The Worker Thread

[bannination]

I went back to work today and ended up having to do a bunch of shit other people should have already done. Do I have a case? Can I get a witness?

Furthermore, can we make it a class action?

[neoplacebo]

I went back to work today and ended up having to do a bunch of shit other people should have already done. Do I have a case? Can I get a witness?

Furthermore, can we make it a class action?

Nah, I think me and the boss are the only ones that have to deal with this type of thing. But he gets the pay raises. We work for a family owned company who consider Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, and Ted Cruz to be the vanguards of a new age. I bet they even subscribe to Palin's new neo tv channel. Were it not for all that, I think things could be a lot better and more lucrative.

[bannination]

I went back to work today and ended up having to do a bunch of shit other people should have already done. Do I have a case? Can I get a witness?

Furthermore, can we make it a class action?

Nah, I think me and the boss are the only ones that have to deal with this type of thing. But he gets the pay raises. We work for a family owned company who consider Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, and Ted Cruz to be the vanguards of a new age. I bet they even subscribe to Palin's new neo tv channel. Were it not for all that, I think things could be a lot better and more lucrative.

I'm so sorry, your life must be hell!

[neoplacebo]

It's actually pretty educational and entertaining, but also frustrating.

[O Really]

[ Are you aware of alternate proposals?

]

No, but I'm sure anything I thought up would have at least as good or better chance of being passed than this one, given the current make-up of Congress.

[O Really]

I doubt anything you thought up that would actually help workers would pass, either.

Nope. It wouldn't. Because most in Congress don't care about helping workers and most of those few who do don't necessarily see increasing ease of union membership as being helpful. But Congress isn't all the problem - maybe not even the biggest part of the problem. Nobody cares much about helping workers. Union membership in the private sector is about 6.5% (about 33% in public sector, mostly police, fire, and teachers). They (the unions and members) just aren't a strong enough force any more to have much impact other than in their get-out-the-vote efforts. The Dems don't have to work hard for at least nominal union support - what are they going to do, vote Republican? And the Republicans want unions to be illegal. And outside of Wal-Mart and the service workers, there isn't much clamor to bring in a union. Heck, there really isn't even much clamor in most Wal-Marts. And public sector unions are different in a lot of ways (some call it "collective begging") but they're held together more by the "brotherhood" or "blue line" attitude of the fire and police than by the advantages of unions themselves.

It's a dead horse.

On the other hand, fear of the evil ol' unions has certainly helped improve pay, benefits, and conditions for a lot of workers over the past few decades. They're almost more effective as a boogey-man than as a real force.

[bannination]

And outside of Wal-Mart and the service workers, there isn't much clamor to bring in a union.

I worked at walmart back in the day. I think unions would have been welcomed, at least at the store I worked at, but we were basically informed that if anyone even talks about the idea.... well there goes your job.

Who knows what it's like today, I dunno.

[O Really]

The True Story Of How One Man Shut Down American Commerce To Avoid Paying His Workers A Fair Wage

Unions were also "a dead horse" after Pullman crushed them, until . . .

Sorry - it's the topic of legislative help for workers that's a dead horse. Not necessarily unions themselves.

[O Really]

And outside of Wal-Mart and the service workers, there isn't much clamor to bring in a union.

I worked at walmart back in the day. I think unions would have been welcomed, at least at the store I worked at, but we were basically informed that if anyone even talks about the idea.... well there goes your job.

Who knows what it's like today, I dunno.

Probably still the same. Wal-Mart is a major violator of most any labor or employment law you can find. Not necessarily by edict out of corporate, but certainly violations rarely get store managers sacked. Still, if there was a broad-based strong support for unionization, they'd be successful in some stores. The model would be Borders Books who got unionized with an almost entirely online campaign. You also have to have enough people to <actually> get fired, file charges, get into the news. Not that there haven't been some, but not nearly enough. And the unions have to have a social game, which is pretty much non-existent for the Wal-Mart demographic. Think your typical Wally World shopper gives a rats ass about the faceless guy stocking the shelf? Or the check-out person that looks like she's running on island time?

[O Really]

Here's a good example of how Wally World works... http://racked.com/archives/2014/09/03/w ... s-code.php

They're now requiring the grunts to buy new "uniforms" to wear under their vests. The "uniforms" consist of a navy or white collared shirt and khaki or black pants, capris, or skirts. They're not reimbursing the grunts for the cost of the "uniform." Why is this not illegal? It's because the "uniform" they're requiring can be worn as normal clothing outside the store, has no company logo, and thus becomes a simple "dress standard" instead of the type of uniform that would be mandatory to reimburse and subject to minimum wage limitations on deduction. If, for example, they required the shirts to be like the "puffy shirt" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFRoXoh6aks with a logo, they could not require the employees to pay for it if the purchase of the shirt made the employee's actual wage for hours worked under the minimum wage. So if 30,000 grunts are at the minimum wage, no deduction could be made at all and Wally World would have to buy 30,000 puffy shirts. So they slither right past and get away with requiring the grunts to spend their own money on a required garment.

[bannination]

Here's a good example of how Wally World works... http://racked.com/archives/2014/09/03/w ... s-code.php

They're now requiring the grunts to buy new "uniforms" to wear under their vests. The "uniforms" consist of a navy or white collared shirt and khaki or black pants, capris, or skirts. They're not reimbursing the grunts for the cost of the "uniform." Why is this not illegal? It's because the "uniform" they're requiring can be worn as normal clothing outside the store, has no company logo, and thus becomes a simple "dress standard" instead of the type of uniform that would be mandatory to reimburse and subject to minimum wage limitations on deduction. If, for example, they required the shirts to be like the "puffy shirt" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFRoXoh6aks with a logo, they could not require the employees to pay for it if the purchase of the shirt made the employee's actual wage for hours worked under the minimum wage. So if 30,000 grunts are at the minimum wage, no deduction could be made at all and Wally World would have to buy 30,000 puffy shirts. So they slither right past and get away with requiring the grunts to spend their own money on a required garment.

Yep, had to do that years ago. We'll payroll deduct it!!! Wahoo!

[bannination]

Gee, if Wally World only sold navy or white collared shirt and khaki or black pants, capris, or skirts they could give them to the workers at the mere cost of the pittance they pay Asian child labor for making them before marking them up. Oh wait . . .

Nope full price, but we were told it was such a good deal..... It was like $15 for a polo. Needless to say, you didn't eat that week.

[O Really]

Petition: Home-Care Workers Can't Wait (for minimum wage and overtime pay)!

Don't kill granny.

The DOL says the regs will become effective 1/15/2015 - four months from now. But really, the differences in the revised regs and what has been in place since 1974 aren't that much. The only home care workers who have been exempt from MW have been those employed primarily as "companions." The definition of "companion" has been tightened to be more dependent on actual duties, such as nursing aides and other skilled work. I'm sure there are some, but I've never personally known of a real home services care provider who didn't pay their people minimum, unless they were a fly-by-night operation providing illegals.

[O Really]

I support the new revisions, but I think one thing that should be in consideration is that many if not most of the people in these jobs are not particularly skilled. They may sometimes cross the line from "companion" to "housekeeper" and they may keep track of medications and give baths, but it's the type of job one would expect to be toward the bottom of the wage ladder even without any discriminatory factors. In fact, it's a job that allows some people to gain employment when they might not qualify for much else. Problem is, there is no bright line between unskilled companion and skilled aide or housekeeper - it's more of a sliding scale.

But you can always expect the issue to come down to cost. If a person has one "granny" living with them and they only need in-home care for a few hours a day, or even 8 hours, it can be reasonably affordable at minimum wage. Eight hours five days a week would be $310/week. If Granny worked and is receiving social security, she can offset much of her own direct care expense. But if you need 24-hour care, then the monthly cost goes up to more than $5,500/month. Depending on where they live and what level of care they're willing to put Granny in, they can get her into a nursing home for that. And in so doing, put probably 5 home workers out of a job. That is ultimately what the third-party providers want - to put the individual workers out of business. If the individuals cost as much as the agencies or the nursing home, most will take the relative lower-hassle agency route. They in turn can blame the damgummint for making them pay so much to their workers, but can pass along to their victims...er clients who will eventually have no alternatives.

[O Really]

Nursing home workers should get more, too. It's sad. In theory, better pay, etc. will attract more qualified caregivers.

You think this is a third-party providers plot? Why wouldn't the new regs put pressure on them to increase compensation?

Better pay wouldn't attract more qualified people unless they changed the jobs themselves to require greater skills.

I don't think it's a plot, I'm just pointing out who benefits.

And the regs only require MW and OT - that's not much effect on places that pay, according to your link, a median over $10.

[O Really]

I wouldn't say that, as a general principle, better pay doesn't result in better people, but it's only because better pay allows you to be more picky. If one has poor recruiting or management practices, it doesn't necessarily work. But what I mean is that if a nursing home only assigns the aides to make beds, cart people back and forth, give baths, turn people over, and serve food, they don't need much skills. They need compassion, patience, etc., but not much skills. So they only need to pay enough to get people who can do what they require. And that's not much. But if they changed to job to use more skill, more knowledge, more training, then they'd have to pay more to get that - and those that paid best would get first choice. And the residents would benefit from better care. Chances of that happening? What's the futbol term for zip? Nil?

[O Really]

I wouldn't say that, as a general principle, better pay doesn't result in better people, but it's only because better pay allows you to be more picky...

Yep, across the board because better people start or stay.

"compassion, patience, etc." aren't skills? Plus, it's not just those tasks. They also constantly assess and intervene or get someone more skilled to intervene.

Baby steps for improvement, but I'll join the barricades with you if something stronger comes up.

You can attract better people with better pay/benefits/working conditions, but you only actually get them if you are good at recruitment and management. I can find you examples of high-paying companies with sorry employees. And the worst situation for an employer (or employee) is to have a guy who hates his job and gets paid too much to go somewhere else. And I can find you examples of companies that pay below average and have virtual lines outside the door of good people.

And I meant no offense, but I consider compassion, patience, etc. to be more in the line of personal qualities more than skills. I don't think it's something you can teach. But you have a point - having those attributes does make them better employees, and it is a trait you can select for and may need to pay more to get.

[O Really]

Most people think if you can change attitude, you can change behaviour. Sometimes. But also if you change behaviour and reinforce the behaviour you want, you can change attitude. Say you have a yeller, and you don't want your manager to yell at employees. You can say, 'If you yell, I'll fire your sorry ass," but if s/he thinks s/he's getting what s/he wants from employees by yelling, s/he'll keep at it. Tough love concept, all that... But if you catch him not yelling - giving an adult-style correction - and compliment her for it, and the employee actually performs better, eventually s/he'll get the idea and make a permanent change. Training dogs and training management isn't much different - they just get different kibbles.

[Mr.B]

Love it!

[Boatrocker]

Some people said Walmart would never change . . . .

I'm still sayin it. Let's wait for the other shoe.