this post was submitted on 10 Jan 2024
366 points (90.7% liked)
Political Memes
6098 readers
2588 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Sometimes, they have a point that the government passed laws that disadvantaged them.
That said, fast food employees being fired over minimum wage laws could actually work out in favor of the working class. The right will be obsessed with the short term job loss, but the reduction in jobs will increase the pay of the remaining employees.
Fast food and retail should be heavily automated so that there will only be a small number of employees. The trade off will come when each of those employees is highly paid, but they also have a lot of responsibility. They'll be required to show up on time and be on call if a coworker calls out.
Fast food restaurants should be automated and have one manager there at a time to handle when things go wrong.
There are already stores that don't have any employees.
The markup on fast food is crazy and the wages are dirt cheap. You're talking about a 380% markup on the typical burger. Far more often than not, the challenge fast food chains have is keeping experienced workers on staff without paying them market rates. That periodically means firing some staff members to intimidate the remainder.
If that's the case, then I agree with paying them a lot more, but making the job expectations match. If you pay a lot for an easy job with low expectations, then you'll get a lot of people who don't take the job seriously. I agree that they should be payed a lot to maintain the employment of experienced workers, but the flip side to that is the people who don't perform should be shown the door.
I completely agree that if companies give shit wages, they shouldn't expect employee retention.
Given that the worst-paying jobs are often the most physically onerous and time consuming... I'm fine with making the pay better AND the job easier.
Service sector jobs tend to be monotonous, exhausting, and periodically quite hazardous. I don't know if you've ever spent an eight hour shift on your feet in front of a deep fryer filling orders as fast as possible, but it isn't easy and the patrons particularly forgiving.
Performance metric employment is a dicey business. There's a number of famous managerial cases of businesses destroying themselves with this approach, most notably when Ed Lampert ran the Sears department store into the ground ten years ago.
...
A well-run athletics program does not, traditionally, pit athletes against one another and deliver outsized rewards to the handful of "star" players. They reward teamwork and comradrie, temper expectations to the anticipated limits of team members, and seek to maximize the function of the whole rather than measuring exclusively by the individual parts.
That way leads to infighting, division, and self-destruction.
I agree that teamwork is important in a company, which is harmed by people who are continually lazy. Everyone needs to work together but at the same time, people who regularly go above and beyond need to be rewarded. There's much less envy of success when people feel like it was earned or it's something they could achieve if they worked hard. On a sports team, anyone who can't perform is let go.
There's an old well-defined business principle called the 80/20 principle. 80% of the outcomes are driven by 20% of the causes. Going on a witch hunt for the one lazy employee is an enormous waste of effort, relative to simply guaranteeing a smooth and efficient workflow for the general staff. If the workplace is well-run, staff can be both lazy and productive. If everything is difficult and adversarial, even the most productive workers will fail to hit their marks.
People don't envy success, they envy a disparity of results. Splitting your team arbitrarily into "Makers" and "Takers", because one staffer outperforms another on a particular day or in a particular scale doesn't encourage cohesion. It encourages backstabbing and animosity. Trying to pay people for individual performance in a team environment means you're going to get a bunch of people fighting with one another to be First Place, rather than helping each other to hit a team goal.
Again, look to the Sears model and its failures. Compare that to, say, HEB where the whole store is rewarded when it hits a mark regardless of whether any single staffer falls above or below the pack.
There's a lot of drama around athlete contracts regarding performance. But savvy agents know to include injury clauses that protect their players. That's because the financial demand is to cut the player loose after injury, but the team demand is for the player to take risks in order to win the game.
You don't want a situation like when the Longhorns played the Crimson Tide back in 2009, with star quarterback Colt McCoy just sitting his ass down at the start of the game in order to avoid injuries into his professional career.
The process is well underway. Check out Miso Robotics and their successful installation in many White Castle and Chipotle locations.