4 ms·

I'd say the opposite is true in terms of work: it's much easier to replace a waitress for a week/month/year of leave than it is an engineer or a project manager

I'd say the opposite is true in terms of work: it's much easier to replace a waitress for a week/month/year of leave than it is an engineer or a project manager. Google do it anyway because they and their employees like it and because they can afford to. The local restaurant could do it much MORE easily. But they have less profit margin (like you say). So we need a law to force them to do it, so everyone does it and puts their prices up to stay in business. That's exactly why countries mandate it: mandating it allows less profitable companies to do it because they know their competitors have to as well.

DarkWiiPlayer 5y ago
In the USA, wouldn't missing out on the tipping be a huge problem when taking time off as a waiter?
- LatteLazy 5y ago
  Yeah, the whole tipping thing seems pretty backwards to me. I'm not sure what to do for that...
  - robin_reala 5y ago
    Stop allowing companies to pay below minimum wage because it’ll be made up with tips? Seems fairly obvious.
nosianu 5y ago
> it's much easier to replace a waitress It's not about replacements, it's about still getting paid. Try your argument again with the premise that that small restaurant now has to pay two people for that one position. However, as someone who, for a short period of time, gave a small loan to an Italian friend (professional cook, very good too and able to produce in restaurant environment) so that he could (once again) open a restaurant, and also has another friend with a (better quality and very good environment) Mexican restaurant, and also other people managing hotels or restaurants and clubs/bars, in Germany, your argument about easy replacements does not hold water at least from what I witnessed. They struggled hard to keep people they knew, and any loss was not easy to replace at all. We also have seen headlines recently that those kinds of jobs are harder to fill now, after over a year of shutdown or very limited restaurant business, with many workers having found other jobs, for example "Covid and jobs: Why are hospitality workers leaving the industry?" -- https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-57241370 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-57241370
- LatteLazy 5y ago
  If the restaurant has to pay, it's a cost like any other and they charge accordingly. They can do that because all restaurants are charging a bit more because they all have to pay. That's no different to minimum wages or 101 other expenses. Personally I'd prefer it to be funded via taxation. That's what almost every other western country does. The effect is the same either way though: people pay a few cents more per meal and employees get parental leave and we all get on with our lives.
  - nosianu 5y ago
    > If the restaurant has to pay, it's a cost like any other and they charge accordingly. Restaurants have way too few employees so it would not "even out". > They can do that because all restaurants are charging a bit more because they all have to pay That is not what will happen. I'm sorry, that would be nice, especially here in Germany food quality comes way after trying to save a penny (not my random Internet opinion, an Italian friend of mine representing Italian food makers arranging sales here in Germany said they sold the good stuff to Spain and France and only then to Germany - not because of bias, but because to German buyers the price matters more than anything else). I've got some money and quite a few diverse contacts in the restaurant and hotel business here. What do you base your argument on? It sounds idealistic but not very realistic. Even if you could avoid those small businesses not hiring anyone that could be a "danger", somehow, which restaurants would be impacted would be extremely uneven, only a few would have to pay. Their margins, at least here, are already atrocious. Germans just stay home and get the cheapest stuff even if it's objectively bad food. I lived abroad, for example in the Bay Area for a few years, and that was paradise for going out (ignoring all the posh restaurants that want to appear to be better, when a lot of "ugly" places have far better food and atmosphere) for food, now I'm in the 3rd food world. > Personally I'd prefer it to be funded via taxation. Yes, indeed. But your idea that trying to force the small restaurant would work even remotely as well - no, it won't. In large companies the laws of large numbers start to work and it averages out, the variations in tiny businesses, who ends up with a parent that has to be paid, who doesn't, are different. Only a few will end up with that cost but much of their competition will not. Those are not exactly life-long employments when it would even out over time because most employees would be impacted at one time or another. Maybe you can Google-translate, it's in German, how it works here in Germany for small businesses: https://www.personal-wissen.de/7414/arbeitsrecht-in-kleinbetrieben-schwangerschaft-und-elternzeit/ https://www.personal-wissen.de/7414/arbeitsrecht-in-kleinbet... -- The business does not have to pay it, it is paid by the state, in summary (also see - again in German - https://www.arbeitsrechte.de/elternzeit-gehalt/ https://www.arbeitsrechte.de/elternzeit-gehalt/). Over a third of workers only work part-time though.
hnbad 5y ago
It's important to keep in mind that major tech companies also sometimes offer medical services like "freezing egg cells" which literally serve them no other purpose than encouraging women to delay family planning and spend more of their young adult life working for them. Google doesn't want you to leave for two to three years to raise your kids. Google wants you (as a woman) to work yourself to the bone into your 30s and then either drop out over reduced performance from a burnout or take your family leave and leave the industry forever. Or alternatively, not to take your leave and instead use the free child care to maintain the illusion that you still get a fulfilling family life while living for the company.
- LatteLazy 5y ago
  I don't think that's fair. Google doesn't have to do anything for its US workers. They can work you to the bone, not pay for eggs to be frozen and tell anyone who gets pregnant to be back at their desk the same day or not come back. The fact they choose to do anything shows at least some degree of decency. I'm sure there is a degree of calculation there too (we don't want to lose 30-something women who are skilled and well integrated because they want kids). But it's still positive and generous.
  - hnbad 5y ago
    It's not decency, it's advertising. Google has a carefully cultivated public image of being the place to be. There's a reason people talk about "FANG" (with various extra letters depending on who you're talking to exactly) and it's not just salary brackets. It's not generous, it's strategic. All the perks companies like Google offer are carefully optimized to increase productive time in the short term and extend the duration of that short term as much as possible. Only as you rise through the ranks does mid and long term become relevant and then they have perks to address those factors as well. But at no point is a company purposefully being generous except to extract as much value out of employees as possible. The purpose of a company is to maximize shareholder value, not to make employees happy.

DarkWiiPlayer 5y ago

In the USA, wouldn't missing out on the tipping be a huge problem when taking time off as a waiter?

LatteLazy 5y ago
Yeah, the whole tipping thing seems pretty backwards to me. I'm not sure what to do for that...
- robin_reala 5y ago
  Stop allowing companies to pay below minimum wage because it’ll be made up with tips? Seems fairly obvious.

nosianu 5y ago

> it's much easier to replace a waitress It's not about replacements, it's about still getting paid. Try your argument again with the premise that that small restaurant now has to pay two people for that one position. However, as someone who, for a short period of time, gave a small loan to an Italian friend (professional cook, very good too and able to produce in restaurant environment) so that he could (once again) open a restaurant, and also has another friend with a (better quality and very good environment) Mexican restaurant, and also other people managing hotels or restaurants and clubs/bars, in Germany, your argument about easy replacements does not hold water at least from what I witnessed. They struggled hard to keep people they knew, and any loss was not easy to replace at all. We also have seen headlines recently that those kinds of jobs are harder to fill now, after over a year of shutdown or very limited restaurant business, with many workers having found other jobs, for example "Covid and jobs: Why are hospitality workers leaving the industry?" -- https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-57241370 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-57241370

LatteLazy 5y ago
If the restaurant has to pay, it's a cost like any other and they charge accordingly. They can do that because all restaurants are charging a bit more because they all have to pay. That's no different to minimum wages or 101 other expenses. Personally I'd prefer it to be funded via taxation. That's what almost every other western country does. The effect is the same either way though: people pay a few cents more per meal and employees get parental leave and we all get on with our lives.
- nosianu 5y ago
  > If the restaurant has to pay, it's a cost like any other and they charge accordingly. Restaurants have way too few employees so it would not "even out". > They can do that because all restaurants are charging a bit more because they all have to pay That is not what will happen. I'm sorry, that would be nice, especially here in Germany food quality comes way after trying to save a penny (not my random Internet opinion, an Italian friend of mine representing Italian food makers arranging sales here in Germany said they sold the good stuff to Spain and France and only then to Germany - not because of bias, but because to German buyers the price matters more than anything else). I've got some money and quite a few diverse contacts in the restaurant and hotel business here. What do you base your argument on? It sounds idealistic but not very realistic. Even if you could avoid those small businesses not hiring anyone that could be a "danger", somehow, which restaurants would be impacted would be extremely uneven, only a few would have to pay. Their margins, at least here, are already atrocious. Germans just stay home and get the cheapest stuff even if it's objectively bad food. I lived abroad, for example in the Bay Area for a few years, and that was paradise for going out (ignoring all the posh restaurants that want to appear to be better, when a lot of "ugly" places have far better food and atmosphere) for food, now I'm in the 3rd food world. > Personally I'd prefer it to be funded via taxation. Yes, indeed. But your idea that trying to force the small restaurant would work even remotely as well - no, it won't. In large companies the laws of large numbers start to work and it averages out, the variations in tiny businesses, who ends up with a parent that has to be paid, who doesn't, are different. Only a few will end up with that cost but much of their competition will not. Those are not exactly life-long employments when it would even out over time because most employees would be impacted at one time or another. Maybe you can Google-translate, it's in German, how it works here in Germany for small businesses: https://www.personal-wissen.de/7414/arbeitsrecht-in-kleinbetrieben-schwangerschaft-und-elternzeit/ https://www.personal-wissen.de/7414/arbeitsrecht-in-kleinbet... -- The business does not have to pay it, it is paid by the state, in summary (also see - again in German - https://www.arbeitsrechte.de/elternzeit-gehalt/ https://www.arbeitsrechte.de/elternzeit-gehalt/). Over a third of workers only work part-time though.

hnbad 5y ago

It's important to keep in mind that major tech companies also sometimes offer medical services like "freezing egg cells" which literally serve them no other purpose than encouraging women to delay family planning and spend more of their young adult life working for them. Google doesn't want you to leave for two to three years to raise your kids. Google wants you (as a woman) to work yourself to the bone into your 30s and then either drop out over reduced performance from a burnout or take your family leave and leave the industry forever. Or alternatively, not to take your leave and instead use the free child care to maintain the illusion that you still get a fulfilling family life while living for the company.

LatteLazy 5y ago
I don't think that's fair. Google doesn't have to do anything for its US workers. They can work you to the bone, not pay for eggs to be frozen and tell anyone who gets pregnant to be back at their desk the same day or not come back. The fact they choose to do anything shows at least some degree of decency. I'm sure there is a degree of calculation there too (we don't want to lose 30-something women who are skilled and well integrated because they want kids). But it's still positive and generous.
- hnbad 5y ago
  It's not decency, it's advertising. Google has a carefully cultivated public image of being the place to be. There's a reason people talk about "FANG" (with various extra letters depending on who you're talking to exactly) and it's not just salary brackets. It's not generous, it's strategic. All the perks companies like Google offer are carefully optimized to increase productive time in the short term and extend the duration of that short term as much as possible. Only as you rise through the ranks does mid and long term become relevant and then they have perks to address those factors as well. But at no point is a company purposefully being generous except to extract as much value out of employees as possible. The purpose of a company is to maximize shareholder value, not to make employees happy.