Entitlement Mentality

[luv2drnkbr]

eh well so long as they arnt trying to use the government to twist anyone's arms than i say more power to them.

If I had $7 an hour employees that went on strike, they would be $0 an hour non-employees immediately. That this isn't happening in this case is indicative of the government and arm twisting being in close proximity.

It's easy to say that without any context.

First, we are in a unique period of RECORD corporate profits coupled with high joblessness. That isn't normal. Normal has typically been high corporate profits coupled with increasing payouts to employees, who spend their money and stoke inflation. We're getting there, a coup,e more years and we might just be close to where we started

Second, if one employee protests for higher wages, yes, it's easy to dump them and move on. Especially when people are fighting over jobs. In other periods, it's even employers fighting over labor. It will b again, too. Its easy to put one employee out to pasture, much more difficult to put your entire workforce out and then rehire and retrain them. It'll be much more difficult to put them all out, hence the point of collective action

It's no more of an entitlement attitude for someone to expect better pay than it is for someone to expect another to work for them at only the cheapest rate possible. In a perfectly tuned capitalist system, both sides would have power and be able to make some demands and cede other to other demands at the same time. Right now, were in a flawed environment because employers have all the power. In the future, the pendulum will swing back. And if your that steadfast in not paying wages that employees eel ate livable, you may just find yourself with an empty shop.

Excellent post, and suddenly the detractors aren't responding.  I love the blatant idiocy displayed by "it's the free market" when a business owner does something, but suddenly when workers naturally self-assemble into unions, it's somehow communism or socialist sponsored oppressive regulation.

[CasinoBit]

In Chicago, IL fast food workers are striking, protesting and demanding $15/hr where the state minimum wage is $8.25/hr.

The average profit margin for a company is about 5-10% and these idiots want their salaries nearly doubled, arguing that they're not receiving a livable wage.

Um, no.  I'm getting a bit sick of this attitude of entitlement floating around the USA, and keep in mind I work in the field of social services.

When I graduated and began work as a counselor in the adult psychiatric unit of a Chicago hospital, I made $15/hr with a post-graduate degree and was sent to the emergency room twice for being assaulted on the job within a period of 6 months.

So, what did I do?  Did I bitch and complain and protest about my salary or my work conditions?  No.  Instead,  I updated and revised my résumé and began sending it directly to the email addresses of the hiring managers at a variety of agencies.  Within 2 months I secured a new job where I am under-qualified and overpaid, and I love my new job.  I'm proud of it, and proud of myself for doing what I needed to do to adapt and thrive.

Thoughts?

It's pretty scary when in a society where the majority decides how will our society look the majority is incredibly fat, stupid, childish and docile.

[Richy_T]

Excellent post, and suddenly the detractors aren't responding.  I love the blatant idiocy displayed by "it's the free market" when a business owner does something, but suddenly when workers naturally self-assemble into unions, it's somehow communism or socialist sponsored oppressive regulation.

Meh, the thread is about dead. Do you know what a "closed shop" is? Do you know that striking is often legally protected? If the workers want to join together in collective bargaining, that's one thing. When it's mandated that you're part of that collective or you don't get a job or that employers aren't simply allowed to kick your ass to the curb if you refuse to work, that's quite another thing altogether.

[crumbs]

Excellent post, and suddenly the detractors aren't responding.  I love the blatant idiocy displayed by "it's the free market" when a business owner does something, but suddenly when workers naturally self-assemble into unions, it's somehow communism or socialist sponsored oppressive regulation.

Meh, the thread is about dead. Do you know what a "closed shop" is? Do you know that striking is often legally protected? If the workers want to join together in collective bargaining, that's one thing. When it's mandated that you're part of that collective or you don't get a job or that employers aren't simply allowed to kick your ass to the curb if you refuse to work, that's quite another thing altogether.

We would love to slant all, rather than most, of the laws in your favor.  Unfortunately, that raises the problem of tar, feathers and pointy pitchforks.  But we're working on it.

Love,
  The Government.

[Richy_T]

We would love to slant all, rather than most, of the laws in your favor.  Unfortunately, that raises the problem of tar, feathers and pointy pitchforks.  But we're working on it.

Love,
  The Government.

Contracts resulting from voluntary agreements are so tiresome...

[FirstAscent]

We would love to slant all, rather than most, of the laws in your favor.  Unfortunately, that raises the problem of tar, feathers and pointy pitchforks.  But we're working on it.

Love,
  The Government.

Contracts resulting from voluntary agreements are so tiresome...

Hey, if slavery was allowed, but voluntary, I'm certain plenty of businesses would be all over it, and they'd get workers, since the workers would be provided food and board. But we don't have slavery, do we? We have employment that pays you barely enough to pay for food and board.

[lucasjkr]

Meh, the thread is about dead. Do you know what a "closed shop" is? Do you know that striking is often legally protected? If the workers want to join together in collective bargaining, that's one thing. When it's mandated that you're part of that collective or you don't get a job or that employers aren't simply allowed to kick your ass to the curb if you refuse to work, that's quite another thing altogether.

Nowhere in this thread did I see anything about joining unions and paying dues becoming mandatory. It was simply "are workers suffering from entitlement mentality" by asking for raises when the employer would prefer not to. Of course employers will prefer not to provide raises, that's money directly out of their pockets. So, of course when a single employee asks, employers tend to act like you would purport to. Hence the use of collective action, especially in times like now. Should it be mandatory? Of course not. But I never thought that's what this topic was about.

[the joint]

eh well so long as they arnt trying to use the government to twist anyone's arms than i say more power to them.

If I had $7 an hour employees that went on strike, they would be $0 an hour non-employees immediately. That this isn't happening in this case is indicative of the government and arm twisting being in close proximity.

It's easy to say that without any context.

First, we are in a unique period of RECORD corporate profits coupled with high joblessness. That isn't normal. Normal has typically been high corporate profits coupled with increasing payouts to employees, who spend their money and stoke inflation. We're getting there, a coup,e more years and we might just be close to where we started

Second, if one employee protests for higher wages, yes, it's easy to dump them and move on. Especially when people are fighting over jobs. In other periods, it's even employers fighting over labor. It will b again, too. Its easy to put one employee out to pasture, much more difficult to put your entire workforce out and then rehire and retrain them. It'll be much more difficult to put them all out, hence the point of collective action

It's no more of an entitlement attitude for someone to expect better pay than it is for someone to expect another to work for them at only the cheapest rate possible. In a perfectly tuned capitalist system, both sides would have power and be able to make some demands and cede other to other demands at the same time. Right now, were in a flawed environment because employers have all the power. In the future, the pendulum will swing back. And if your that steadfast in not paying wages that employees eel ate livable, you may just find yourself with an empty shop.

Excellent post, and suddenly the detractors aren't responding.  I love the blatant idiocy displayed by "it's the free market" when a business owner does something, but suddenly when workers naturally self-assemble into unions, it's somehow communism or socialist sponsored oppressive regulation.

I gave up responding when the intended message of the OP was tortured beyond recognition.

So, you're seeing record profits and consistently low wages and joblessness?  Then, find another line of work or pray helplessly as you wait for your fate to be determined by the same employer that you detest.  

"Hey, you're a greedy asshole.  Can I have a raise?"

[crumbs]

...I gave up responding when the intended message of the OP was tortured beyond recognition.

So, you're seeing record profits and consistently low wages and joblessness?  Then, find another line of work or pray helplessly as you wait for your fate to be determined by the same employer that you detest.  

"Hey, you're a greedy asshole.  Can I have a raise?"

That's the root of your misunderstanding, OP -- strikers aren't praying to their employer, they're ... striking.  See the difference?
Greedy assholishness is neither here nor there.

[tinus42]

Meh, the thread is about dead. Do you know what a "closed shop" is? Do you know that striking is often legally protected? If the workers want to join together in collective bargaining, that's one thing. When it's mandated that you're part of that collective or you don't get a job or that employers aren't simply allowed to kick your ass to the curb if you refuse to work, that's quite another thing altogether.

Nowhere in this thread did I see anything about joining unions and paying dues becoming mandatory. It was simply "are workers suffering from entitlement mentality" by asking for raises when the employer would prefer not to. Of course employers will prefer not to provide raises, that's money directly out of their pockets. So, of course when a single employee asks, employers tend to act like you would purport to. Hence the use of collective action, especially in times like now. Should it be mandatory? Of course not. But I never thought that's what this topic was about.

Usually single employees have no bargaining power whatsoever by themselves. They may politely ask for a raise but when denied it is not wise to push the matter further if one desires to keep their job. The only exception being key personnel (like a talented sysadmin or a top footballer) who can't easily be missed. Collectively employees do have bargaining power. A company may easily sack one employees but not all employee because that would pose a serious problem for their operations.

This is how unions came into existance in the first place, in an era when employers could just say "I can get ten others instead of you." and getting sacked meant starvation. Of course unions later became politicized and abused their power but that's a different story.

[the joint]

...I gave up responding when the intended message of the OP was tortured beyond recognition.

So, you're seeing record profits and consistently low wages and joblessness?  Then, find another line of work or pray helplessly as you wait for your fate to be determined by the same employer that you detest.  

"Hey, you're a greedy asshole.  Can I have a raise?"

That's the root of your misunderstanding, OP -- strikers aren't praying to their employer, they're ... striking.  See the difference?
Greedy assholishness is neither here nor there.

Is the strikers' problem a rock or a clay problem?  A rock problem is one in which you have very little or no control over; a clay problem is one in which you can significantly manipulate the elements causing the problem.

If you have a rock problem and you're smart, you'll shift your attention to the things that you DO have control over.  Trying to effect change upon elements you cannot directly control will quickly lead to negative returns on the time and effort you've invested.  This loss of utility is reflective of the lack of insight of the strikers.

[crumbs]

...I gave up responding when the intended message of the OP was tortured beyond recognition.

So, you're seeing record profits and consistently low wages and joblessness?  Then, find another line of work or pray helplessly as you wait for your fate to be determined by the same employer that you detest.  

"Hey, you're a greedy asshole.  Can I have a raise?"

That's the root of your misunderstanding, OP -- strikers aren't praying to their employer, they're ... striking.  See the difference?
Greedy assholishness is neither here nor there.

Is the strikers' problem a rock or a clay problem?  A rock problem is one in which you have very little or no control over; a clay problem is one in which you can significantly manipulate the elements causing the problem.

If you have a rock problem and you're smart, you'll shift your attention to the things that you DO have control over.  Trying to effect change upon elements you cannot directly control will quickly lead to negative returns on the time and effort you've invested.  This loss of utility is reflective of the lack of insight of the strikers.

You offer a really odd dichotomy, i see it as neither rock nor clay, but rather people problem.  But, since i'm sure it will somehow aid your purpose, i'll follow through with your analogy.  You, i take it, consider striking "a rock problem"?  They've threatened to strike, their bluff was called, and now the rock is thrown & it's out of their hands, is that it?
In reality, of course, that's not the case.  The strike is not simply milling about & hoping for the best -- it is an active fulfillment of a threat.  The act that backs the threat, making it effective & giving it future credibility.  Each body, and boot on the picket line is necessary if the proles are to be taken seriously.  Each step is the melding of your frikn' clay. The strike is not an appeal to reason or the boss' sense of right & wrong -- it is a show of force.  "Do what we fuckin' tell you or suffer."  Like that.  

[greenbtc]

If they can strike, more power to them.

Agreed.

Maybe it will weed out the fast food restaurants that aren't popular due to crummy food. In-n-Out pays well above minimum wage to start, and they do quite well, because they offer a superior product.

I'm struggling to find the relevance here.  Maybe it will, maybe it won't.  In-n-Out is tasty though

Maybe you shouldn't be bitching about what other workers seek in the world, but instead about the idea that any business should succeed, even if they produce a lousy product.

My issue is more with the idea that my intuition tells me that this is an inefficient use of the strikers' time.  I don't have a problem with people striking, but consider the following: the last time this happened, McDonald's workers in the area got a 10 cent raise.  This means that if a worker was to go on strike for a single day, it would take >500 hours or about 3 months of working for that 10 cent raise to earn them back their lost wages.  I wonder what percentage of those workers receiving that 10 cent raise remained employed for at least three months after the fact.

On a side note, ever drive through bumper-to-bumper traffic and realize the only reason the traffic jam is there is because some group is protesting about something you don't care about?  When it starts affecting (objectively) the flow of my day, that's when I feel inclined to give my input.

And don't pull the line about how it's going to make lunch prices go up. In-n-Out offers a soda, a delicious cheeseburger and delicious fries (all from fresh ingredients trucked to the store daily) for about $5.00.

I wasn't even thinking it.

It's not the workers' fault here. It's businesses which choose not to streamline their process and offer a superior product and service that are at fault.

To me, this isn't an issue about placing blame. Rather, I see it as a failure-to-adapt problem.  Let me be clear first off by stating that I would never even propose a dichotomy of "workers' fault vs. employers' fault."  Instead, to me, the situation appears as follows:

There are some fast food workers who are dissatisfied with either pay, working conditions, or both.  Three things are absolutely certain:  1) They applied for their current job on their own free will, 2) there were preexisting factors or conditions that led them to decide to apply for their current job, and 3) they currently have other options to choose from, and striking is at least one of those options.

I simply believe that out of the options available to them, striking is not an optimal one.  Of course this is all my opinion.

Essentially, it sounds like you're advocating a sloppy and lazy business plan. Quit your whining, enjoy your job, and instead of complaining about workers seek in this world, why don't you go enjoy a nice lunch somewhere?

Holy non-sequitor.

I think all you need to do is look in the mirror to see half the problems with the world you present. Calling someone entitled, yet you pretty much have come on here to flaunt your (non confirmable) success.

That said, $15/hr is chump change--the fact that you started out with this after having a degree shows me you are still young (as am I, but have no degree, and have been making nearly double that wage since I was 20 with no degree--and to this day, quite some years later still no degree...)

I'm all for everyone making $15/hour baseline, as it forces companies to re-evaluate how people are paid throughout the entire structure of the company. You are essentially arguing against your own raise by hating on people trying to raise the federal minimum wage. If everyone in the States got bumped to $15 and I'm sitting at $35/hour, do you think I'm not going to ask for a raise as well? My skills are still just as valuable in relationship to the minimum wage. This is good for every PERSON, just not big corporations bottom line--which we all know to be the bane of our existence today.

I'm not usually one for throwing rocks, especially at individuals, but it blows me away that you are so dense as to not see it. It's simple math and basic economics.

Though you did get a degree, so you did sit through quite a bunch of brainwash and American propaganda...that might explain this whole tantrum.

[Richy_T]

Hey, if slavery was allowed, but voluntary,

Voluntary slavery,  

Sure, if contras were dictioned.

[Richy_T]

Nowhere in this thread did I see anything about joining unions and paying dues becoming mandatory.

You failed to follow the flow of the thread.

And employees are not just asking for more money. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that in and of itself. I've done it myself and got it.

[Richy_T]

I'm all for everyone making $15/hour baseline

Don't worry, your government is busy inflating the currency quickly enough that that will soon be worth less than what minimum wage is now (counts bitcoins).

If everyone in the States got bumped to $15 and I'm sitting at $35/hour, do you think I'm not going to ask for a raise as well? My skills are still just as valuable in relationship to the minimum wage.

Congratulations, you just became too expensive and your job has been sent overseas/your company went bust/You got bought out in an aggressive merger and everyone in the company got laid off.

[greenbtc]

I'm all for everyone making $15/hour baseline

Don't worry, your government is busy inflating the currency quickly enough that that will soon be worth less than what minimum wage is now (counts bitcoins).

That's why I said this:

This is good for every PERSON, just not big corporations bottom line--which we all know to be the bane of our existence today.

William Binney said it best the other day I was listening to him talk: "We are no longer a country with a government, we are a government with a country."

[FirstAscent]

If they can strike, more power to them.

Agreed.

Maybe it will weed out the fast food restaurants that aren't popular due to crummy food. In-n-Out pays well above minimum wage to start, and they do quite well, because they offer a superior product.

I'm struggling to find the relevance here.  Maybe it will, maybe it won't.  In-n-Out is tasty though

Maybe you shouldn't be bitching about what other workers seek in the world, but instead about the idea that any business should succeed, even if they produce a lousy product.

My issue is more with the idea that my intuition tells me that this is an inefficient use of the strikers' time.  I don't have a problem with people striking, but consider the following: the last time this happened, McDonald's workers in the area got a 10 cent raise.  This means that if a worker was to go on strike for a single day, it would take >500 hours or about 3 months of working for that 10 cent raise to earn them back their lost wages.  I wonder what percentage of those workers receiving that 10 cent raise remained employed for at least three months after the fact.

On a side note, ever drive through bumper-to-bumper traffic and realize the only reason the traffic jam is there is because some group is protesting about something you don't care about?  When it starts affecting (objectively) the flow of my day, that's when I feel inclined to give my input.

And don't pull the line about how it's going to make lunch prices go up. In-n-Out offers a soda, a delicious cheeseburger and delicious fries (all from fresh ingredients trucked to the store daily) for about $5.00.

I wasn't even thinking it.

It's not the workers' fault here. It's businesses which choose not to streamline their process and offer a superior product and service that are at fault.

To me, this isn't an issue about placing blame. Rather, I see it as a failure-to-adapt problem.  Let me be clear first off by stating that I would never even propose a dichotomy of "workers' fault vs. employers' fault."  Instead, to me, the situation appears as follows:

There are some fast food workers who are dissatisfied with either pay, working conditions, or both.  Three things are absolutely certain:  1) They applied for their current job on their own free will, 2) there were preexisting factors or conditions that led them to decide to apply for their current job, and 3) they currently have other options to choose from, and striking is at least one of those options.

I simply believe that out of the options available to them, striking is not an optimal one.  Of course this is all my opinion.

Essentially, it sounds like you're advocating a sloppy and lazy business plan. Quit your whining, enjoy your job, and instead of complaining about workers seek in this world, why don't you go enjoy a nice lunch somewhere?

Holy non-sequitor.

I think all you need to do is look in the mirror to see half the problems with the world you present. Calling someone entitled, yet you pretty much have come on here to flaunt your (non confirmable) success.

That said, $15/hr is chump change--the fact that you started out with this after having a degree shows me you are still young (as am I, but have no degree, and have been making nearly double that wage since I was 20 with no degree--and to this day, quite some years later still no degree...)

I'm all for everyone making $15/hour baseline, as it forces companies to re-evaluate how people are paid throughout the entire structure of the company. You are essentially arguing against your own raise by hating on people trying to raise the federal minimum wage. If everyone in the States got bumped to $15 and I'm sitting at $35/hour, do you think I'm not going to ask for a raise as well? My skills are still just as valuable in relationship to the minimum wage. This is good for every PERSON, just not big corporations bottom line--which we all know to be the bane of our existence today.

I'm not usually one for throwing rocks, especially at individuals, but it blows me away that you are so dense as to not see it. It's simple math and basic economics.

Though you did get a degree, so you did sit through quite a bunch of brainwash and American propaganda...that might explain this whole tantrum.

Not only that, but consider:

If people make $15 an hour, minimum, they're less likely to go down the road of crime, are better able to purchase services and goods from those business owners who want to make more revenue, are more likely to enable education for themselves or their children, are less likely to not have insurance...

In short, society benefits.

[Richy_T]

I'm all for everyone making $15/hour baseline

Don't worry, your government is busy inflating the currency quickly enough that that will soon be worth less than what minimum wage is now (counts bitcoins).

That's why I said this:

This is good for every PERSON, just not big corporations bottom line--which we all know to be the bane of our existence today.

William Binney said it best the other day I was listening to him talk: "We are no longer a country with a government, we are a government with a country."

How would earning less in real terms be good for any person?

If you think inflation is a good thing, you haven't been reading around this forum enough.

[FirstAscent]

I'm all for everyone making $15/hour baseline

Don't worry, your government is busy inflating the currency quickly enough that that will soon be worth less than what minimum wage is now (counts bitcoins).

If everyone in the States got bumped to $15 and I'm sitting at $35/hour, do you think I'm not going to ask for a raise as well? My skills are still just as valuable in relationship to the minimum wage.

Congratulations, you just became too expensive and your job has been sent overseas/your company went bust/You got bought out in an aggressive merger and everyone in the company got laid off.

Fast food service jobs aren't going overseas.

And how many times do I have to tell you that the fast food industry can trim the fat from other areas of their operation. And furthermore, as I've said, when the free lunch of cheap wages are gone, they'd actually have to create a desirable product, such as that of In-n-Out.