3 ms·

… Because being required to live on a farm 24/7 sounds like a situation where hopping over to the asparagus farm that’s located conveniently next door is easy +

… Because being required to live on a farm 24/7 sounds like a situation where hopping over to the asparagus farm that’s located conveniently next door is easy + allowed. Yup.

mindslight 3y ago
> Because being required to live on a farm 24/7 sounds like a situation where hopping over to the asparagus farm that’s located conveniently next door is easy + allowed. Yup. This kind of response is an epitome of online toxicity and polarization. I raised a few points, but you're just making some seemingly unfounded assertion and rejecting analysis? Nothing in the article indicates the workers are living on the farms. In fact there are several mentions to things like childcare, gas, getting a second job, etc.
- kennywinker 3y ago
  > They didn't want to be on the farm seven days a week as required during the asparagus harvest. You raised rationalizations that minimize the struggles of real humans who need to work 70hrs a week to feed their families. I might be online-toxic, but at least i don’t think a good solution for people in that situation is to simply get a second job.
  - mindslight 3y ago
    > You raised rationalizations that minimize the struggles of real humans who need to work 70hrs a week to feed their families Uh, no. Here you go again, painting with some broad ad hominem brush that assumes the worst intentions. Taking the article at face value, the situation is people wanting to work more than 40 hours a week while a certain type of work is in season - essentially making hay while the sun shines. This certainly could be a convenient narrative covering for a more prevalent worse dynamic, and if you've got reason to believe so please make that argument! It wouldn't be with me, but rather with the original article. I'm merely pointing out that assuming the described workers' motivations are actually true, a limit of 40 hours/week seems straightforward to work around by splitting time between multiple employers. If the choice is 70 hours/week at one job, or 35 per week at each of two jobs, "second job" isn't this heartless condemnation you seem to think it is. Having to juggle two employers certainly is an imposition compared to before, but it's not clear how much that imposition is itself a problem compared to the dynamic caused by previous lack of standard overtime pay requirements.

… Because being required to live on a farm 24/7 sounds like a situation where hopping over to the asparagus farm that’s located conveniently next door is easy + allowed. Yup.

mindslight 3y ago

> Because being required to live on a farm 24/7 sounds like a situation where hopping over to the asparagus farm that’s located conveniently next door is easy + allowed. Yup. This kind of response is an epitome of online toxicity and polarization. I raised a few points, but you're just making some seemingly unfounded assertion and rejecting analysis? Nothing in the article indicates the workers are living on the farms. In fact there are several mentions to things like childcare, gas, getting a second job, etc.

kennywinker 3y ago
> They didn't want to be on the farm seven days a week as required during the asparagus harvest. You raised rationalizations that minimize the struggles of real humans who need to work 70hrs a week to feed their families. I might be online-toxic, but at least i don’t think a good solution for people in that situation is to simply get a second job.
- mindslight 3y ago
  > You raised rationalizations that minimize the struggles of real humans who need to work 70hrs a week to feed their families Uh, no. Here you go again, painting with some broad ad hominem brush that assumes the worst intentions. Taking the article at face value, the situation is people wanting to work more than 40 hours a week while a certain type of work is in season - essentially making hay while the sun shines. This certainly could be a convenient narrative covering for a more prevalent worse dynamic, and if you've got reason to believe so please make that argument! It wouldn't be with me, but rather with the original article. I'm merely pointing out that assuming the described workers' motivations are actually true, a limit of 40 hours/week seems straightforward to work around by splitting time between multiple employers. If the choice is 70 hours/week at one job, or 35 per week at each of two jobs, "second job" isn't this heartless condemnation you seem to think it is. Having to juggle two employers certainly is an imposition compared to before, but it's not clear how much that imposition is itself a problem compared to the dynamic caused by previous lack of standard overtime pay requirements.