3 ms·

Don't be so susceptible. The literal story is about food workers who can't afford to raise a family in Palo Alto. The intended message seems to be that Faceboo

Don't be so susceptible. The literal story is about food workers who can't afford to raise a family in Palo Alto. The intended message seems to be that Facebook should pay food workers more than $20/hr. I think it's acceptable for people to ponder outside of that claim.

frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
I think people are pondering outside of that claim because young programmers in Palo Alto also want cheap real estate so there's a shared interest. But things this article brings up that are more uncomfortable for the members of this board to think about like paying service workers more or pondering this: “They look at us like we’re lower, like we don’t matter,” said Nicole of the Facebook employees. “We don’t live the dream. The techies are living the dream. It’s for them.” The smaller indignities are numerous. At the end of every shift, Nicole watches large amounts of leftover food go into the compost – food that she’s not allowed to take home. Cafeteria workers only enter Facebook’s medical clinics if they’ve been selected for a mandatory drug test. Facebook recently held a “Bring your kids to work” day, but cafeteria workers’ children were not allowed. are going to go untalked about. And what's the problem with saying that Facebook should pay it's workers more than $20/hr? If it's not enough to live on, that's kind of all there is to it isn't there?
- RHSeeger 9y ago
  The fact that its not enough to live on combines two things, to varying amounts - The prices of their needs are high enough that they can't afford them (given the amount they make) - The amount they make is low enough that they can't afford their needs Its reasonable to attack both issues, not just the one.
- Bartweiss 9y ago
  > At the end of every shift, Nicole watches large amounts of leftover food go into the compost – food that she’s not allowed to take home. On that one in particular - is there a law against that? I know rules on food service workers taking things home vary quite a bit.
  - likpok 9y ago
    I've heard that restaurants will spoil food at the end of the day rather than give it to employees to prevent employees from deliberately over-making or mis-making food so they can take it home.
  - goatforce5 9y ago
    I knew someone who worked at a supermarket many years ago when they were in college. Apparently staff were allowed to take home products that were damaged (crumpled/torn packaging, etc.), rather than just throwing them in the trash. Apparently chocolate cookies had an unfortunate and inexplicable habit of being crushed under other products and being deemed unfit for sale. Once the policy changed and staff had to throw damaged products in the garbage compactor, apparently a lot less chocolate cookies were getting damaged.
    - graphitezepp 9y ago
      People using policies in abusive unintended ways, this, is why we cant have nice things.
    - humanrebar 9y ago
      In a low-margin business, it make sense to pay attention to "loss control" but one of the main benefits of keeping food workers on campus is the productivity gains by the "core business" staff. That is to say, a take-home box of food a day shouldn't be a problem on financial grounds, so rules like this are more of a power of ethics issue. In abstract. However, in most cases (I don't know about facebook in particular) food service workers are contractors, and I'm sure the economics don't sort themselves out that way. Anyway, facebook leadership could discourage this sort of nitpicky loss control.
    - eli_gottlieb 9y ago
      Throwing things away is still wasteful. Clearly the right thing to do here is to allow taking some merchandise home, but tie it to following rules and minimizing gratuitous loss in other ways. One of the remarkable innovations introduced by the Patrician was to make the Thieves’ Guild responsible for theft, with annual budgets, forward planning and, above all, rigid job protection. Thus, in return for an agreed average level of crime per annum, the thieves themselves saw to it that unauthorised crime was met with the full force of Injustice, which was generally a stick with nails in it.
- FussyZeus 9y ago
  At some point we have to recognize that service workers must be paid a living wage, or be automated. We cannot, morally or economically, have an entire class of worker that we utterly depend on that lives permanently below the poverty line and we just step on them because "they didn't work hard in school" or whichever narrative you prefer to go with for why people who don't have a degree do work that is essential to our civilization. The reality is that the fair market isn't perfect, and even jobs that are low on the totem pole but essential must be compensated in such a way where people don't need to work 60 hour weeks to barely afford a shithole home and car.
  - manigandham 9y ago
    > or be automated That's an extreme opposite from living wage.
    - FussyZeus 9y ago
      Well if you follow the popular theories, this means better jobs are created elsewhere and improve life etc. etc. Historically this is true, this time is a lot different, in general it's just a different discussion I didn't feel like broaching in this thread.
    - sokoloff 9y ago
      If that solution ends up being cheaper, it's likely to be the solution that gets implemented. (That might be OK, provided the now displaced workers choose to move someplace with a lower cost of living where they are able to make ends meet being paid an amount commensurate with the value they create.)
  - purple-again 9y ago
    You need to seriously think through every level of what you are suggesting. You want us to revamp the way we handle the complex interactions of individual autonomous groups from one in which your worth is tied to the value you contribute to society (The rapper 50 cent has a lot more money than a brain surgeon because like it or not the value he created for society was much greater than that one surgeons contribution) to one in which you are rewarded simply for existing. Do you truly believe that is a sustainable system without fully automated existence from resource extraction all the way to finished goods ( which we are not even remotely close to achieving)?
- ZoeZoeBee 9y ago
  They're subcontracted from Flagship Facility Services, not actual Facebook employees
moogleii 9y ago
At the very least, I'm a little surprised Facebook isn't offering more subsidized healthcare.
kamaal 9y ago
>>The literal story is about food workers who can't afford to raise a family in Palo Alto. Even well paid programmers, managers and other well paid people can't raise a family in Palo Alto. You can't pick the most expensive and costly neighborhood in all of US and use that as a benchmarks for what people should expect from the economy.

frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago

I think people are pondering outside of that claim because young programmers in Palo Alto also want cheap real estate so there's a shared interest. But things this article brings up that are more uncomfortable for the members of this board to think about like paying service workers more or pondering this: “They look at us like we’re lower, like we don’t matter,” said Nicole of the Facebook employees. “We don’t live the dream. The techies are living the dream. It’s for them.” The smaller indignities are numerous. At the end of every shift, Nicole watches large amounts of leftover food go into the compost – food that she’s not allowed to take home. Cafeteria workers only enter Facebook’s medical clinics if they’ve been selected for a mandatory drug test. Facebook recently held a “Bring your kids to work” day, but cafeteria workers’ children were not allowed. are going to go untalked about. And what's the problem with saying that Facebook should pay it's workers more than $20/hr? If it's not enough to live on, that's kind of all there is to it isn't there?

RHSeeger 9y ago
The fact that its not enough to live on combines two things, to varying amounts - The prices of their needs are high enough that they can't afford them (given the amount they make) - The amount they make is low enough that they can't afford their needs Its reasonable to attack both issues, not just the one.
Bartweiss 9y ago
> At the end of every shift, Nicole watches large amounts of leftover food go into the compost – food that she’s not allowed to take home. On that one in particular - is there a law against that? I know rules on food service workers taking things home vary quite a bit.
- likpok 9y ago
  I've heard that restaurants will spoil food at the end of the day rather than give it to employees to prevent employees from deliberately over-making or mis-making food so they can take it home.
- goatforce5 9y ago
  I knew someone who worked at a supermarket many years ago when they were in college. Apparently staff were allowed to take home products that were damaged (crumpled/torn packaging, etc.), rather than just throwing them in the trash. Apparently chocolate cookies had an unfortunate and inexplicable habit of being crushed under other products and being deemed unfit for sale. Once the policy changed and staff had to throw damaged products in the garbage compactor, apparently a lot less chocolate cookies were getting damaged.
  - graphitezepp 9y ago
    People using policies in abusive unintended ways, this, is why we cant have nice things.
  - humanrebar 9y ago
    In a low-margin business, it make sense to pay attention to "loss control" but one of the main benefits of keeping food workers on campus is the productivity gains by the "core business" staff. That is to say, a take-home box of food a day shouldn't be a problem on financial grounds, so rules like this are more of a power of ethics issue. In abstract. However, in most cases (I don't know about facebook in particular) food service workers are contractors, and I'm sure the economics don't sort themselves out that way. Anyway, facebook leadership could discourage this sort of nitpicky loss control.
  - eli_gottlieb 9y ago
    Throwing things away is still wasteful. Clearly the right thing to do here is to allow taking some merchandise home, but tie it to following rules and minimizing gratuitous loss in other ways. One of the remarkable innovations introduced by the Patrician was to make the Thieves’ Guild responsible for theft, with annual budgets, forward planning and, above all, rigid job protection. Thus, in return for an agreed average level of crime per annum, the thieves themselves saw to it that unauthorised crime was met with the full force of Injustice, which was generally a stick with nails in it.
FussyZeus 9y ago
At some point we have to recognize that service workers must be paid a living wage, or be automated. We cannot, morally or economically, have an entire class of worker that we utterly depend on that lives permanently below the poverty line and we just step on them because "they didn't work hard in school" or whichever narrative you prefer to go with for why people who don't have a degree do work that is essential to our civilization. The reality is that the fair market isn't perfect, and even jobs that are low on the totem pole but essential must be compensated in such a way where people don't need to work 60 hour weeks to barely afford a shithole home and car.
- manigandham 9y ago
  > or be automated That's an extreme opposite from living wage.
  - FussyZeus 9y ago
    Well if you follow the popular theories, this means better jobs are created elsewhere and improve life etc. etc. Historically this is true, this time is a lot different, in general it's just a different discussion I didn't feel like broaching in this thread.
  - sokoloff 9y ago
    If that solution ends up being cheaper, it's likely to be the solution that gets implemented. (That might be OK, provided the now displaced workers choose to move someplace with a lower cost of living where they are able to make ends meet being paid an amount commensurate with the value they create.)
- purple-again 9y ago
  You need to seriously think through every level of what you are suggesting. You want us to revamp the way we handle the complex interactions of individual autonomous groups from one in which your worth is tied to the value you contribute to society (The rapper 50 cent has a lot more money than a brain surgeon because like it or not the value he created for society was much greater than that one surgeons contribution) to one in which you are rewarded simply for existing. Do you truly believe that is a sustainable system without fully automated existence from resource extraction all the way to finished goods ( which we are not even remotely close to achieving)?
ZoeZoeBee 9y ago
They're subcontracted from Flagship Facility Services, not actual Facebook employees

moogleii 9y ago

At the very least, I'm a little surprised Facebook isn't offering more subsidized healthcare.

kamaal 9y ago

>>The literal story is about food workers who can't afford to raise a family in Palo Alto. Even well paid programmers, managers and other well paid people can't raise a family in Palo Alto. You can't pick the most expensive and costly neighborhood in all of US and use that as a benchmarks for what people should expect from the economy.