience of good jobs that pay quite well (I work as a technical writer), but I didn't get there until my early 30's - and by then, for many people, that's far too late; they already have families they are struggling to support, they already haven't had time or money to go back to school, and they are already up to their eyeballs in huge debt (and debt that is likely for basic things like shelter, clothing, and food).

And even from where I am now, it's a quick slide back down if I'm not diligent about keeping my skills current, or if the market decides that my skills are unnecessary, or that the work can be done more cheaply overseas - and I'm already seeing that come about in some departments of the companies I've done work for.

clover wrote:
LarryC wrote:

I'm trying not to post much here because this hits close to home and I don't want to go off the deep end. I'm sure many here think of me as "blowing threads up," but most of that really is other posters reacting very negatively to something I said, usually something that's beside the point I'm trying to make.

That said, I'm with bombsfall here. We grew up poor, and it was never a forgone conclusion for me to have a good profession. There was always that chance I was going to end up with a permanent minimum wage job with no opportunities anywhere. Still true for many people. Even today I can feel a class ceiling in earning and professional advancement that I cannot surpass because I don't know the right people, move in the right circles, or just have enough money. Classism sucks.

Ya. I could have written every word of this.

But you had someone else do it for you. Pfst. Sooo typical.

:-p

Salon has an article on how Wal-Mart has 80% of its employees are on food stamps, costing taxpayers $1.02 billion.

http://www.salon.com/2013/07/18/dont...

I've tried composing a bunch of replies to this topic and they've all been rambling piles of suck. This is the best I can do.

I'm a farmer. I make pennies. I love my job. It's hard work at times (spring, most of the summer, fall) and not so hard at times (winter, a few weeks of the summer), but it's extremely fullfilling. I feel like my job is important, for me and the world in general--I make food--but people, me included, don't want to pay a lot for the food they eat, which ends up meaning that the folks that produce the food don't get paid much. I've been getting by so far, but this year has had some issues that are making me think about whether this is something I can do long term. I really want to do this long term.

I'm definitely in the camp of paying a living wage for all jobs. I'm having a hard time articulating why so I'm just going to dump my words here and see if they make sense. It's fair. It can make people happy in that it gets rid of the stress associated with wondering if that next paycheck will cover this month's bills. Happy people are better workers. Happy people are healthier. Happy people can use the time they used to worry to work on getting a better job, or, if they like their job just fine, they can use that time to be happy.

I guess that sounds naive, but I'm just using myself as an example. I dream about making the salary I did while I was teaching English before I became a farmer. For the area where I live, it was a perfect wage for paying expenses and having some left over every month for saving or Steam sales or a trip to the mainland. I just feel that a living wage is a fair thing to give people.

Still a rambling pile of suck, but I'm not going to delete this one (it's the shortest so far).

Yeah, my dream is to open a boardgamin' cafe. It'll never make me rich. It might make me lose a lot of money if I don't play my cards right. If it allowed me to make enough to live on, and I was able to pay my employees enough to live on, it would be a dream come true, I'm just not sure how to make that possible.

IMAGE(http://25.media.tumblr.com/80e04d84d5182b5db64ccd9569c1ccc3/tumblr_mqazbgsibz1soxlgxo1_1280.jpg)

And, let's not forget that when you are a celebrity chef making millions of dollars, well, you need to have more...

All at your employees' expense, of course.

Tipped service workers at Mario Batali’s eight New York City restaurants, including Babbo, Bar Jamon, Casa Mono, Del Posto, Esca, Lupa, Otto, and Tarry Lodge, have settled their wage and hour class and collective action for $5,250,000, according to a stipulation filed in federal court.

The workers alleged that the Batali restaurants violated the FLSA and NYLL by: (1) unlawfully deducting the equivalent of four to five percent of each shift’s wine or alcoholic beverage sales from the tip pool; (2) unlawfully taking a “tip credit” and paying the service staff less than the minimum wage; and (3) failing to pay employees spread-of-hours pay when they worked more than ten hours in a day.

Gee, what a guy!

Phoenix Rev wrote:

And, let's not forget that when you are a celebrity chef making millions of dollars, well, you need to have more...

All at your employees' expense, of course.

Tipped service workers at Mario Batali’s eight New York City restaurants, including Babbo, Bar Jamon, Casa Mono, Del Posto, Esca, Lupa, Otto, and Tarry Lodge, have settled their wage and hour class and collective action for $5,250,000, according to a stipulation filed in federal court.

The workers alleged that the Batali restaurants violated the FLSA and NYLL by: (1) unlawfully deducting the equivalent of four to five percent of each shift’s wine or alcoholic beverage sales from the tip pool; (2) unlawfully taking a “tip credit” and paying the service staff less than the minimum wage; and (3) failing to pay employees spread-of-hours pay when they worked more than ten hours in a day.

Gee, what a guy!

As someone who worked in the food service industry for a number of years that is practically all restaurants' SOP. Batali is no more evil than any other restaurant owner.

Trainwreck wrote:
Phoenix Rev wrote:

And, let's not forget that when you are a celebrity chef making millions of dollars, well, you need to have more...

All at your employees' expense, of course.

Tipped service workers at Mario Batali’s eight New York City restaurants, including Babbo, Bar Jamon, Casa Mono, Del Posto, Esca, Lupa, Otto, and Tarry Lodge, have settled their wage and hour class and collective action for $5,250,000, according to a stipulation filed in federal court.

The workers alleged that the Batali restaurants violated the FLSA and NYLL by: (1) unlawfully deducting the equivalent of four to five percent of each shift’s wine or alcoholic beverage sales from the tip pool; (2) unlawfully taking a “tip credit” and paying the service staff less than the minimum wage; and (3) failing to pay employees spread-of-hours pay when they worked more than ten hours in a day.

Gee, what a guy!

As someone who worked in the food service industry for a number of years that is practically all restaurants' SOP. Batali is no more evil than any other restaurant owner.

Yep. The logic is that if you're making tips - which you should be technically claiming on your tax return - they can pay you less than minimum wage, and your tips will cover the difference. It is fair to say that in NYC, even in a sh*tty dive bar, you can bring in a couple hundred bucks a night in tips.

The problem wasn't the fully legal practice of paying a reduced wage to people who are expected to make up the difference in tips, the problem was not doing it in the way that is required by law:

Primarily the problem was the employer taking part of the tips. The second part, about illegally paying the reduced wage, appears to be because it's illegal to do that if you are interfering with tips.

The third part is separate: in New York if the time between when a worker first works and when they last work for a given employer during the day (their "spread-of-hours") is ten hours or more, the employer is legally required to pay them for an extra hour at minimum wage. (That's at minimum wage, even if their normal wage is different.)

Laws, shmaws. They should revel in the honor of working for Signore Batali!