|
Lightning Knight posted:I came back this morning to do this and you already beat me to it. Hmm, so you're saying your supervisor consistently is in the office before you? *checks something on annual performance review*
|
#
¿
May 15, 2019 13:56
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 03:58 |
|
|
NerdyMcNerdNerd posted:You're either ignorant, heartless, or you ain't ever had it as bad as you thought you did. In the case of some, it's all three.
|
|
#
¿
May 15, 2019 20:43
|
|
|
CharlestonJew posted:have you tried just advertising the high range of the salary of the position you want to fill OP? Why do people have to bother haggling with you in order for you to pay them what you'd be willing to pay them in the first place? I assume you're not a used car salesman, you don't have to act like one. What, and treat job applicants like people?!
|
|
#
¿
May 15, 2019 20:49
|
|
|
doverhog posted:Finland has strong labour unions, and although I'm not technically a regular employee I still get all the benefits because the union negotiated them, and everyone who works there has union negotiated pay. That is how ít should be. Unionize. Solidarity forever.
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2019 17:20
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:The argument I'm making boils down to "if you are 30 or younger working at a grocery store and not getting by, there are doors open to you to change your situation to one where you are doing well financially." It's getting much harder than it has any right to be because wages aren't growing relative to GDP and haven't in a long loving time, but not that many people literally have no recourse. Few of us are inherently a statistic. I started posting about the $14 an hour for 40 hours thing to point out that even at that level you can get by with some extra cash, simply to make the case that there are attainable goals that can see you have a good life. It wasn't my intention to get bogged down in the minutiae of that exact figure. $14 an hour is not a goal that should be the end goal of your life plan. It's a poo poo wage, and you can do a lot better than that, particularly when you get more experience and get older and further down your career path. A lot of people arguing with me here are doing better than that, and are just trying to make the case that the most amount of people possible will fail. But if you aren't doing well and don't see a way out, and wallow around in these sorts of talking points, you 100% will fail, which doesn't need to be the case. Hey do me a favor will you? When you get back to the mid-1990s please look me up and recommend I start rogaine as soon as the hair loss starts? Thanks a bunch.
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2019 18:16
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:The study doesn't provide info on their occupations, but given what we know about low-wage work, it's safe to say many of them were working jobs like janitorial or fast food where accumulating more work experience would be unlikely to open further career opportunities for them. What's worse, from the last time this bullshit came up (in the libertarian thread, unsurprisingly), the more fast food/retail/janitorial experience you have on your resume, the harder it gets to break out of those jobs to anything more remunerative. Employers see it, think "well he's just a slacker who ~*never worked hard or applied himself*~" and move on to the next in the stack.
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2019 21:33
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 03:58 |
|
|
Helsing posted:This would possibly be the most expensive social program ever implemented and would also face deep and entrencehd opposition at every stage of its conception and implementation. The fact you describe it as a "relatively easy to attain" policy is mindboggling. There is no version that would not face deep and entrenched opposition at every stage of its conception and implementation, regardless of what it cost and no matter how much balls-tongueing it was introduced nor how many appeasing elements were added to it.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2019 18:16
|
|