This I think is part of the huge problem with modern "low level"/minimum wage jobs. Companies don't pay enough to live of of one salary but expect to have full say over their employees time just for their own convenience in scheduling and staffing.
We were thrilled by what we'd found! It would be a quick and easy fix for the client: they had solid and reliable sales forecasts for each location so estimating the number of employees they'd need on a given day wasn't going to be difficult. In fact, they were more or less already doing it. It would hardly cost them anything to implement aside from a few tweaks to the corporate scheduling tool and a bit of training for the store managers. So when management immediately shot down our proposed solution it came as a bit of shock. The erratic scheduling and the "cut" shifts were a feature, not a bug, we were told. It kept employees from getting a second job that they might dare prioritize over their current job.
You’re mad about the right thing (the system is rigged towards money controlling everything). Your anger has been directed in the wrong direction (immigrants, et al.).
This is a class issue. The affected classes are disproportionately weighted, but include everyone who isn’t at the top with working class laborers taking a significant brunt and undocumented immigrants getting massively exploited.
The system is doing what it was designed to do and it’s destroying itself from within.
The problem is the owners. Sowing distrust among affected groups is how they stymie class solidarity.
No it's not. What gave you that idea? That I spoke a simple truth? I never said it is immigrants who are a problem or who I hate, it's the ruling class.
You are exactly the person I'm talking about -- calling me racist for daring to even discuss it. Well, not you actually, but the people who have convinced you that most of the working class are hordes of racist nazi white supremacists. I'm sure you mean well.
http://www.ontario.ca/document/your-guide-employment-standar...
> As of January 1, 2019 the three-hour rule applies to students (including students over 18 years of age except if the student works:
> at a children’s camp, unless the student is also a wilderness guide > providing instruction to or supervising children, unless the student is also a wilderness guide > in a recreational program run by a charity, unless the student is also a wilderness guide.
I can’t tell why wilderness guides in particular are so special
To start, as a backgrounder, for centuries, wilderness guides have held a special place in Canadian society. They have been revered, trusted, even give special authority and powers, which even traditional law enforcement do not possess.
In as they are so trusted, discussion, conversation about their powers and capabilities have been purged from all archives. Conversation with outsiders is typically prohibited. Yet CSEC, the RCMP, and others will surely not pay attention to so old a thread! And it will be archived, recorded, saved for future posterity.
So it is my goal to lay out much detail here, for just that purpose. I do not believe such knowledge should be kept secret, for while great good can be attributed to our guides, some are concerned that great wrong is done too.
Before I start documenting this in detail, I want to reiterate that Canadians are not typically allowed to speak of guides. Often we are caught and censured for doing so! I could barely wait for time to pass, barely wait until no one was paying attention, so was my excitement at finally having interest.
Why, if the RCMP knew I was speaking of this now, there'd be utter and complete hell to pay, I suspeci)S(Dxcv0f#
<NO CARRIER>
I always suspected that this was the reason for abusive retail scheduling. Thanks for confirming my suspicion. This should be illegal.
>It kept employees from getting a second job that they might dare prioritize over their current job.
I mean, clearly it fucking didn't.
They want to hand their kids the keys via no inheritance tax and recreate a top down monarchy.
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/1997/02/27/business/job-insecurity-o...
The kicker? They were children of immigrants that did the same, except their parents were lucky to have immigrated back when buying a business/land was much cheaper. Land prices are now far higher for the newer immigrants to ever be able to save enough to get in on the ownership side of the business.
But god forbid you raise the point that perhaps we need a political shift that removes some power from corporations and restores it to labor, you get painted as socialized nazi commie scum or whatever. It's so insane and frustrating just how good a lock these businesses have on the situation (Don't even get me started on Walmart et all).
To rational people this should be a no brainer. turns out a lot of people are not rational. the current system is not tenable in my opinion.
I think there needs to be some sort of law against known unenforceable contract provisions. They seem to be pretty commonly used against individuals where they are unlikely to know what is and isn't enforceable.
What's needed is some kind of harsh punishment for including unenforceable contract clauses, coupled with awareness from the side of the employee.
They want to shave a lot of pennies for themselves by playing musical chairs with our agency.
The only thing that was keeping this jobs in place is imperfect knowledge. Most job seekers have a limited knowledge as only know their own past jobs and the ones from close people (and to talk about pay is quite taboo in many countries). And that is how we got here. Even when there is public information, many people have a hard time understanding the implications of the statistics and concrete job differences.
Corporations have thousands of data points and share salary statistics between them.
Staying at home and even firings have helped some people to gain that knowledge.
In these sort of things, your direct manager probably doesn't even know what you make. There is a tight pay band set by HR and virtually no room for differentiation between employees. There is no mechanism in most roles to truly be rewarded for going the extra mile. The only surefire way to increase your takings is to be active in the employment marketplace and always looking for a better deal.
Working for someone is like this old Seinfeld bit[0], if you want to be rewarded you have to get someone to agree to it before you do the work, once the project is delivered and they are satiated they won't be feeling as generous. "We don't need labor now why are we giving this guy a raise?"
It's not just knowledge. Many of these jobs are TIRING jobs because you are physically on your feet a lot. You just don't have the energy to go looking for another job at the end of the day.
The break COVID gave people was a huge boon to job mobility.
Can you share some details on where you're getting this data? I'd like to dig into it more.
Imperfect information certainly is a thing, but many public jobs have public wage information. Large corporate jobs also have public wage information (say a delivery driver or warehouse worker -- everyone knows what Amazon is paying for these positions). Claiming people stay in these jobs due to ignorance goes against my experience growing up poor, where my parents and their peers constantly hunted for better paying jobs.
I don't know anything about Ireland, but a quick Google for "ireland jobs" leads me to https://ie.indeed.com/jobs-in-Ireland where I can clearly see wages and salaries for many positions.
And that's a segment of people who ought to be very good at using technology to find out that kind of stuff. I would be very surprised if this didn't hold for most other fields. I'd expect the only markets in which this kind of thing isn't common is ones that are extremely comp-focused (finance, say, and maybe sales).
I agree that white collar jobs obfuscate salaries and that power dynamic overwhelmingly favors employers.
That isn't the situation with lower paying jobs, especially ones that aren't salaried, which was what the OP was about. Those low skill jobs (I'd argue baggage handler making minimum wage at the airport to be in that category) openly list wages on the advertisement. Thinking those folks stay in their jobs due to the same information asymmetry is what I'm questioning.
When you were younger, it was worth it to work. Today basic wage often does not even cover rent and other living expenses. You loose money by working.
To get some perspective go to www.daft.ie and try to find studion near airport...
And do the same for minimum wage: an extra dollar/euro per hour for weeks where the employee works less than 35 hours.
I know there's some details to work out- vacation, employers forcing employees to say they don't want to work, and so on, but on the whole I think those could be smoothed out, and large employers wouldn't be able to get away with cheating it for long.
It isn't so much that we want to discourage investment in food supply and other service sectors but rather to increase the living conditions of those working in them.
It will mean increased labor costs, decreased stock market profits, and a bit of inflation. I argue that for humane labor practices, this is an acceptable compromise for a civilized society.
Would also help for the government to tax stock buybacks as profit and dividends.
Why? The gain from stock buy back is already captured in capital gains taxes. Simply increase the capital gains tax rate of the goal is to increase taxes collection.
Heathrow is in the UK, not in Ireland, so I'm not sure how Ireland's minimum wage, and Dublin Airport's work contracts for security, could possibly create shortages of staff at Heathrow?
In any case, the number of security staff at Heathrow isn't the bottleneck. From the article: "by the end of July, we will have as many people working in security as we had pre-pandemic".
Of course the poster is not saying Dublin airport's wages affect staffing at Heathrow. But I think you know that.
What is happening is something called a comparison or perhaps an analogy. We are being presented with another airport with staffing shortages and then presented with a cause which possibly applies to the airport in question. But I think you know this, too.
* The starting salary for Security Officers at Heathrow is 28% above the UK's minimum wage (12.13/hour vs 9.50/hour).
* They employ people as either full time (40 hours/week) or part time (20 hours/week). For the latter, there are two shift patterns available, but they don't seem to vary week by week.
[0] - https://encd.fa.em3.oraclecloud.com/hcmUI/CandidateExperienc...
Sample of one, but this is the first result I got:
A baggage handler job in Heathrow earns £11/hour for a contracted temporary hourly job that involves probably shifts, working through half the weekends, a long commute and dealing with abusive passengers.
https://www.totaljobs.com/job/baggage-handler/buzz-recruitme...
Perhaps different roles are affected, but I suspect Dublin and Heathrow have staff shortages for similar reasons.
1) pay and conditions relative to other options (which your example illustrates)
2) the system's inability to react quickly to changes in required throughput, because hiring and training takes at least a few weeks(?)
I wonder what's the dominant reason for today's situation, when Heathrow worked fine before the pandemic?
A) Potential workers have better options (or better information about options) than they did before the pandemic?
B) The airport and airlines failed to forecast accurately enough?
C) Some other type of 'bug' in the system of management?
D) Something else?
But the intent was clear.
At Dublin Airport, security staff are only guaranteed 20 hours per week, need to be available for 40 hours per week, and entry level workers are paid €14.14 per hour.
Guaranteed pay: €282.80 per week, i.e. 67% of the minimum wage.
Are there any surprises why there are staff shortages?
1. https://extra.ie/2022/03/31/news/daa-taoiseach-criticised-du...