StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Broomstick wrote:

biostem wrote:

Broomstick wrote:I am reminded of one my unemployment episodes from a couple years back. A fellow poster on another message board offered me some work on his property for minimum wage. I added up the cost of driving there and back, and found that even if I slept in my car and ate minimally I'd lose money by taking that job. It would cost me more to get there and back than I would earn.

So I thanked him for his offer and declined.

Cue shitstorm: I was lazy, grasping, greedy, stupid, etc. etc. because I wouldn't take a job that would cost me money. Huh, so I wasn't desperate and therefore didn't deserve help or sympathy! It got personal and ugly.

Funny, isn't it - when a wealthy person or business rejects something that would result in a net loss they're hailed as wise and making a good fiscal decision. If a poor person does the same they're a horrible loathsome scumbug or something.

So I'm assuming you immediately hit the pavement and scoured the local area for a job, and took the first one that would hire you, then?

Oh, sure - I'd been hitting the pavement (and the internet) looking for work for quite some time before and after that, too. Did a lot of odd jobs, temp jobs, scavenged pop cans alongside the road...

I took jobs that would hire me and net a profit for me. No one can afford to work at a loss.

You're correct we're not getting the whole story with Ms. Jane... but I also think people are way too quick to judge, too.

And this information makes me a lot more sympathetic for your situation than Talia. All other circumstances aside, I admire the person that does what they have to to get by, (short of becoming a criminal, of course), vs the person that breaks protocol, blasts their company's CEO on public media, (who may not even have anything to do with setting the actual salaries/wages), then conveniently sets up a gofundme and drops the victim card hard, instead of taking, what I consider to be, more practical steps toward becoming independent and self sufficient.

Purple wrote:This argument really does not work well at all. Most minimum wage jobs aren't high technology or heavy industry or anything like that. They are going to be grocery stores and fast food chains and all sorts of other things that exist in any community and that in turn any community constantly provides a demand for.

I just want to point out that I work for a glorified grocery story (technically, a hypermarket), and I now make nearly twice the local minimum wage at one of their lower-tier jobs. Grocery is a funny market segment for a number of reasons but I don't want to go down that tangent at the moment.

We also employ some very marginal people for jobs that are really unskilled. You get better results if the guy rounding up the carts from the parking lot finds the job an intellectual challenge as opposed to utter boredom, as an example. We'll also hire mentally normal folks for that sort of work, but we kind of expect them to move on fairly quickly.

biostem wrote:

Broomstick wrote:

biostem wrote:So I'm assuming you immediately hit the pavement and scoured the local area for a job, and took the first one that would hire you, then?

Oh, sure - I'd been hitting the pavement (and the internet) looking for work for quite some time before and after that, too. Did a lot of odd jobs, temp jobs, scavenged pop cans alongside the road...

I took jobs that would hire me and net a profit for me. No one can afford to work at a loss.

You're correct we're not getting the whole story with Ms. Jane... but I also think people are way too quick to judge, too.

And this information makes me a lot more sympathetic for your situation than Talia. All other circumstances aside, I admire the person that does what they have to to get by, (short of becoming a criminal, of course), vs the person that breaks protocol, blasts their company's CEO on public media, (who may not even have anything to do with setting the actual salaries/wages), then conveniently sets up a gofundme and drops the victim card hard, instead of taking, what I consider to be, more practical steps toward becoming independent and self sufficient.

Honestly if the CEO doesn't have a say in setting his company's wages he's doing a piss poor job of being an executive. Having worked in the compensation field before the CEO can basically set their employees salary to be anything they want as long as they can justify it and it's not violating federal law, and they can just about always find a way to justify it. I can almost guarantee he picked those wages to help save money and pay for his personal mansion.

General Zod wrote:

biostem wrote:

Broomstick wrote: Oh, sure - I'd been hitting the pavement (and the internet) looking for work for quite some time before and after that, too. Did a lot of odd jobs, temp jobs, scavenged pop cans alongside the road...

I took jobs that would hire me and net a profit for me. No one can afford to work at a loss.

You're correct we're not getting the whole story with Ms. Jane... but I also think people are way too quick to judge, too.

And this information makes me a lot more sympathetic for your situation than Talia. All other circumstances aside, I admire the person that does what they have to to get by, (short of becoming a criminal, of course), vs the person that breaks protocol, blasts their company's CEO on public media, (who may not even have anything to do with setting the actual salaries/wages), then conveniently sets up a gofundme and drops the victim card hard, instead of taking, what I consider to be, more practical steps toward becoming independent and self sufficient.

Honestly if the CEO doesn't have a say in setting his company's wages he's doing a piss poor job of being an executive. Having worked in the compensation field before the CEO can basically set their employees salary to be anything they want as long as they can justify it and it's not violating federal law, and they can just about always find a way to justify it. I can almost guarantee he picked those wages to help save money and pay for his personal mansion.

I'm not saying they *couldn't*. What I'm saying is that they have a payroll department/COO/CFO or someone similar, who determines wages based upon things like budgets, market value/demand, etc.

biostem wrote: I'm not saying they *couldn't*. What I'm saying is that they have a payroll department/COO/CFO or someone similar, who determines wages based upon things like budgets, market value/demand, etc.

He still signs the checks, and if he's not taking a hand in picking his employees salary then that says a lot more toward him being incompetent or simply negligent.

General Zod wrote:

biostem wrote: I'm not saying they *couldn't*. What I'm saying is that they have a payroll department/COO/CFO or someone similar, who determines wages based upon things like budgets, market value/demand, etc.

He still signs the checks, and if he's not taking a hand in picking his employees salary then that says a lot more toward him being incompetent or simply negligent.

Wait, do you think the CEO of a large corporation personally signs each and every check? They have a payroll department, who determine wages based upon a whole slew of factors.

biostem wrote:And this information makes me a lot more sympathetic for your situation than Talia. All other circumstances aside, I admire the person that does what they have to to get by, (short of becoming a criminal, of course), vs the person that breaks protocol, blasts their company's CEO on public media, (who may not even have anything to do with setting the actual salaries/wages), then conveniently sets up a gofundme and drops the victim card hard, instead of taking, what I consider to be, more practical steps toward becoming independent and self sufficient.

The thing is, I became that admirable person after 30+ years in the work world. I wasn't born that way, I had to learn to be that person.

Ms. Jane is young and inexperienced. It shows. It particularly shows in how she blogged her circumstance. She's operating (most probably) out of a combination of ignorance and inexperience. Those conditions are fixable. Rather than scorn folks should say "Hey, it's a dick move to publicly diss your company/CEO and your time and energy would be better spent looking for a better job or a cheaper place to live"

biostem wrote:

General Zod wrote:

biostem wrote: I'm not saying they *couldn't*. What I'm saying is that they have a payroll department/COO/CFO or someone similar, who determines wages based upon things like budgets, market value/demand, etc.

He still signs the checks, and if he's not taking a hand in picking his employees salary then that says a lot more toward him being incompetent or simply negligent.

Wait, do you think the CEO of a large corporation personally signs each and every check? They have a payroll department, who determine wages based upon a whole slew of factors.

You're reading my post too literally. They still have meetings and get reports from compensation. The idea that wages are set by "market value" is laughable too. Compensation is told a number that the executive wants to hit, and their job is to find reports that justify it. Not the other way around.

Broomstick wrote:

biostem wrote:And this information makes me a lot more sympathetic for your situation than Talia. All other circumstances aside, I admire the person that does what they have to to get by, (short of becoming a criminal, of course), vs the person that breaks protocol, blasts their company's CEO on public media, (who may not even have anything to do with setting the actual salaries/wages), then conveniently sets up a gofundme and drops the victim card hard, instead of taking, what I consider to be, more practical steps toward becoming independent and self sufficient.

The thing is, I became that admirable person after 30+ years in the work world. I wasn't born that way, I had to learn to be that person.

Ms. Jane is young and inexperienced. It shows. It particularly shows in how she blogged her circumstance. She's operating (most probably) out of a combination of ignorance and inexperience. Those conditions are fixable. Rather than scorn folks should say "Hey, it's a dick move to publicly diss your company/CEO and your time and energy would be better spent looking for a better job or a cheaper place to live"

While I generally agree with your sentiment, one of the first lessons I was taught, when it comes to jobs, is that you don't "burn bridges". Would any company want to hire a person with a known history of throwing their company under the bus, when it comes to some sort of discontentment? Did Talia ever go to her immediate superiors regarding her struggles? I mean, there's a chain of command for a reason, and it isn't just some nefarious plot to crush "the little guy".

biostem wrote:
While I generally agree with your sentiment, one of the first lessons I was taught, when it comes to jobs, is that you don't "burn bridges". Would any company want to hire a person with a known history of throwing their company under the bus, when it comes to some sort of discontentment? Did Talia ever go to her immediate superiors regarding her struggles? I mean, there's a chain of command for a reason, and it isn't just some nefarious plot to crush "the little guy".

Sometimes you've got to burn the bridge for your mental health, especially when your management is actively hostile.

biostem wrote:While I generally agree with your sentiment, one of the first lessons I was taught, when it comes to jobs, is that you don't "burn bridges".

Isn't this her first job? Perhaps this is where she learns that lesson.

Would any company want to hire a person with a known history of throwing their company under the bus, when it comes to some sort of discontentment?

Yes, someone will probably hire her at some point.

Would you prefer she remain unemployed forever? The end result of that is homelessness and endless poverty. Do you feel that sort of life sentence is a just punishment for what she did?

Did Talia ever go to her immediate superiors regarding her struggles? I mean, there's a chain of command for a reason, and it isn't just some nefarious plot to crush "the little guy".

Whether she did or not likely would make no difference - that sort of employer really doesn't give a fuck about their employees. True, no plot to crush the little guy - they don't care enough to have a plot or plan. Like I said, they don't care. Either way.

General Zod wrote:

biostem wrote:While I generally agree with your sentiment, one of the first lessons I was taught, when it comes to jobs, is that you don't "burn bridges". Would any company want to hire a person with a known history of throwing their company under the bus, when it comes to some sort of discontentment? Did Talia ever go to her immediate superiors regarding her struggles? I mean, there's a chain of command for a reason, and it isn't just some nefarious plot to crush "the little guy".

Sometimes you've got to burn the bridge for your mental health, especially when your management is actively hostile.

^ This.

I've heard "never quit without notice" - but I did just that when a co-worker tried to crack my skull with a steel tool.

I've heard "never sue your employer" - but I have done just that.

Now, is THIS case one where she should have disobeyed conventional wisdom? I don't know. Maybe she really didn't have anything left to lose in this case.

Having burned a few bridges myself, it's not a big deal if you take the time to learn some basics about employment law. Legally, employers aren't allowed to say anything negative about you to future employers and you can use that to your advantage. You don't even have to say that you quit because your employers were assholes, you can be creative and say things like "I didn't feel that I was a good fit for the company." It makes you look good, it makes them look good, and if your ex bosses say anything it makes them look fucking terrible and it's grounds for a lawsuit. But I'm digressing.

General Zod wrote:Having burned a few bridges myself, it's not a big deal if you take the time to learn some basics about employment law. Legally, employers aren't allowed to say anything negative about you to future employers and you can use that to your advantage. You don't even have to say that you quit because your employers were assholes, you can be creative and say things like "I didn't feel that I was a good fit for the company." It makes you look good, it makes them look good, and if your ex bosses say anything it makes them look fucking terrible and it's grounds for a lawsuit. But I'm digressing.

Well, in this particular case, she decided to make the matter "public". That being said, some company or she will take advantage of this whole situation for their own benefit... But, hey, if it means she doesn't have to eat just rice and can get her car fixed, then great.

biostem wrote:And this information makes me a lot more sympathetic for your situation than Talia. All other circumstances aside, I admire the person that does what they have to to get by, (short of becoming a criminal, of course), vs the person that breaks protocol, blasts their company's CEO on public media, (who may not even have anything to do with setting the actual salaries/wages), then conveniently sets up a gofundme and drops the victim card hard, instead of taking, what I consider to be, more practical steps toward becoming independent and self sufficient.

You can quiz Broomstick on what she did and why; you can't quiz Ms. Jane. It's certainly believable that she made some questionable decisions, but it's also believable that she made decisions that seemed logical at the time for reasons we're ignorant of.

For example, if she actually did calculate that there was no way she could stay alive in her current job for another two or three months... well, you yourself pointed out that she should leave this job. She could leave the job quietly (keeping the approval of her CEO, well actually her CEO and corporation don't care about her or they'd have paid her more money). Or she could do what she did (losing the approval of Yelp but gaining minor Internet celebrity status in the process). Then the Gofundme drive... well, she has no money, if she's going to find a new job she has to do something to pay this month's rent and/or moving expenses, and capitalizing on Internet celebrity may not be a proud way to do it but it's at least practical once she acquires said celebrity.

Based on her statements about her own career ambitions, she has what amount to plans to work in the area of crafting public opinion. I'd say she's doing exactly that at the moment.

Maybe she did what she did as a calculated strategy to change her situation while giving her a realistic chance to revive her fortunes. In which case she's certainly "doing what she needs to."

biostem wrote:Did Talia ever go to her immediate superiors regarding her struggles? I mean, there's a chain of command for a reason, and it isn't just some nefarious plot to crush "the little guy".

How do we know she didn't? Again, you can't realistically 'interrogate' Ms. Jane about what she did. Assuming she did stupid things for stupid reasons is a bridge too far.

Simon_Jester wrote:She could leave the job quietly (keeping the approval of her CEO, well actually her CEO and corporation don't care about her or they'd have paid her more money). Or she could do what she did (losing the approval of Yelp but gaining minor Internet celebrity status in the process). Then the Gofundme drive... well, she has no money, if she's going to find a new job she has to do something to pay this month's rent and/or moving expenses, and capitalizing on Internet celebrity may not be a proud way to do it but it's at least practical once she acquires said celebrity.

Funny, when poor people think of themselves and their own interests, they're scum. But when rich people do it (and hurt a lot more people and society as well oftentimes) they're fucking saints.

It's really interesting how we've developed this double standard blind spot.

His Divine Shadow wrote: Funny, when poor people think of themselves and their own interests, they're scum. But when rich people do it (and hurt a lot more people and society as well oftentimes) they're fucking saints.

It's really interesting how we've developed this double standard blind spot.

Or when companies do it then the answer is "Nobody forced you to take that underpaid job, so you´re an idiot for taking it", while she is somehow scum when she asks people for money via a funding website which nobody is forced to give money to.

So if a company asks for cheap labour they are fine because (legally) nobody has to give them cheap labour.
If a poor person asks for money they´re greedy and entitled even though, nobody has to give them money.

It would actually be a lot better if everybody went public when companies pull bullshit (assuming this story is true). It´s like it would be better if income was transparent and people knew what other people earn.
Perhaps websites like glassdoor are a good step in that direction but I have a feeling that it is easy to buy fake good reviews just like you can buy facebook likes.

salm wrote:

His Divine Shadow wrote: Funny, when poor people think of themselves and their own interests, they're scum. But when rich people do it (and hurt a lot more people and society as well oftentimes) they're fucking saints.

It's really interesting how we've developed this double standard blind spot.

Or when companies do it then the answer is "Nobody forced you to take that underpaid job, so you´re an idiot for taking it", while she is somehow scum when she asks people for money via a funding website which nobody is forced to give money to.

So if a company asks for cheap labour they are fine because (legally) nobody has to give them cheap labour.
If a poor person asks for money they´re greedy and entitled even though, nobody has to give them money.

It would actually be a lot better if everybody went public when companies pull bullshit (assuming this story is true). It´s like it would be better if income was transparent and people knew what other people earn.
Perhaps websites like glassdoor are a good step in that direction but I have a feeling that it is easy to buy fake good reviews just like you can buy facebook likes.

Part of the problem is the popular lie that jobs are priced according to market value. Corporations set the prices according to whatever the fuck they feel like as long as they can justify it to their auditors, but the average person doesn't have access to the sort of salary surveys that companies like Mercer or Towers Watson pump out so they don't really get the whole picture.

His Divine Shadow wrote: Funny, when poor people think of themselves and their own interests, they're scum. But when rich people do it (and hurt a lot more people and society as well oftentimes) they're fucking saints.

It's really interesting how we've developed this double standard blind spot.

We live in a society run by the rich, in which everyone wants to get rich. What else can you expect?

As for Ms. Jane's situation, I'm of two minds. My previous employers were shit, and gave me every reason for slagging them off in public, but I didn't, and don't(mostly). That's just the way I was raised.

And, I'm not sure the Gofundme was a good idea, but again, that's just me.

On the other hand, we can't judge Ms. Jane's actions, cause we're not her, we're not in her situation. I do know that going up a company's chain of command is ineffective at best.

The usual next step in dealing with a bad supervisor, or a toxic co-worker, for example, is going to HR. HR, however, generally is paid to be on the company's side, not the employees', and will do whatever's necessary to toe the company line. At least, that's been my experience.

Moreover, I've found that the higher up you go in the chain of command, the more removed from the day-to-day operations on the floor the manager in question usually is, all the way up to the CEO, who has only the most general idea as to how his company is operating on a daily or even weekly basis.

U.P. Cinnabar wrote: As for Ms. Jane's situation, I'm of two minds. My previous employers were shit, and gave me every reason for slagging them off in public, but I didn't, and don't(mostly). That's just the way I was raised.

Why not? Companies let your next employer know that they didn´t like you by giving you a bad reference, so why not let potential employees know that a certain company is a bad employer?
I think it is highly unsocial to keep bad company practices secret because it lets other people in the dark.
It´s like knowing that a large rock is blocking the road behind a bend and not putting up a hazard warning triangle.

I was raised old school, salm, in that you treat people the way you yourself wanted to be treated. I'll be the first to admit that doesn't always make sense, but, there you go.

And, yes, potential hires should be warned away from a company with shit business practices, but, aside from that being most companies in this country anymore, especially since many of the legal protections employees once enjoyed had been done away with over the last 36 years, potential hires often aren't in the position to be choosy, and while taking your advice on board, will go to work for the company with the shitty business practices anyway.

Moreover, the company can, and often does, have the weight to discount any warning a former employer might give as the grumblings of a disgruntled and not very productive employee, and people will believe them over that former employee, no matter how many of the latter there are to give that warning, because a) people tend to want to believe the best, and discount the worst, because b)again, potential hires are often in no position to be choosy, especially on the low end of the socioeconomic totem pole.

To extend your rock in the road simile, it's like putting up the "ROAD CLOSED" sign in front of the rock, and drivers still trying to negoiate their way around the rock, because that's the only way to where they need to be. Or, the DOT constantly removing that sign, because they can.

U.P. Cinnabar wrote:I was raised old school, salm, in that you treat people the way you yourself wanted to be treated. I'll be the first to admit that doesn't always make sense, but, there you go.

It is specifically a problem in the context of employee-employer relationships in modern America. Because the MBA management culture of the last two generations generally doesn't have any institutional belief in loyalty to their employees... so being loyal to them in turn is just painting a big target on your butt.

You're 100% right, Simon, and there's the quandry. You can take the high road, and get screwed, sink to the company's level, and let the bastards beat you over the head with experience, or stand your ground and fight the sons of bitches, with all the odds in their favor.

U.P. Cinnabar wrote:I was raised old school, salm, in that you treat people the way you yourself wanted to be treated. I'll be the first to admit that doesn't always make sense, but, there you go.

So would you not want that other people warn you?
Or are you saying that companies shouldn´t be called out for their bullshit because you wouldn´t want to be called out for the bullshit you might be doing?

And, yes, potential hires should be warned away from a company with shit business practices, but, aside from that being most companies in this country anymore, especially since many of the legal protections employees once enjoyed had been done away with over the last 36 years, potential hires often aren't in the position to be choosy, and while taking your advice on board, will go to work for the company with the shitty business practices anyway.

Moreover, the company can, and often does, have the weight to discount any warning a former employer might give as the grumblings of a disgruntled and not very productive employee, and people will believe them over that former employee, no matter how many of the latter there are to give that warning, because a) people tend to want to believe the best, and discount the worst, because b)again, potential hires are often in no position to be choosy, especially on the low end of the socioeconomic totem pole.

To extend your rock in the road simile, it's like putting up the "ROAD CLOSED" sign in front of the rock, and drivers still trying to negoiate their way around the rock, because that's the only way to where they need to be. Or, the DOT constantly removing that sign, because they can.

That is not my experience. I´ve whitnessed a whole departement of a large governmental office go down the drain recently because they treated their employees like shit. This spread by websites such glassdoor.com as well as by word of mouth. Most of the employees quit and they are unable to find new people because they managed to completely ruin their formally excellent image as a good employer in a time frame of 3 to 4 years.

Personally I don't believe in the golden rule. If you treat people the way you'd like to be treated and they don't reciprocate, you owe them absolutely no consideration.