3 ms·

Many are outright exploitative. Fast food comes immediately to mind: I once got disciplinary action one summer, because I came in to work too much, and crossed

by jachee 7y ago

Many are outright exploitative. Fast food comes immediately to mind: I once got disciplinary action one summer, because I came in to work too much, and crossed over 80 hours in a two-week pay period, thus earning overtime. Coworkers had called out, so I got called in. Did my job, then got punished and unscheduled because I worked "too much". All so a mega-franchiser (who owns most of one particular national chain's stores across a large region) could ultimately avoid supporting (no one was scheduled more than 39.5 hours a week to avoid them becoming "full-time" and requiring benefits, scheduling wasn't handled in a timely manner, etc.) the people who do the essential work for their survival, day in and day out, keeping massive profits for themselves. It really pisses me off, and these are just a few of the reasons it's shitty.

CryptoPunk 7y ago
The mega-franchiser didn't owe you a better job. Your situation was shitty, in that you were left with no options but low-pay work, but the fact that the mega-franchiser stepped in to take advantage of that situation, by hiring you, didn't make your situation any more shitty.
- Twixes 7y ago
  The franchiser exploited them by offering abysmal conditions and lowering the bar for all other employers.
  - CryptoPunk 7y ago
    Offering conditions that are abysmal by some arbitrary standard is not exploitation in any meaningful sense. And the job didn't lower the bar. He only took the job because it was better than the next best job available to him. The franchiser benefited from the arrangement, but so did the employee. Unequal power between two parties to a contract, where the more powerful party benefits, doesn't imply a zero-sum exploitive interaction. You're misattributing his shitty situation to the employer, when it in fact existed independently of the employment contract. His shitty situation was that he didn't have a valuable skill to offer. He had one that was worth little, and the franchiser paid him for his skills accordingly.
    - jachee 7y ago
      What part of "punished for working too many hours" is mutually beneficial? How about not scheduling anyone full-time, but stopping just short to avoid supporting them? How about not paying anyone outside of management above minimum wage? How about not establishing regular schedules published in a timely manner?
      - CryptoPunk 7y ago
        They are keeping their wages low by avoiding mandatory pay rises that come with statutory overtime. So to reiterate: they offer low wages, and their actions are consistent with that objective. Yet the workers all chose to work there, implying it was better than the next best option available to them. For the employees, they are better off for that employer offering the employment, than not doing so. So my point stands. You seem to not have even addressed it, and instead made an appeal to emotion by repeatedly referencing the low pay the employer insisted on providing. >>How about not establishing regular schedules published in a timely manner? This is the only potentially abusive and fraudulent practice you cited, and I would support class-action litigation to punish employers who engage in it, and publicly funded advocates and watchdogs to assist low-wage workers who find themselves facing these kinds of practices. The argument that low-pay jobs - that those working them willingly accepted - is by definition exploitation is, OTOH, an economic fallacy that misattributes the cause of low-pay and promotes regulatory restrictions on contract liberty that gravely harm society.
        jachee 7y ago
        > Yet the workers all chose to work there, implying it was better than the next best option available to them. That's not how minimum-wage labor effectively works. The workers (many of whom have just entered the workforce, myself included at the time) apply for all the available jobs in their area and hope that at least one hires them. At that level, the employers are in a race to the bottom, and rather than attempting to be a better choice to attract and support their labor force, their reliance on the workers' desperation means they all push the limits to see how much they can get out of workers for how little in return. It's the entire reason we even have minimum wage laws. And they all do it. There's nothing particularly noteworthy about any given employer. I saw the same behavior, through my siblings' experience, at four different mega-franchisers. > For the employees, they are better off for that employer offering the employment, than not doing so. So, no. The employees aren't any better off being exploited by any given employer, when their only other choice is unemployment or identical exploitation by another employer.

by jachee 7y ago

CryptoPunk 7y ago

The mega-franchiser didn't owe you a better job. Your situation was shitty, in that you were left with no options but low-pay work, but the fact that the mega-franchiser stepped in to take advantage of that situation, by hiring you, didn't make your situation any more shitty.

Twixes 7y ago
The franchiser exploited them by offering abysmal conditions and lowering the bar for all other employers.
- CryptoPunk 7y ago
  Offering conditions that are abysmal by some arbitrary standard is not exploitation in any meaningful sense. And the job didn't lower the bar. He only took the job because it was better than the next best job available to him. The franchiser benefited from the arrangement, but so did the employee. Unequal power between two parties to a contract, where the more powerful party benefits, doesn't imply a zero-sum exploitive interaction. You're misattributing his shitty situation to the employer, when it in fact existed independently of the employment contract. His shitty situation was that he didn't have a valuable skill to offer. He had one that was worth little, and the franchiser paid him for his skills accordingly.
  - jachee 7y ago
    What part of "punished for working too many hours" is mutually beneficial? How about not scheduling anyone full-time, but stopping just short to avoid supporting them? How about not paying anyone outside of management above minimum wage? How about not establishing regular schedules published in a timely manner?
    - CryptoPunk 7y ago
      They are keeping their wages low by avoiding mandatory pay rises that come with statutory overtime. So to reiterate: they offer low wages, and their actions are consistent with that objective. Yet the workers all chose to work there, implying it was better than the next best option available to them. For the employees, they are better off for that employer offering the employment, than not doing so. So my point stands. You seem to not have even addressed it, and instead made an appeal to emotion by repeatedly referencing the low pay the employer insisted on providing. >>How about not establishing regular schedules published in a timely manner? This is the only potentially abusive and fraudulent practice you cited, and I would support class-action litigation to punish employers who engage in it, and publicly funded advocates and watchdogs to assist low-wage workers who find themselves facing these kinds of practices. The argument that low-pay jobs - that those working them willingly accepted - is by definition exploitation is, OTOH, an economic fallacy that misattributes the cause of low-pay and promotes regulatory restrictions on contract liberty that gravely harm society.
      - jachee 7y ago
        > Yet the workers all chose to work there, implying it was better than the next best option available to them. That's not how minimum-wage labor effectively works. The workers (many of whom have just entered the workforce, myself included at the time) apply for all the available jobs in their area and hope that at least one hires them. At that level, the employers are in a race to the bottom, and rather than attempting to be a better choice to attract and support their labor force, their reliance on the workers' desperation means they all push the limits to see how much they can get out of workers for how little in return. It's the entire reason we even have minimum wage laws. And they all do it. There's nothing particularly noteworthy about any given employer. I saw the same behavior, through my siblings' experience, at four different mega-franchisers. > For the employees, they are better off for that employer offering the employment, than not doing so. So, no. The employees aren't any better off being exploited by any given employer, when their only other choice is unemployment or identical exploitation by another employer.