"Sorry we are closed nobody wants to work here anymore due to government handouts"

[Zan15]

Good to know.

But better ROI doesn't mean there isn't an ROI at all. There has to be some benefit to the company that makes it worth keeping their own delivery services.

Oh yeah, no arguments here. In many, MANY, cases middle management is useless. Some companies or organizations are so large that they need them, though.

Oh the attempts to try to outsource the driver/trucks has failed many times over.

Sure there is a ROI but its very minor because of the growing cost of drivers and the equipment.

The Warehouse labor is responsible for breaking down and processing so much of the delivered goods from bulk to smaller shipments that they are a huge return on the investment. We even refuse to hire drivers who will not also participate in warehouse work when they are waiting for a load.

Even two of our supervisors/managers do more warehouse work then actual "management work" by design. it actually allowed us to pay them less and get more of a return out of them.

[Glorious Leader]

Read the rest of the post. I did talk about how the current definition of "fair" is garbage, which is exactly the problem. I agree with you here.

I'll amend by statement by saying "the employees they keep."



The concept I was talking about also extends to positions that aren't minimum wage jobs. A corporation wouldn't be able to offer an upper manager position, that would typically get paid 6 figures, minimum wage and expect anyone to even apply for it.

And while it's not much of a choice, it is still unfortunately their choice. That's exactly why this is such a huge problem because people accept these positions and those wages willingly (no one is literally forcing them to take these jobs), so businesses continue to offer them at that wage. And the cycle continues. The only way to break the cycle is by someone other than the business to step in and shake it up because no business is going to, out of the goodness of their heart, take a MASSIVE loss in earnings to suddenly give all of their exploited workers a livable wage.

Its the notion that "want " to pay a fair wage thats under dispute not the fact that whatever is considered "fair" is out of whack. Beyond that the reduction of human labor to simple wage labor is also quite problematic itself

- - - Updated - - -

Read the rest of the post. I did talk about how the current definition of "fair" is garbage, which is exactly the problem. I agree with you here.

I'll amend by statement by saying "the employees they keep."



The concept I was talking about also extends to positions that aren't minimum wage jobs. A corporation wouldn't be able to offer an upper manager position, that would typically get paid 6 figures, minimum wage and expect anyone to even apply for it.

And while it's not much of a choice, it is still unfortunately their choice. That's exactly why this is such a huge problem because people accept these positions and those wages willingly (no one is literally forcing them to take these jobs), so businesses continue to offer them at that wage. And the cycle continues. The only way to break the cycle is by someone other than the business to step in and shake it up because no business is going to, out of the goodness of their heart, take a MASSIVE loss in earnings to suddenly give all of their exploited workers a livable wage.

The particular notion that its also a choice is laughable. If you were held at gun point and offered the choice your life or your wallet well you would still have a choice. The quality of choice thats offered is the crucial analysis.

[Katchii]

Its the notion that "want " to pay a fair wage thats under dispute not the fact that whatever is considered "fair" is out of whack. Beyond that the reduction of human labor to simple wage labor is also quite problematic itself

We're in agreement on this concept, for the most part.

I don't disagree with your points. I'm just saying I don't think businesses will ever change how they do things. It's the rules and regulations they will be required to follow that will change how employees are treated and compensated, not their mindset.

Accepting that businesses won't change themselves is actually helpful in ensuring change happens at all, let alone lasting change. Expecting the good will of a business to improve the lives of it's employees is naive. Not saying it doesn't happen, but expecting EVERY business to do the same thing is the naive part.

The particular notion that its also a choice is laughable. If you were held at gun point and offered the choice your life or your wallet well you would still have a choice. The quality of choice thats offered is the crucial analysis.

Dislike it all you want, it's still a choice. I have never argued it's a good or fair one (because it absolutely is not), similar to your robbing analogy. But it IS a choice. This is partly why businesses can still offer such shitty pay, because people will take those positions of their own free will because their circumstances need them to. But that business didn't make them take it, the circumstances they live in did and THOSE circumstances can be changed and improved by the government.

You're right, it is about the quality of choice. But if we leave it up to businesses to decide what those choices are, we'll be exactly where we are right now. The current rules and regulations allow businesses to see and treat labor as a commodity, and not people. That's what needs to change. Not that anything will ever be implemented to force businesses to see labor as people, but the rules and regulations CAN be changed to have requirements that ensure employees get compensated fairly.

- - - Updated - - -

Oh the attempts to try to outsource the driver/trucks has failed many times over.

Sure there is a ROI but its very minor because of the growing cost of drivers and the equipment.

Sometimes ROI is just incredibly difficult to calculate because it's hard to put a number to the benefit. You might be able to come close, though.

The Warehouse labor is responsible for breaking down and processing so much of the delivered goods from bulk to smaller shipments that they are a huge return on the investment. We even refuse to hire drivers who will not also participate in warehouse work when they are waiting for a load.

Even two of our supervisors/managers do more warehouse work then actual "management work" by design. it actually allowed us to pay them less and get more of a return out of them.

Going back to my previous point, sometimes ROI is just hard to calculate. Obviously businesses need to understand the numbers as best as they can, but sometimes it's just not about the numbers.

Seeing people and their jobs ONLY in terms of ROI is damaging in its own way too, because you end up in situations where you have someone who thinks that way changing or getting rid of something based ONLY on the potential ROI, and they make things worse and don't understand why. I've had several issues like this where I work.

[Egomaniac]

How is it naive?

Granted, they'll pay as little as they can, but they still have to pay a wage the employee will accept, and legally allowed, otherwise they won't have any employees. They're greedy, they're not stupid.

Meeting the bare minimums required by law is not "taking care of their employees"...that's taking care of themselves.

When Amazon workers have to wear diapers in order to keep up with their quotas...they aren't being taken care of... they are being exploited.

[Edge-]

Meeting the bare minimums required by law is not "taking care of their employees"...that's taking care of themselves.

When Amazon workers have to wear diapers in order to keep up with their quotas...they aren't being taken care of... they are being exploited.

Remember when Amazon added the new and improved benefit of "Cry closets" for employees?

https://news.yahoo.com/cry-closet-am...204739706.html

That was fun. I'm sure employees are thrilled to have a "private" place where it's totally not conspicuous for them to go and have a cry in the office, instead of like, trying to find ways to make sure their employees don't need to cry due to stress at work. At least they pay pretty good, but from the folks I know that have worked there (in non-warehouse capacities, like writers or engineers) that's about the only thing positive any of had to say about the company.

[Egomaniac]

Remember when Amazon added the new and improved benefit of "Cry closets" for employees?

https://news.yahoo.com/cry-closet-am...204739706.html

That was fun. I'm sure employees are thrilled to have a "private" place where it's totally not conspicuous for them to go and have a cry in the office, instead of like, trying to find ways to make sure their employees don't need to cry due to stress at work. At least they pay pretty good, but from the folks I know that have worked there (in non-warehouse capacities, like writers or engineers) that's about the only thing positive any of had to say about the company.

Also, when are you supposed to use these "cry closets"? I mean, if these people don't even have time to use the bathroom...how are they supposed to find time to even utilize the damn things?

[Edge-]

Also, when are you supposed to use these "cry closets"? I mean, if these people don't even have time to use the bathroom...how are they supposed to find time to even utilize the damn things?

They don't need to use them, just knowing that they're there is probably all the comfort and emotional/mental health support they need!

[Katchii]

Meeting the bare minimums required by law is not "taking care of their employees"...that's taking care of themselves.

When Amazon workers have to wear diapers in order to keep up with their quotas...they aren't being taken care of... they are being exploited.

Fair point. My statement was more aimed at workers who weren't at the very bottom of the pay scale, where in most industries the compensation is based on what other people in the same position are also getting paid/ compensated.

You're absolutely correct that the low end/ minimum wage workers are exploited.

[Egomaniac]

Fair point. My statement was more aimed at workers who weren't at the very bottom of the pay scale, where in most industries the compensation is based on what other people in the same position are also getting paid/ compensated.

You're absolutely correct that the low end/ minimum wage workers are exploited.

Your point is all over the place. First you say that companies take care of their employees...then you say that the only way businesses will treat their employees fairly is if the government makes rules and regulations that require them to do so.

Once again, meeting the bare minimum of your legal obligations to your employees is not taking care of them.

[Katchii]

Your point is all over the place. First you say that companies take care of their employees...then you say that the only way businesses will treat their employees fairly is if the government makes rules and regulations that require them to do so.

Once again, meeting the bare minimum of your legal obligations to your employees is not taking care of them.

You're right, I chose my words poorly. "Taking care of" is not the right term. I just meant that they'll pay them based on the industry average for those positions, in many cases that's minimum, or below livable wages.

[Egomaniac]

You're right, I chose my words poorly. "Taking care of" is not the right term. I just meant that they'll pay them based on the industry average for those positions, in many cases that's minimum, or below livable wages.

So, when you said "Care about and take care of"... what you meant to say was the complete opposite of that...

[Katchii]

So, when you said "Care about and take care of"... what you meant to say was the complete opposite of that...

There are more than just the minimum wage jobs, y'know. Not every employee at every level is treated poorly or paid unfair wages.

[Egomaniac]

There are more than just the minimum wage jobs, y'know. Not every employee at every level is treated poorly or paid unfair wages.

That's still a long way away from "Companies care of and take care of their employees". You've shifted to "Well, they don't exploit every employee"

[Katchii]

That's still a long way away from "Companies care of and take care of their employees". You've shifted to "Well, they don't exploit every employee"

Do you have something to add to the conversation or are you just going to pick apart my posts?

[Egomaniac]

Do you have something to add to the conversation or are you just going to pick apart my posts?

If your posts had any consistency I wouldn't have to pick them apart.

[Endus]

There are more than just the minimum wage jobs, y'know. Not every employee at every level is treated poorly or paid unfair wages.

The scale is set upon that unfair baseline, however. Sure, a Neurosurgeon making $400k/year isn't likely affected, but if you're making less than six figures, there's likely some dragging down of your wages due to how unfair the floor is.

Particularly for everyone currently making between $7.25 and, oh, around $21or so an hour, where a minimum living wage would be set.

[Katchii]

The scale is set upon that unfair baseline, however. Sure, a Neurosurgeon making $400k/year isn't likely affected, but if you're making less than six figures, there's likely some dragging down of your wages due to how unfair the floor is.

Particularly for everyone currently making between $7.25 and, oh, around $21or so an hour, where a minimum living wage would be set.

No disagreement there. The bottom line will of course be dragging down the rest, however those in the middle are typically being paid/ compensated based on the average of those in the same position within the industry. That's what I'm saying is "fair," as the wage is based on market value, so to speak. The same is not true for those at the bottom where minimum wage varies considerably across the country.

If the floor was changed, I'm sure the rest would change to, I'm just not sure by how much and how far up the scale.

[Glorious Leader]

You're right, I chose my words poorly. "Taking care of" is not the right term. I just meant that they'll pay them based on the industry average for those positions, in many cases that's minimum, or below livable wages.

Not necessarily and thats again the point you're missing. They won't pay based on "an average" they will pay as little as they can. That's true for literally any position because a wage is a negotiation and all negotiations are power dynamics. Whomever has more leverage will do better and businesses almost aways have more leverage.

[Katchii]

Not necessarily and thats again the point you're missing. They won't pay based on "an average" they will pay as little as they can. That's true for literally any position because a wage is a negotiation and all negotiations are power dynamics. Whomever has more leverage will do better and businesses almost aways have more leverage.

Yes, but the range that they offer for those positions is based on the industry average, typically. They'll obviously try and get away with as little as possible. But if a position had a range of say $50k -$60k, they won't offer $30k, and certainly not minimum wage. They'll offer as close to the $50k that they think they can get away with, true, and admittedly they might try to go lower than that but not by much and expect the applicant to take the job offer seriously. But that doesn't mean the applicant has to accept that offer. Ultimately again, it is up to the employee to accept the offer or not.

As I said before, businesses are greedy, they're not stupid (usually).

[Glorious Leader]

But that doesn't mean the applicant has to accept that offer. Ultimately again, it is up to the employee to accept the offer or not.

This blatantly ignores economic reality and present the decision to work for a particular employer as if it were an actual honest choice. Its not. You have to be a psychopath to think being robbed at gun point is a choice.