3 ms·
I love the way you very skillfully walk on eggshells to be circumspect and polite to make your point so as to avoid backlash and ire. [1] It's as if anything a
by gist 8y ago
I love the way you very skillfully walk on eggshells to be circumspect and polite to make your point so as to avoid backlash and ire. [1] It's as if anything anyone says today is assumed to be not politically correct unless they go out of their way to appear kind, considerate and caring.
[1] Back in the day we would have just said 'they got fired because they are lazy losers'. I am reminded of the people working today at the seafood department at no less than Whole Foods. They didn't have the item that I normally get (literally every other day) and had no clue when they would get more in and didn't seem to care at all that I was a regular customer for that item. An actual 'shop owner' (small entrepreneur with a seafood store) would have likely cared much more and taken note that a regular customer desired the missing product. What did I think? Hmm "I guess that's why they are working the seafood counter at Whole Foods". Could there be other reasons why that is their job? Of course there could be other reasons but in any case the lack of caring about what they did (either the companies fault or their fault who knows) was very apparent and typically is.
Interestingly the women who showed up the other day at my office (immigrants and honestly don't know immigration status they work for a contractor) were way more motivated even though they barely spoke english.
- 1000units 8y agoThis is maybe too harsh. A non-negligible portion of these people have what we today call learning disabilities.
- gist 8y ago> A non-negligible portion of these people have what we today call learning disabilities. Well sure but if you do and if that doesn't make you 'a winner' it makes you 'a loser' doesn't it? Point is if I have no athletic skills and can't play football or hockey or soccer 'because of disabilities' doesn't that make me 'a loser' in some way? The point is although people think that using the word 'loser' implies someone has control over the outcome but many times that is not the case. Often they have control but more often there is something else that is preventing them (family, abilities, intelligence) and so on.
- 1000units 8y agoYes. I agree entirely.
- zelon88 8y agoRetail establishments get what they pay for. Do you expect to find a sober, skilled, intelligent competent, motivated, energetic person who "loves" his job for $9/hr? That's unrealistic and you know it is.
- 1000units 8y agoAmazon is not complaining. They're just firing the underperformers. Hacker News is complaining.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- gist 8y agoThe idea of working for a larger company (traditional not tech) such as Whole Foods is that you have a place to move up in the company. As such and if you have ever run or owned a traditional (non tech; non vc funded; 'small business' I have...) where there is no opportunity to move you would realize that the pay is only a small part of what people are looking for. So my point is the 'carrot' with working for a large company is that if you do a good job you might become manager then district manager and so on there is a place to go. Now of course not everyone can be promoted but someone who has ability can. When my Dad came to this country he started off in a factory then moved to manager then started his own business and so on. One other thing. Don't assume the equation will work if you drastically increase pay. If you pay more you have to charge more. If you charge more people will stop shopping. It's a delicate balance for sure.