Is The Fight for the $15/Hour Minimum Wage Dead?

[metalhead]

You're strawmanning again. It's getting tiresome.

Commodore gets the food he pays for, only sometimes he has to ask twice. I'm not saying people should take what they get in deference to low wage employees. That is quite a separate thing. Of course one should point out the mistake and ask for it to be corrected if they are so inclined.

My point is that understanding the circumstances and disparate power between these employees and their employers ought to lead to empathy and understanding, rather than calling them "rubbish." The whole idea of a work ethic is grade school horse <snip>. People can and should and do work for exactly as much as they feel they are getting out of their employment. Working for the sake of work because some Puritan <snip> thinks work is its own virtue is absolute insanity.

 

[Hygro]

My point is that understanding the circumstances and disparate power between these employees and their employers ought to lead to empathy and understanding, rather than calling them "rubbish."

I'll take it a bit further, it's not even empathy, it's just math. Everyone has leverage and is responsible for using their leverage, but not all leverage is equal so asking one person to use their leverage over another adds to the inequality.

Say half a company's costs are labor, and revenues equal expenses (they just grow and shrink with profits). If a company boosts overall wages by 20%, reducing the error rate let's say from 50% to 0%, but that only get's them 5% more revenue since most people aren't going to change their fast food habits on error rates, they won't do it.

Meanwhile if to give a damn at the same wages requires the average employee to drink another cup of coffee a day means lower quality sleep and a crash later on, cutting into their leisure/growth time, the cost to them is huge and the benefit is.... zero.

In this case it's the demand of the customers that needs to change to change the equation: the error rate has to matter more. If the error rate matters more, then the onus is on the company to make sure their arrangement leads to a system of non-error. The final onus is on the employee.

There could be other cases where it's a different arrangement of burden.

 

[JollyRoger]

Sometimes people just need to take some responsibility for being rubbish and stop trying to blame it on "the system" or whatever.

Absolutely. If an employer is running his business so incompetently that $15/hr is a dealbreaker, then he should just admit his shortcomings and not put the blame elsewhere.

 

[aelf]

OK, but then it seems like we are talking about different things... You said: I want to discuss this with you aelf... but I don't want to do the thing where you claim that you weren't saying what it seems like you're saying... and then the whole conversation devolves into you saying I'm missing your point... So in that vein... my interpretation was that when you said "moderates" you were talking about individuals who self describe as political moderates, from a United States perspective. When you said "conservative" I thought you meant conservative/Republican, again, from the United States perspective. So when you said that they are really "conservatives" underneath the outer layers, I interpreted that to mean that you were saying that people who call themselves moderates are really mostly like Republicans ideologically, and Republicans want things to stay the way they currently are (ie the status quo).

Finally, when you said "usually", I took that to be a clear indication that you were talking on an individual level, rather than invoking the "textbook definition" of "conservative". Because if "status quo" is the textbook definition of "conservative", then a conservative can't "usually" be in favor of the status quo, they would always be in favor of it, by definition. On the other hand, if by conservative, you meant "Republican", then the "usually" qualifier would make more sense. I mean, if your point was "moderate = conservative and conservative = status quo", then fine... I wouldn't have responded to that though, because it's not saying much, right?

Why do I always have to stick to the US perspective? I'm not allowed to situationally use a term and mean something else that the term can actually mean?

And I highly doubt that moderates think of themselves as defenders of the status quo. Maybe defenders of reason. But they usually wind up being defenders of the status quo - that's my point. And in that regard, they can be perfectly aligned with the other type of conservatives on quite a few issues.

 

[Lexicus]

Why do I always have to stick to the US perspective? I'm not allowed to situationally use a term and mean something else that the term can actually mean?

And I highly doubt that moderates think of themselves as defenders of the status quo. Maybe defenders of reason. But they usually wind up being defenders of the status quo - that's my point. And in that regard, they can be perfectly aligned with the other type of conservatives on quite a few issues.

Well, without knowing exactly what you mean, I think I have an idea of some of the posters you have in mind, and I think you're absolutely right.

 

[metalhead]

I'll take it a bit further, it's not even empathy, it's just math. Everyone has leverage and is responsible for using their leverage, but not all leverage is equal so asking one person to use their leverage over another adds to the inequality.

Say half a company's costs are labor, and revenues equal expenses (they just grow and shrink with profits). If a company boosts overall wages by 20%, reducing the error rate let's say from 50% to 0%, but that only get's them 5% more revenue since most people aren't going to change their fast food habits on error rates, they won't do it.

Meanwhile if to give a damn at the same wages requires the average employee to drink another cup of coffee a day means lower quality sleep and a crash later on, cutting into their leisure/growth time, the cost to them is huge and the benefit is.... zero.

In this case it's the demand of the customers that needs to change to change the equation: the error rate has to matter more. If the error rate matters more, then the onus is on the company to make sure their arrangement leads to a system of non-error. The final onus is on the employee.

That makes sense. Generally, the amount of physical and mental energy one expends at their job has a direct impact on the quality of their life outside that job. If there is no gain to getting orders right as close to 100% of the time as possible, why would one spend the extra time and energy to do so? It's going to make them more tired when they get home, and have less energy and desire to devote to other obligations or leisure.

Also, above someone raised the issue of advancement. The problem with that is that employers will commonly use that carrot to get extra work out of employees and never actually intend on advancing them. Without any set policy on advancement, there should be no reasonable expectation for an employee that hard work will get them ahead. So often, it simply doesn't work out that way.

 

[rah]

If there is no gain to getting orders right as close to 100% of the time as possible, why would one spend the extra time and energy to do so?

If there is no possible gain then management sucks and is failing at their job.
At one place I worked I filled every one of my entry level programming positions from the pool of near minimum wage call center telephone staff. I always looked for those with minimum errors, good attitude and the potential to train.
Any management team that doesn't look to reward front line troops for performance will end up with an even higher turnover rate. Every percentage point cuts from the bottom line. And you get a greater percentage of success when you hire from a pool you know than from a 20 minute interview. Now I know at a fast food restaurant there aren't as many opportunities but the same principle applies. Reward the best or replace more often and settle for mediocrity.

 

[warpus]

That's an expectation, not an obligation.

You still don't get the balance of power here. The employer has all of the power. Therefore, the employer also has all of the responsibility for how employees do their jobs. I've seen it plenty of times, an employee gets fired for not doing their job, and the employee will still get paid for the time the employee is present and clocked in. The only actual obligation is to show up.

When you get hired to make pancakes, you are obligated to make pancakes, not just sit around watching other people make pancakes. When you get hired to paint walls, you are obligated to paint walls, not just stand around doing nothing.

Yeah maybe it's all rebellious and crap to pretend that a company hiring you means that you are only obligated to show up. When you get hired you are signing on to a list of obligations - sweep the floors, bake a pie, blow a senator.. No job I have ever heard of tells people "just show up, that's all you are obligated to do". Maybe in some fantasy land that's all you are required to do when you start working somewhere, but I would love to see a job posting that claims that your only obligation is to show up. Unless it's a movie extra type role that just isn't happening anywhere, employers aren't idiots, they're going to place more obligations on you than that.

 

[rah]

AMEN. I don't care what they're paying you.

And I will have to agree with mh that the employer does have all the power.
Unions used to provide a proper balance, but with corruption and over playing their advantage when they had it had lowered their effectiveness.

 

[metalhead]

When you get hired to make pancakes, you are obligated to make pancakes, not just sit around watching other people make pancakes. When you get hired to paint walls, you are obligated to paint walls, not just stand around doing nothing.

Yeah maybe it's all rebellious and crap to pretend that a company hiring you means that you are only obligated to show up. When you get hired you are signing on to a list of obligations - sweep the floors, bake a pie, blow a senator.. No job I have ever heard of tells people "just show up, that's all you are obligated to do". Maybe in some fantasy land that's all you are required to do when you start working somewhere, but I would love to see a job posting that claims that your only obligation is to show up. Unless it's a movie extra type role that just isn't happening anywhere, employers aren't idiots, they're going to place more obligations on you than that.

I don't know why you keep belaboring this point. You're quite wrong about this, of course. You are obligated to do nothing, at the risk of getting fired for not doing anything. It is up to the employer to figure out who isn't doing the work they are being paid for, it's not on the employee to motivate his or her self to do anything. A manager is, of course, free to fire someone at will, which is all the motivation most workers need to work a base level of competence. But if an employee gets away with not working, that is the manager's fault. The employee has no obligation to work. That's the inevitable conclusion one reaches from the imbalance of power.

If there is no possible gain then management sucks and is failing at their job.
At one place I worked I filled every one of my entry level programming positions from the pool of near minimum wage call center telephone staff. I always looked for those with minimum errors, good attitude and the potential to train.
Any management team that doesn't look to reward front line troops for performance will end up with an even higher turnover rate. Every percentage point cuts from the bottom line. And you get a greater percentage of success when you hire from a pool you know than from a 20 minute interview. Now I know at a fast food restaurant there aren't as many opportunities but the same principle applies. Reward the best or replace more often and settle for mediocrity.

Exactly. This is the whole point in a nutshell. Managers basically accept the low level of performance they get from minimum wage employees, in exchange for being able to pay them minimum wage. Somewhere along the line, they decided the low wages and the low job performance they get in exchange is better for the bottom line than paying employees a better wage and expecting better work. Perhaps they are correct about that, I don't know, I've never run a fast food restaurant. But if both managers and employees know this is how the relationship functions, then the customers should expect it as well. And really, I think most do.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Why do I always have to stick to the US perspective?

Cause Murica! F'Yeah! Comin' again to save the mutha...Seriously though, you don't. I just want to have a clear understanding of what perspective you're using. I've noticed that this issue comes up a lot in your debates, where your meaning seems clear (and possibly erroneous) but then you say that "you meant something else that the term can actually mean"... and the whole discussion becomes muddled. In any case, thanks for clarifying, your meaning seems clear enough to me now. You are basically saying "moderate = conservative = status quo". If that's a correct interpretation then I feel comfortable discussing this without misunderstanding you.

Ironically, I disagree with you that moderates don't see themselves as status quo. I would say that claiming to be a moderate is exactly the status quo, or as close to being a status quo advocate as anything I can conceive of. I mean no party calls themselves the "status quo party" right? The irony is that despite this disagreement, I obviously agree with part of your equation... moderate=status quo. And from that perspective, if we use the "dictionary definition" of conservative as you suggest, then your equation of "moderate = conservative = status quo" seems spot on to me. My point then, is simply if we instead define "conservative" as "Republican", then the comparison becomes incorrect (putting aside the whole issue of "status quo of the past"). Do we at least agree on that?

Now I know at a fast food restaurant there aren't as many opportunities but the same principle applies. Reward the best or replace more often and settle for mediocrity.

Exactly. And we already know the bolded approach has been adopted by McD's/fast food (in the US at least), so can we then agree that they have blatantly opted for "mediocrity" (ie sucking), and therefore it is unreasonable to expect excellent performance/service/"work-ethic" from their employees. Right?

 

[BvBPL]

Advocating individual self-improvement only works if mechanisms for self-improvement exist, and in much of the service and retail sector, they don't.

Advocating for individual self-improvement is always a good idea because the individual always has the power to affect his own situation. The effect may not always achieve the end goal, but the effort is always possible. That isn’t the case with addressing structural concerns or even other tacks like collective bargaining that rest on variables outside the individual.

To wit, it is always worthwhile to advocate for self-improvement because the individual always has the power to improve himself whereas he doesn’t always have the power to affect the issue in other means. It is not a question of whether or not it will achieve an ultimate end, but whether or not it is within the power of the individual. Self-improvement always is and because it is always possible it should always be advocated.

And I highly doubt that moderates think of themselves as defenders of the status quo. Maybe defenders of reason. But they usually wind up being defenders of the status quo - that's my point. And in that regard, they can be perfectly aligned with the other type of conservatives on quite a few issues.

Whoa man. That fact like, totally blew my mind. I never thought about it that way.
Hey, did you know that when it is mostly sunny that there are still clouds in the sky?
Or that when a theater is half full then its seats are split between occupied and empty?
It’s almost like when you describe something as being in the middle of a continuum that it contains elements of both sides.
That’s some deep thoughts, man. You’d give Jack Handey a run for his money.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Whoa man. That fact like, totally blew my mind. I never thought about it that way.
Hey, did you know that when it is mostly sunny that there are still clouds in the sky?
Or that when a theater is half full then its seats are split between occupied and empty?
It’s almost like when you describe something as being in the middle of a continuum that it contains elements of both sides.
That’s some deep thoughts, man. You’d give Jack Handey a run for his money.

That's a little harsh... especially since I think you know that 's not what he meant (ie conservatives share some views with moderates). As I said, I think his meaning was clear... moderates and conservatives are the same thing, and both are the same as the status quo. Again, as I said before, I don't think its a particularly profound point, to your point, its obvious... but that assumes the "textbook" definition of conservative. If we use the US version of "conservative" ie Republican-leaning, then the issue is more controversial. I tend to disagree that Republicans favor the current 2008-2016 status quo.

 

[Traitorfish]

But this whole thing started when a customer was told they have no right to expect to actually get what they paid for, and that the individuals directly responsible for this failure of service should be exempt from criticism.

You aren't buying the service from the worker, though. You're buying it from the firm, who in turn buys labour from the worker. The deal the worker has struck is to supply labour of a kind and quality that the firm expects, or, realistically, that he can get away with. (If employers expect workers to be naturally enthusiastic and conscientious, they wouldn't have to draft such elaborate standards documents.) The deal you have struck with the firm is that they will supply you with services of a kind and quality you expect, to which end they have hired the labourer. That you've become somehow confused about this process, that the giant golden arches over the front door are not enough to remind you of the middle-man, is not the workers' problem, and while he might sympathise with your debilitating plight, the contract he is doing the respectable minimum to comply with says nothing about consoling you.

Nobody's talking about being expected to pull a 10 hour shift when you turn up expecting it to be 5, or that the workers should collapse with exhaustion at the end of the day and just be glad to be thrown a bean. But if you're turning up, dealing with customers and bagging up some food anyway, then how much extra valuable labour are you actually expending to try and ensure that you actually bag up the correct food the majority of the time? You're not really saving yourself any real effort by not doing that, you're just being utterly useless for the benefit of nobody, least of all yourself. I can't understand why anyone would want to champion someone that feckless as some sort of poster child for the downtrodden masses. They're not engaging in some noble effort to stick it to "the man", they're just displaying a complete lack of effort to be a competent human being.

Workers aren't human beings. They're workers. If they were human beings, they wouldn't have to do what somebody else tells them, and that's a liberty they explicitly forgo when they step onto the shop floor. That's capitalism, that's the point. You want human beings, join a commune.

When you get hired to make pancakes, you are obligated to make pancakes, not just sit around watching other people make pancakes. When you get hired to paint walls, you are obligated to paint walls, not just stand around doing nothing.

Obligated by what? The terms of employment, I suppose, but that's just a document, it has no moral force. If employers don't pay a person more than they absolutely have to, we are asking, on what grounds should the employer expect the worker to put in more effort than they absolutely have to?

Advocating for individual self-improvement is always a good idea because the individual always has the power to affect his own situation. The effect may not always achieve the end goal, but the effort is always possible. The terms of employment, I suppose, but that's just a document, it has no moral force. Why, we are asking, should we expect people to do any more work than they have to, if we don't expect employers to pay any more money than they have to?

To wit, it is always worthwhile to advocate for self-improvement because the individual always has the power to improve himself whereas he doesn’t always have the power to affect the issue in other means. It is not a question of whether or not it will achieve an ultimate end, but whether or not it is within the power of the individual. Self-improvement always is and because it is always possible it should always be advocated.

That's all very lofty, but how do you phrase it in a way which convinces somebody making $7 an hour that they should work twice as hard for the promise of $7 an hour and the pat on the head? The promise of spiritual ennoblement might not swing it.

 

[Lexicus]

the individual always has the power to affect his own situation.

This is a garbage philosophy designed to make people more comfortable with slavery.

 

[rah]

Even McDs gives raises to employees that perform. If you don't want raises, don't do more that you can get away with.

I was a dishwasher at a restaurant when I was young, and worked hard at it for crap wages. I got a raise and eventually got promoted to a line cook. The hard effort was recognized. And again, if it's not, Management is not doing it's job. (unless as pointed out earlier, they choose that as the corporate strategy.)

 

[BvBPL]

That's all very lofty, but how do you phrase it in a way which convinces somebody making $7 an hour that they should work twice as hard for the promise of $7 an hour and the pat on the head? The promise of spiritual ennoblement might not swing it.

Ah, that’s a super difficult part. It’s hard enough to motivate oneself, let alone motivate other people. Particularly other people who don’t have a prior relationship with the party to be motivated. Especially when it could take a few trips around the carousel before one gets a chance at the brass ring. Numerous careers and whole industries have been built up around trying to motivate people.

One way to do it is through a guided decision tree. Ask:

• Do you want to see positive change in your life? (presumably the answer is “yes.”)
• What forces could effect that change? (listing the actors, factors, distractors, malefactors, etc that could make a difference in one’s life. Lead with individual improvement.)
• What power does the person have to use that force to his advantage? (ie, the probability of being able to use the relevant factor to the benefit of the person.)
• How effective will the change in the relevant force be to the person?

Expressed algebraically, you can multiply the potential to use a force by the effectiveness of that use for each force. The resulting product can be used as a means to demonstrate in which sphere a person should excerpt himself to reach the goal he wants because the higher the result, the more effective the person’s effort will be in achieving the goal. In that analysis, individual improvement will (near as enough) always lead because a person always has the potential to change himself and improve himself. As such, any calculus of where people should excerpt themselves to achieve a positive change in their lives should include self-improvement.

So that’s one logos-heavy way to convince people of the importance of personal improvement as a means to obtain a positive change. I’m sure people could come up with other ones as well, but this utility of effort one is a favorite of mine.

 

[rah]

That's basically the managers job. If he/she is incapable of it, get new managers (assuming you're paying them enough to motivate them )

 

[Lexicus]

That's a little harsh... especially since I think you know that 's not what he meant (ie conservatives share some views with moderates). As I said, I think his meaning was clear... moderates and conservatives are the same thing, and both are the same as the status quo. Again, as I said before, I don't think its a particularly profound point, to your point, its obvious... but that assumes the "textbook" definition of conservative. If we use the US version of "conservative" ie Republican-leaning, then the issue is more controversial. I tend to disagree that Republicans favor the current 2008-2016 status quo.

Yes. But I think moderate isn't the best word @aelf could have used it- it's more like people who believe they're apolitical. The key phrase was 'defenders of Reason.' They'd not even go so far as to say their views were 'moderate'- just 'logical' or something similar. It's this refusal to investigate their own premises that causes them to be functionally reactionary a lot of the time.

 

[Traitorfish]

Ah, that’s a super difficult part. It’s hard enough to motivate oneself, let alone motivate other people. Particularly other people who don’t have a prior relationship with the party to be motivated. Especially when it could take a few trips around the carousel before one gets a chance at the brass ring. Numerous careers and whole industries have been built up around trying to motivate people.

One way to do it is through a guided decision tree. Ask:

• Do you want to see positive change in your life? (presumably the answer is “yes.”)
• What forces could effect that change? (listing the actors, factors, distractors, malefactors, etc that could make a difference in one’s life. Lead with individual improvement.)
• What power does the person have to use that force to his advantage? (ie, the probability of being able to use the relevant factor to the benefit of the person.)
• How effective will the change in the relevant force be to the person?

Expressed algebraically, you can multiply the potential to use a force by the effectiveness of that use for each force. The resulting product can be used as a means to demonstrate in which sphere a person should excerpt himself to reach the goal he wants because the higher the result, the more effective the person’s effort will be in achieving the goal. In that analysis, individual improvement will (near as enough) always lead because a person always has the potential to change himself and improve himself. As such, any calculus of where people should excerpt themselves to achieve a positive change in their lives should include self-improvement.

So that’s one logos-heavy way to convince people of the importance of personal improvement as a means to obtain a positive change. I’m sure people could come up with other ones as well, but this utility of effort one is a favorite of mine.

All this requires the person believing that they live in a just and rational world, in which hard work and skill are consistently recognised and rewarded. It requires a reliable mechanism by which "self-improvement", which I really can't believe is an appropriate way to describe getting really good at stuffing fries into a paper bag, translates into the utility you attribute to it. Is that the case, or perhaps more importantly, does that seem to be the case to people in low-wage jobs? (It certainly didn't appear that way to me. Doesn't appear that way to me, I should say; I work in an office now, but I barely make any more than when I worked in a supermarket. White collar proles: guess we're a thing now.)

Capitalism, at the bottom-end, is arbitrary and erratic, a blind idiot-god who rules by terror. It's a system in which all the hard work and enthusiasm can be annihilated by an illness or a pregnancy or simply a new piece of equipment that does your job better than you, even at $7 an hour. Asking the working class to adhere to the logic of a middle class with a fundamentally different experience of work- a middle class which can't even maintain its own position, which resembles the working class more than anything else because of its own relentless proletarianisation- seems willfully naive.