Workers want pay boost

[slappy magoo]

Something tells me slappy wants a raise

Something tells me you couldn't figure out how to live on a grand a month even with no children, which you apparently have. As someone else pointed out, everyone wants a raise, but I'm happy with the job I have. Sometimes the hours stink, but I'm compensated I think more than fairly.

So where's your list?

 

[flynnibus]

You've hit the nail on the head of exactly the trouble I ran and am still running into! Congrats! See, I realized right away that the architecture market was poor, so I opened myself up to any possibility. The problem, as I've stated previously is that a business has no reason to hire someone without the background they're looking for. Learning how to design spaces doesn't come in handy for jobs that don't involve designing spaces

Which is why I point back to previous life choices. I didn't like my college major really.. but I knew it gave me a solid skill set that would give me a great range of job opportunities at competitive pay. Being an engineer, I had a wide math and science background, and people respected that you knew how to grind through challenging workloads. Life sucked, but I was investing in my future by sticking to a direction that had a higher probability of pay off vs something I may have had greater leisure interest in. I never even interviewed for a job in my field...

Most of my friends were on pre-med paths. A field FLOODED with people willing to do more... for less (or nothing) to keep clawing towards some fantasy of being a rich doctor. Most saw the writing on the wall and shifted either their education (one switched to optometry school.. another looked at being a dentist) or shifted their job focus and took entry level sales or tech support type roles to establish new careers with nothing to do with biology/pre-med.

Simply completing college doesn't mean someone owes you anything... some goto college just to be enlightened. Others goto college to pickup what will be job skills. I know plenty of PhDs or people with masters degrees in some liberal arts field that make a fraction of what I do because they chose their field differently. That was their choice to continue to invest in a field with limited job opportunities.

but now, for every job that's out there, it seems like someone has exactly what is needed. Job descriptions are so fine tuned. I'm a great learner, give me three weeks, and I'll be training the trainers, but that matters little without the experience or paperwork to back it up

As the guy on the other side of the table trying to do the hiring... I can tell you it's not always that way. The hardest part is finding people who are capable of doing the work that you can trust. But in the context of this discussion... which is about people acting like they are stuck in a job making less than $8/hr with NO other opportunities it's just BS. There are other opportunities that pay more.. one just needs to sacrifice to make it happen. Something our selfish, entitled society is rarely willing to do anymore.

I just resent the idea that labor of any kind is not worth the right to live. If someone comes home hurting, full of sweat and stress, but still musters up to go back the next day, they deserve a living wage

People wouldn't be willing to pay the prices to make that happen.

I find it oddly poetic that the harshest jobs that no one wants to do are paid the worst. If anything, it should be the other way around. I think a person willing to clean a disgusting WDW bathroom or guest room deserves a lot more pay than an exec who gets to sit in a cushy office wearing the best clothes and driving the best car money (or their employer) can buy.

Those harshest jobs are paid more... go work third shift or haul trashcans and you will make more than the guy handing out ice cream. As for comparing them to a specialized skilled job... it boils down to how easily one can be replaced or their value. It sounds poetic to say the guy who keeps the toilet clean is worth more than the guy who sits on it... but the reality is you can hire anyone to wipe the toilet.

I know... I was an office cleaner through High School

 

[BuddyThomas]

My take home pay has not increased in 10 years. I'm sure I make more than a WDW parks employee though. There is a difference between minimum wage and a living wage.

If my take home pay had not increased in 10 years, I would br living in a cardboard box outside of Penn Station.

 

[twebber55]

one field of work that is vastly underemployed is skilled labor (plumbers, electricians etc....)
that's a fault of our schools (and im a teacher) way too much focus on going to college is the only option and not enough on tech jobs that are good paying jobs you don't need a four year degree

 

[slappy magoo]

one field of work that is vastly underemployed is skilled labor (plumbers, electricians etc....)

I look back on all the hack comics I've seen in the 80s and 90s joke about the Apex Tech schools, getting a free set of tools when you graduate and all that, and I always think it's the guys that graduated tech schools that are really keeping the economy going, more than the hedge fund analysts and chain store executives.

 

[BuddyThomas]

someone who doesn't try hard and be smart in life, someone who is in a job that many would do for much less, and those who aren't in a $9.64 type of job

I didn't want to go here...and I don't want this to sound harsh because I know many who are unfortunately in this situation.... but a single mom with a child with no help from a deadbeat tadpole donor doesn't exactly mean that they should be paid more

Uh oh. This is going downhill fast. I predict a lock at any second.

 

[flynnibus]

Clearly, no employer HAS to do anything. But if you value people who work their hardest, you tend to want to keep them around unless you're an incredibly short-sighted Randian who assumes everyone is chattle who can be easily replaced in which case please don't invite me to your parties so I don't have to make up a reason to not attend.

You value those people by giving them job growth opportunity... not by just paying them more and more and more for doing the same thing forever. A topic you seem to keep missing. If that guy is so good at his job, I want him as my shift manager so he can train and develop the other employees, and ensure they do their job up to that same standard. Not forever wish "man, if I just had 10 Joes.. how great would life be.. instead I only have one Joe and all he does is that same space every day".

If I pay that guy to stay in that job forever... you also forget there is never opportunity for someone else. You end up with the union seniority situation... no one has any incentive to move up or on, so there is never space for new people. Instead you only have the entry level positions, which people get disinterested in over time.. and LEAVE because they know they have no growth potential as long as the seniors sit back, fat, happy, and complacent. So you end up with too high of turnover at the entry level, all while your top ranks stagnant and you can't do anything to move people on or out.

But high turnover rate is indicative of faulty management

No, higher than EXPECTED turnover is indicative of bad management.. not turnover in itself. If I hire a junior sales person... I expect if they are good, they will move on and I hire another junior sales person in their place. That is turnover. if I hire a level 1 TAC engineer to do menial tasks, I do not expect that person to stay in that job for more than a year. If they do, they are probably a crappy employee anyway and have no potential.

A healthy organization always has a feeder network... and you also need to get rid of employees that won't make the cut... these things require turnover.

People must be singing Zip A Dee Do Dah all day in your office with that sunny optimism.

Actually people were quite happy.. because everyone was HUNGRY to grow and do more. Those that added more value were compensated more. Those that 'were just there' or drug other people down were sent packing. No one expected to be paid more for simply being there longer. Compensation was reflective of what people put put out. This actually leads to happy employees because people feel rewarded for their work and there is a atmosphere where everyone knows everyone is contributing to the success. No dead weight.

 

[flynnibus]

You really are digging it deep for yourself ... you should go play some pinball or take the girls for a spin with your credit cards to do some upper middle class spending.

Waahh.. I've earned what I have and have little empathy for those who complain they can't do anything because of constraints that are self-imposed. Life isn't always pretty, but if you expect life to be the one that is going to fix things for you... well you have a long road in front of you.

 

[flynnibus]

Now I speak from experience. Yes, it happens. It also happens that sometimes, if you have a roommate or two or three, you're only paying half or a third or a quarter of the deposit, so THAT'S what you get back, and it's not enough for a whole deposit in a new city where you know nobody.

So how did these people get roommates to start with? They ONLY move in with people they knew when living in their parent's house or something? Move in with roommates in your new destination too. This is not rocket science... it's done every day in every city. It's easier than ever to find new roommates, apartments, screen roommates, etc with the web than it ever was in the past.

Fine, I'll concede that a suit is light in the luggage but why are you assuming anyone moving into a new city is looking for a non-skilled labor job?

Because the postulation in this thread was that Orlando workers working for pathetic wages for Disney are doing so because it's the only work available to them.

Have a weekend fire sale! Sell your couch for 10 bucks! Your TV for $20! It's the American thing to do!

Makes you wonder if people think there was the government handing out cash to everyone through the last 150 years as people moved for new spaces or new jobs... zOMG how did people afford to just pick up and leave??

We've been talking about people who can't survive on what they're getting paid. Yet they should save up ONLY hundreds of dollars to move into a city with no job prospects, survive on what they've somehow saved until they find work, or take the first job that comes along no matter how low it pays. Again, I'm sure some people thrive doing this. I'd also wager that you can find people who didn't thrive and regretted that decision. But hey, CAN-DO SPIRIT!

Or we can sit at home in orlando.. work for barely minimum wage.. continue to scrape by week to week.. complain about getting no hours... and keep doing this year after year after year. Yeah... that sit on my and complain strategy is working out so well for them isn't it???

 

[slappy magoo]

You value those people by giving them job growth opportunity... not by just paying them more and more and more for doing the same thing forever. A topic you seem to keep missing. If that guy is so good at his job, I want him as my shift manager so he can train and develop the other employees, and ensure they do their job up to that same standard. Not forever wish "man, if I just had 10 Joes.. how great would life be.. instead I only have one Joe and all he does is that same space every day".

Sorry to keep bringing up janitors, but the image I have is of the janitor in my grade school, who was a janitor for decades before I got there, was head custodian by the time I left (they were called Custodians by then). There wasn't much room for advancement after "head Custodian," he wasn't going to move into management, but he liked his job and he was there until he retired. He wasn't union, they could've replaced him at any point, but they saw value in keeping him. There are jobs like that, and there are employers like that, and there are employees like that. At least there used to be.

No, higher than EXPECTED turnover is indicative of bad management.. not turnover in itself.

I'd argue that "high turnover" is probably "higher than expected, unless you plan to be such an awful job that people are constantly leaving.

If I hire a junior sales person... I expect if they are good, they will move on and I hire another junior sales person in their place. That is turnover. if I hire a level 1 TAC engineer to do menial tasks, I do not expect that person to stay in that job for more than a year. If they do, they are probably a crappy employee anyway and have no potential.

I'm not talking up-the-chain turnover, I'm talking out-the-door turnover, and you know it, so why you choose to mix one with the other seems shoddy.

 

[slappy magoo]

So how did these people get roommates to start with? They ONLY move in with people they knew when living in their parent's house or something? Move in with roommates in your new destination too. This is not rocket science... it's done every day in every city. It's easier than ever to find new roommates, apartments, screen roommates, etc with the web than it ever was in the past.

Assuming you can afford the web, WDWDad13 thinks that's a luxury for rich folk. But if you're moving into a new city, and you gotta find a new place or start dipping into your savings, then you're risk choosing a roommate who, like a job, might not be right for you, but now you've got a 1 year lease.

Because the postulation in this thread was that Orlando workers working for pathetic wages for Disney are doing so because it's the only work available to them.

That wasn't MY postulation, I'm arguing that if you're working any job you should afford to be able to survive without federal assistance.

Makes you wonder if people think there was the government handing out cash to everyone through the last 150 years as people moved for new spaces or new jobs... zOMG how did people afford to just pick up and leave??

Makes you wonder if you think the cost of living was the same as it was in this glorified Steinbeckian Of Mice and Men era you're romanticizing.

Or we can sit at home in orlando.. work for barely minimum wage.. continue to scrape by week to week.. complain about getting no hours... and keep doing this year after year after year. Yeah... that sit on my and complain strategy is working out so well for them isn't it???

You can also organize and try to get a livable wage. No guarantees, but also no guarantees that selling all you stuff moving in with strangers in a city you're unfamiliar with and taking the first job that comes along will turn you into a real life John Galt either.

 

[flynnibus]

Sorry to keep bringing up janitors, but the image I have is of the janitor in my grade school, who was a janitor for decades before I got there, was head custodian by the time I left (they were called Custodians by then). There wasn't much room for advancement after "head Custodian," he wasn't going to move into management, but he liked his job and he was there until he retired. He wasn't union, they could've replaced him at any point, but they saw value in keeping him. There are jobs like that, and there are employers like that, and there are employees like that. At least there used to be

and if you were to dig him out of his grave, and interview him, I'm sure you'd find his compensation didn't change with his life phases either. He was willing to work for the same pay ranges even as his life went through different phases. Just because you are happy to play CM greeter for 30 years doesn't mean the CM greeter is now worth 45k a year.

Why should a 20yr old kid who does twice the amount of work as the 60yr old greeter get paid LESS than the 60yr old just because the 60yr has stuck around forever. What kind of motivation does that provide for your 20yr old employee? "Hi kid, I know you'd like to be paid for how hard you work.. but around here, pay is based on how long you waste away here.."

I'm not talking up-the-chain turnover, I'm talking out-the-door turnover, and you know it, so why you choose to mix one with the other seems shoddy.

You don't want to lose employees out the door... but that's why you need to give them GROWTH potential. If you just pay people more and more and more to do the same work forever your company will die. It will cave in on it's own expenses, you will have no new blood because you won't hire anyone new because you won't have any new openings because you never promote anyone, your worker productivity will decline over time, and your company will likely be passed over in the market as you never embrace new people or ideas. "you can't teach and old dog new tricks" rings quite true when you have an employee base conditioned to 'stay the course'.

 

[flynnibus]

Assuming you can afford the web, WDWDad13 thinks that's a luxury for rich folk. But if you're moving into a new city, and you gotta find a new place or start dipping into your savings, then you're risk choosing a roommate who, like a job, might not be right for you, but now you've got a 1 year lease.

We have these things called libraries... they have the web for free

That wasn't MY postulation, I'm arguing that if you're working any job you should afford to be able to survive without federal assistance.

well I was responding to the theories in this thread - not just you alone. As for your belief... I encourage you to open a business and try it out and see how it goes before standing on a soapbox and telling everyone else how their world works.

Makes you wonder if you think the cost of living was the same as it was in this glorified Steinbeckian Of Mice and Men era you're romanticizing.

The risk was far greater in the past... because there were ZERO safety nets.. no federal assistance.. nothing. All I see you arguing is that 'things are too hard' waaaaahhhh. Risk?? Oh please no. No risk no reward... oh wait.. I forgot, you're arguing people should get all the reward for just existing.

You can also organize and try to get a livable wage. No guarantees, but also no guarantees that selling all you stuff moving in with strangers in a city you're unfamiliar with and taking the first job that comes along will turn you into a real life John Galt either.

The employees are already organized... they have a union. They also live in a state with neutered union rules.. so if you want to again rely on someone else to do it for you, move to someplace with laws more to your liking.

You are so risk adverse to moving.. it makes you wonder how ANYONE ever got to a new town and somehow we all must be living in the same place we grew up in or had some lifeline on the other side.

 

[BuddyThomas]

I think that the bottom line here is that a corporation that raises their prices for every single thing at every possible moment, far outpacing inflation, can afford to toss their lower paid workers a few extra bucks. Do they have to do so? Of course not. Will they? Probably not.

But God forbid the ones making the gazillion dollar incomes should see their bank account deposits decrease by a few pennies a week so that the masses can maybe afford an extra gallon of gas a week or a dinner out that they would not otherwise be able to afford, and on and on and on.

I'm pretty much biting my tongue here but I could go so much further. I just have a feeling that when the Mom gets back from riding Space Mountain or wherever she is, this thread is going to have a big old lock on it, since we're not supposed to get political here, and yet with this subject there is almost no way to avoid it.

 

[lazyboy97o]

That wasn't MY postulation, I'm arguing that if you're working any job you should afford to be able to survive without federal assistance.

Any job? Some jobs will never generate enough revenue to pay such wages.

 

[slappy magoo]

and if you were to dig him out of his grave, and interview him, I'm sure you'd find his compensation didn't change with his life phases either. He was willing to work for the same pay ranges even as his life went through different phases.

How convenient for you he's not around to prove you right...or wrong.

Why should a 20yr old kid who does twice the amount of work as the 60yr old greeter get paid LESS than the 60yr old just because the 60yr has stuck around forever. What kind of motivation does that provide for your 20yr old employee? "Hi kid, I know you'd like to be paid for how hard you work.. but around here, pay is based on how long you waste away here.."

First you're assuming any given job would be done better or faster by a 20-year-old, which can be a dangerous assumption depending on the job in question. What do you have against old people, against experience, that makes you think America's workforce is weighted down by battalions of Abe Simpsons too busy shaking their fists at clouds to be a vital member of the workforce?

You don't want to lose employees out the door... but that's why you need to give them GROWTH potential. If you just pay people more and more and more to do the same work forever your company will die. It will cave in on it's own expenses, you will have no new blood because you won't hire anyone new because you won't have any new openings because you never promote anyone, your worker productivity will decline over time, and your company will likely be passed over in the market as you never embrace new people or ideas. "you can't teach and old dog new tricks" rings quite true when you have an employee base conditioned to 'stay the course'.

That's only true if your entire workforce feels that way, and you know that's not the case. There are always people who want to advance, who want to become management or better, always people who see their job as transitory and they're outta there as soon as they find the job they really want. But if Sally the Costco cashier is happy being a cashier, winds up being a Cashier Supervisor but otherwise doesn't want to move up in management, and management sees value in her experience and her job satisfaction, she might not ever make 6 figures but they might not just cut her off from further compensation either. Quite frankly, the way you think about workforces, I'm surprised you have the opportunity to stop beating the drum long enough to type a response without the slaves on the oars losing their rhythm.

 

[slappy magoo]

We have these things called libraries... they have the web for free

And in NYC people practically knife each other for a turn on them. When you're looking for a job, especially if you're looking for a professional, career-type job, you need to be accessible all the time.

As for your belief... I encourage you to open a business and try it out and see how it goes before standing on a soapbox and telling everyone else how their world works.

In other words, once I get a taste of depriving people of a living, I'll think it's great? Thanks. I'll pass but I'm glad not having a soul hasn't deprived you of enjoying your upward mobility.

The risk was far greater in the past... because there were ZERO safety nets.. no federal assistance.. nothing. All I see you arguing is that 'things are too hard' waaaaahhhh. Risk?? Oh please no. No risk no reward... oh wait.. I forgot, you're arguing people should get all the reward for just existing.

No, I'm arguing (apparently to myself) that if you're willing to work a job, any job, and you're willing to keep showing up and doing that job and someone profits from your doing that job, you deserve to earn a living that doesn't require government assistance. The only people who seem to conflate these topics are the sorts who would spend their free time collection Atlas Shrugged character baseball cards.

You are so risk adverse to moving.. it makes you wonder how ANYONE ever got to a new town and somehow we all must be living in the same place we grew up in or had some lifeline on the other side.

I merely acknowledge that it's not always an easy thing to do, especially if it involves giving up anything you do have for The Great Maybeitwillallworkout. It's easy for people to say "Just Do It" if they either were successful in doing it or never really had to do it. I will not be so presumptuous as to guess which one you are, but it's not my bag. Again, if you gotta pay people less than what they need to live on in order for you to turn a profit, meaning taxpayers have to help support your employees so you can enjoy your profit, you are not really a businessman. You're a con man, taking money and passing your expenses on to suckers, you're a leech, albeit one who probably lives in a nice house.

 

[CentralFLlife]

Flynn you have no idea how to manage employees, as this discussion has made clear, Money is the driving factor in employment decisions. If you want someone to stay you pay them more, you treat them better. Thats how you value them. Yes the growth opportunity is a big deal, but money talks.

Disney does give its cast members growth potential, tremendous potential if you know what to do. the problem is they don't pay enough for many CM's to stick around long enough.

And Disney's jobs do require skills, they require people skills which its very clear most of you on here don't have.

 

[lazyboy97o]

No, I'm arguing (apparently to myself) that if you're willing to work a job, any job, and you're willing to keep showing up and doing that job and someone profits from your doing that job, you deserve to earn a living that doesn't require government assistance. The only people who seem to conflate these topics are the sorts who would spend their free time collection Atlas Shrugged character baseball cards.

That assumes that all jobs do or can generate enough revenue to support such wages.

 

[Andrew C]

Flynn you have no idea how to manage employees, as this discussion has made clear, Money is the driving factor in employment decisions. If you want someone to stay you pay them more, you treat them better. Thats how you value them. Yes the growth opportunity is a big deal, but money talks.

Disney does give its cast members growth potential, tremendous potential if you know what to do. the problem is they don't pay enough for many CM's to stick around long enough.

Sorry, but money is one driving factor in employment decisions. One of several.