Munkus BeaverYou don't have to attend every argument you are invited to.Philosophy: Stoicism. Politics: Democratic SocialistRegistered User, ClubPAregular
But this isn't a case of career aspirations or corporate ladder work. It's menial dead end jobs that routinely enforce 14+ hour days.
So
That's different?
Every person I have seen, heard, or talked to that went into video game QA did so because they wanted to get their foot in the door of the video game industry. This sort of QA is routinely described as the trial by fire/lottery to finally getting that promotion that makes you a person that creates video games.
If you are working in QA with no aspirations of getting into the video game industry, you should proooooooobably find a different job with better pay for better hours.
Humor can be dissected as a frog can, but dies in the process.
Caught the latest unemployment numbers? It's harder than it sounds to walk away from an income.
Now, perhaps, but this isn't a recent, unique occurrence. This type of behavior on behalf of companies trying to wring every drop they can out of employees is hardly new, it's been around forever, and saying "well, unemployment is high" excuses an old behavior because of new issues. Now it's not that I blame a company for doing this, because from a business perspective it makes perfect sense: Find someone desperate for this particular job; squeeze as much work out of them for as little pay as possible; repeat." Hell, it's obviously working for Walmart. However, if you play into this and do nothing but complain you have only yourself to blame. At some point you have to take responsibility for yourself and for what you're willing to put up with from an employer. If you let them walk all over you and do nothing then that's your fault, not theirs.
Caught the latest unemployment numbers? It's harder than it sounds to walk away from an income.
Now, perhaps, but this isn't a recent, unique occurrence. This type of behavior on behalf of companies trying to wring every drop they can out of employees is hardly new, it's been around forever, and saying "well, unemployment is high" excuses an old behavior because of new issues. Now it's not that I blame a company for doing this, because from a business perspective it makes perfect sense: Find someone desperate for this particular job; squeeze as much work out of them for as little pay as possible; repeat." Hell, it's obviously working for Walmart. However, if you play into this and do nothing but complain you have only yourself to blame. At some point you have to take responsibility for yourself and for what you're willing to put up with from an employer. If you let them walk all over you and do nothing then that's your fault, not theirs.
So you're putting the onus on the guy making minimum wage, not the company exploiting? Very strange.
I'd prefer to make this kind of mandated overtime, without compensation, explicitly illegal. In most cases, it is already, but few people know their rights or feel like they can flex those rights as it would take substantial commitment and legal council.
I'm all for people standing up for themselves, but you're describing somebody with no clout and power taking on somebody with all the clout and power. It's not a fair fight. And in the end, you can walk out on your morals and hope for another job, but that other job may not exist.
In short: BLAME THE COMPANY. People should not be taken advantage just because they are willing. That's not an excuse to exploit.
Steam: hewn
Warframe: TheBaconDwarf
0
Options
CambiataCommander ShepardThe likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered Userregular
More jobs need unions. The "perks" should be part of a civilized work environment.
While I admit there are jobs and environments that need unions, every interaction I've had with unions was a poor one. I despise them and wish I could opt out of my own right now, but for some odd reason my state hasn't passed law to make that legal.
Agreed 100%. I'm very happy that I live in a right-to-work state.
"If you divide the whole world into just enemies and friends, you'll end up destroying everything" --Nausicaa of the Valley of Wind
Every person I have seen, heard, or talked to that went into video game QA did so because they wanted to get their foot in the door of the video game industry. This sort of QA is routinely described as the trial by fire/lottery to finally getting that promotion that makes you a person that creates video games..
That's becoming less and less true over time however.
MuddBudd on
There's no plan, there's no race to be run
The harder the rain, honey, the sweeter the sun.
Agreed 100%. I'm very happy that I live in a right-to-work state.
You must have an intrinsic trust in your employer. It's no surprise that right-to-work states are heavily concentrated in areas where legislation has been bought and sold by the Chamber of Commerce, i.e. big business. *cue spooky music*
This isn't to say that unions function with a clockwork perfection, or are adverse to corruption, but their existence over American history lead to the growth of the middle class, and their fading in history is now marked with a diminishing middle class.
There was a time unions served a purpose. Now the cure has largely become worse than the disease. Their primary function these days is to line the pockets of their leadership and serve as political pressure groups which lobby for policies and back candidates their members may or may not actually even support.
But talking politics and current affairs would be, I believe, just about exactly the last reason why I read the PA forum so if this is what we're going to do, I'll see you folks in tomorrow's comic thread.
But talking politics and current affairs would be, I believe, just about exactly the last reason why I read the PA forum so if this is what we're going to do, I'll see you folks in tomorrow's comic thread.
You kind of lit the fuse and ran with that post.
And I'm really disappointed people have become so jaded to unions. I'm confused how else workers expect to be protected. I don't consider that a political question, but a honest to goodness concern.
Steam: hewn
Warframe: TheBaconDwarf
0
Options
CambiataCommander ShepardThe likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered Userregular
And I'm really disappointed people have become so jaded to unions. I'm confused how else workers expect to be protected. I don't consider that a political question, but a honest to goodness concern.
The problem I have with unions, and why I'm glad I live in a right-to-work state, is bound up in the fact that I work for a union company.
I dislike the union, and refuse to give union dues to them, because the function that they have for me, personally, is as my enemy. I have low seniority: therefore, I should be treated like shit. The end. The worst part is that, because they stopped hiring for my job title shortly after I got this job, I will ALWAYS be low seniority. I could be with this company for 20 years (and I probably will be, I like the job well enough and see no reason to leave at the moment), and I still won't increase in seniority, unless at some point they decide to hire in this job title again, which seems highly unlikely at this point.
Heck, the job I have in the company, the one that switched me out of mandatory overtime, and switched me over to friendly managment and compelling work - I wouldn't even have this job if the union had any say in it. It doesn't matter that I'm one of the few people who is competent to do the work with efficiency. I have low seniority, therefore I shouldn't ever have even been offerred this position. Someone with high seniority, who doesn't know the first thing about the work I do or how to do it, should have gotten the job. And the union did in fact fight to try to get me taken out of this job. They succeeded with some people, and competent people who should be working beside me here are not, because they didn't have enough seniority.
And THAT is why I hate unions.
"If you divide the whole world into just enemies and friends, you'll end up destroying everything" --Nausicaa of the Valley of Wind
So you're putting the onus on the guy making minimum wage, not the company exploiting? Very strange.
Yes, I'm putting the onus on the guy to stand up for himself and not allow himself to be taken advantage of, rather than demanding that somebody else protect me for my own sake. Not so strange at all.
I'd prefer to make this kind of mandated overtime, without compensation, explicitly illegal. In most cases, it is already, but few people know their rights or feel like they can flex those rights as it would take substantial commitment and legal council.
This type of employment situation wouldn't even exist if people didn't keep buying into it with the belief that "well, I've got to work, and this will do, but oooh darn them for taking advantage of me, but I'll do it anyway, but it's their fault." But but but take some responsibility. As for "....but few people know their rights..." that's no excuse. Ignorance isn't an excuse for breaking the law, and it's no excuse for allowing someone else to treat you in such a manner. If you don't educate yourself (and don't kid yourself that labour laws are difficult to look up, or that finding someone to discuss such with is difficult) then again, nobody to blame but yourself. Afterall, whose job should it be to teach you your rights, if not your own? Again, take some responsibility for yourself.
And why on earth would looking up your state/province/whatever labour laws on a computer at the library require a substantial commitment of anything, nevermind legal council? What are you talking about? You're not suing anybody, you're quitting a job.
I'm all for people standing up for themselves, but you're describing somebody with no clout and power taking on somebody with all the clout and power. It's not a fair fight. And in the end, you can walk out on your morals and hope for another job, but that other job may not exist.
I'm not "describing somebody with no clout and power taking on somebody with all the clout and power"at all, what nonsense is this? When did I say that Joe Blow 60 hours work for 40 hours pay should storm his bosses office and demand he change his employment policy? I said Joe Blow needs to take a goddamn stand and have enough pride to walk out the door rather than be stepped on. As for "walking out on your morals" I have no idea what you're even talking about. It's immoral to quit your job when you're jerked around by an exploitative boss?
In short: BLAME THE COMPANY. People should not be taken advantage just because they are willing. That's not an excuse to exploit.
In short, again, blame the people that have taught companies that there're enough suckers that'll put up with this sort of garbage and accept it that they don't need to change their model. You may have a hard time finding another job, but don't pretend that that means you have no choice. It doesn't have to be easy to be a choice. McDonalds is always hiring, and so is Walmart.
Final thought: if you accept a job knowing the conditions, then suck it up. If they spring "surprise mandatory overtime" or somesuch on you after the fact then shame on them, certainly, but if you walked into a job knowing that it could happen then you're in no position to bitch about it later; you shouldn't have accepted the job in the first place.
Also, for the record, I agree with pretty well everything Cambiata said regarding unions. Unions were absolutely a requirement in their day, there's no question of that, but the animal they've become now is in many cases unnecessary and counter-productive. One of the saddest things of all is the sense of nonsense entitlement they instill in people that are otherwise awful workers. "I deserve a break for this, a bonus for that, plus a lunch break and a meeting break and five bathroom breaks" so that 5 hours of work makes a 9-hour workday. Bah, have some pride in yourself.
Also, for the record, I agree with pretty well everything Cambiata said regarding unions. Unions were absolutely a requirement in their day, there's no question of that, but the animal they've become now is in many cases unnecessary and counter-productive. One of the saddest things of all is the sense of nonsense entitlement they instill in people that are otherwise awful workers. "I deserve a break for this, a bonus for that, plus a lunch break and a meeting break and five bathroom breaks" so that 5 hours of work makes a 9-hour workday. Bah, have some pride in yourself.
I didn't even got in to the fact that there are certain job titles in my company for which there is simply no work, but the company can't fire them because of the union. So there are people who go to work and read the newspaper or a book for 8 hours, then leave. Criminal waste. There is much to despise in modern unions.
"If you divide the whole world into just enemies and friends, you'll end up destroying everything" --Nausicaa of the Valley of Wind
This isn't the place for it, although I do feel it's an important issue. But I already posted more than I wanted. Also, I think your last retort puts you squarely in the silly goose jamboree.
A "right-to-work" state means that if the job is a union shop, they can't force you to pay dues. You have the "right-to-work" and they can't force you out of your job because you refuse to be a part of a union. I believe it's also called an open-shop, and states that don't have "right-to-work" laws can still have open-shop unions if the members vote for it.
Because I'm not in a "right-to-work" state, I can't opt-out of paying my union dues. So no matter how poorly they represent me, I can't do a thing about it and I'm stuck paying them for the poor job they are doing. There's probably a lot more to it than that, but I haven't looked it up in a while. To me, being able to choose to pay dues or not keeps the union in check to do a good job. If the leaders do a poor job, less people will voluntarily pay their dues and the union will be strapped for cash. If they do a good job, more people will pay dues to allow them to keep doing a good job.
A "right-to-work" state means that if the job is a union shop, they can't force you to pay dues. You have the "right-to-work" and they can't force you out of your job because you refuse to be a part of a union. I believe it's also called an open-shop, and states that don't have "right-to-work" laws can still have open-shop unions if the members vote for it.
Because I'm not in a "right-to-work" state, I can't opt-out of paying my union dues. So no matter how poorly they represent me, I can't do a thing about it and I'm stuck paying them for the poor job they are doing. There's probably a lot more to it than that, but I haven't looked it up in a while. To me, being able to choose to pay dues or not keeps the union in check to do a good job. If the leaders do a poor job, less people will voluntarily pay their dues and the union will be strapped for cash. If they do a good job, more people will pay dues to allow them to keep doing a good job.
Oh, I see. Here in Norway we have something called "organizational freedom" which means you can join a union if you want, but you don't have to. There's no such thing here as an all-union workplace.
I know some people who have previously worked in a place (a chain of music shops) where managers discouraged employees from joining a union, and I think most of the employees were unorganized.
That meant they had fewer rights, lower pay, no free legal help etc. It worked that way for a while, because the employees were afraid - they could easily be replaced, it was a popular place to work.
But then some of them joined the relevant union, and soon more followed, and then the managers had a little less absolute power over the employees.
But talking politics and current affairs would be, I believe, just about exactly the last reason why I read the PA forum so if this is what we're going to do, I'll see you folks in tomorrow's comic thread.
This isn't the place for it, although I do feel it's an important issue. But I already posted more than I wanted.
Hypocrisy is an ugly thing.
And my apologies, I hadn't realised that calling a person on their strawmen and then their retreat into sarcasm instead of standing behind their statements made me a silly goose. You got me.
0
Options
CambiataCommander ShepardThe likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered Userregular
Oh, I see. Here in Norway we have something called "organizational freedom" which means you can join a union if you want, but you don't have to. There's no such thing here as an all-union workplace.
Now that seems like a reasonable system.
And yeah, a right-to-work state in the US is one that allows someone to work for a union shop without having to join the union if they don't want to. For some strange reason, some states in the US require people to join unions in order to work, and lawmakers some how make out that this is for the good of the workers.
"If you divide the whole world into just enemies and friends, you'll end up destroying everything" --Nausicaa of the Valley of Wind
Right to work states are called "Right to fire" states for a reason. Looking at a map of where the right to work states are is hilarious.
Oh yup, the entire south and the midwest.
Also, a state that is not "right to work" doesn't mean they have to join a union, it means that a business can agree to do a closed shop with a union. And, just because you, yourself, have had a negative experience with unions does not mean that unions are across the board evil.
It's also been proven that workers in RTW states make less than those in states without those laws. And large businesses are the leading fundraisers for right to work legislation. Man, I wonder why that is?
And my apologies, I hadn't realised that calling a person on their strawmen and then their retreat into sarcasm instead of standing behind their statements made me a silly goose. You got me.
Have you ever been so far in disagreement with a person you know the only outcome is frustration for both parties? I'm not trying to be rude.
Regardless, I did have a nice chat with Cambiata about this. He's a classy fellow.
Or you can continue to sarcastically avoid backing up your statements, that seems to be working out for you so far. Play to your strengths! :^:
Yes, please try raising a family with two kids and staying above the poverty line while working the cash register at mcdonalds or walmart, making minimum wage.
oh wait, that is literally impossible. When the choice is between making ends meet or walking out based on you sticking it to the man, guess what reality dictates that you do? This is why you're being a silly goose. It's an amazingly stupid thing to say. People in these positions often don't have a choice.
0
Options
CambiataCommander ShepardThe likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered Userregular
Right to work states are called "Right to fire" states for a reason. Looking at a map of where the right to work states are is hilarious.
That map is hilarious to me for an entirely different reason. It fairly accurately maps out those areas of my telecom where the employees are known to be raging silly gooses. Any time you have to call the (north) east coast for anything, It's well known that it's going to be a struggle to try to get them to do their jobs and they will use any means necessary to try to convince you that they can't do any work for you. That includes them just hanging up on you. The further south you get, the better the people get (at least in terms of willingness to help).
The west coast has a completely different issue. They just tend to be woefully incompetent, to the point where I have to walk them step-by-step on how to do their job, despite the fact that I do not have the access that they do and don't even know what the programs they use look like. In some cases it's simply devolved down to them asking bluntly, "Mary, can you tell me what is wrong with this order and why it's in my queue?"
I mean, it's kind of amazing to me how accurate a predictor that map is for failure vs competence (in my company). It almost makes it seem like the stronger the union, the more entitled the worker is, the less likely they are to be afraid of losing their job due to incompetence or outright neglect. Interesting stuff!
Cambiata on
"If you divide the whole world into just enemies and friends, you'll end up destroying everything" --Nausicaa of the Valley of Wind
Yes, please try raising a family with two kids and staying above the poverty line while working the cash register at mcdonalds or walmart, making minimum wage.
This began with people working in essentially minimum wage jobs that shoved extra unpaid hours down their throats to begin with, and come on, the McDonalds/Walmart reference clearly wasn't suggesting that those are your only two other options, good lord, do I need to explain the concept of context? Yes, clearly I'm the silly goose. Either way I've said my piece, and if people would rather continue to blame everyone else for their situations then more power to them.
And for the record, I lived everything I'm describing. I DID raise a kid as a single dad working a dead-end, below-poverty-line job. Two in fact. I made the sacrifices I had to to better my position and there's no reason that other people can't too. That's right, I'm the guy that quit smoking and now hassles smokers that say it's too hard. Again, to reiterate: hard choices are still choices. You can't say you have none just because the other option is difficult.
Some unions are pretty terrible. Some unions are pretty great. I once had a boss who made Jews-in-oven jokes. My next boss was from a Jewish family. Some times things of the same type are different. I was raised in, and have worked in, the construction industry, and I've seen good and bad unions on the same job. Try to not stereotype, yeah?
--
The comic looks much more like they're working in a warehouse. People involved in modern offices usually just send emails or IMs, or just yell at you in person.
Posts
Every person I have seen, heard, or talked to that went into video game QA did so because they wanted to get their foot in the door of the video game industry. This sort of QA is routinely described as the trial by fire/lottery to finally getting that promotion that makes you a person that creates video games.
If you are working in QA with no aspirations of getting into the video game industry, you should proooooooobably find a different job with better pay for better hours.
Now, perhaps, but this isn't a recent, unique occurrence. This type of behavior on behalf of companies trying to wring every drop they can out of employees is hardly new, it's been around forever, and saying "well, unemployment is high" excuses an old behavior because of new issues. Now it's not that I blame a company for doing this, because from a business perspective it makes perfect sense: Find someone desperate for this particular job; squeeze as much work out of them for as little pay as possible; repeat." Hell, it's obviously working for Walmart. However, if you play into this and do nothing but complain you have only yourself to blame. At some point you have to take responsibility for yourself and for what you're willing to put up with from an employer. If you let them walk all over you and do nothing then that's your fault, not theirs.
So you're putting the onus on the guy making minimum wage, not the company exploiting? Very strange.
I'd prefer to make this kind of mandated overtime, without compensation, explicitly illegal. In most cases, it is already, but few people know their rights or feel like they can flex those rights as it would take substantial commitment and legal council.
I'm all for people standing up for themselves, but you're describing somebody with no clout and power taking on somebody with all the clout and power. It's not a fair fight. And in the end, you can walk out on your morals and hope for another job, but that other job may not exist.
In short: BLAME THE COMPANY. People should not be taken advantage just because they are willing. That's not an excuse to exploit.
Warframe: TheBaconDwarf
Agreed 100%. I'm very happy that I live in a right-to-work state.
Many jobs, they get paid so little that without the overtime they wouldn't make enough to get by.
I'm waiting for the comic where Issac gets his first paycheck.
That's becoming less and less true over time however.
The harder the rain, honey, the sweeter the sun.
Myths and fairy stories.
The harder the rain, honey, the sweeter the sun.
You must have an intrinsic trust in your employer. It's no surprise that right-to-work states are heavily concentrated in areas where legislation has been bought and sold by the Chamber of Commerce, i.e. big business. *cue spooky music*
This isn't to say that unions function with a clockwork perfection, or are adverse to corruption, but their existence over American history lead to the growth of the middle class, and their fading in history is now marked with a diminishing middle class.
Warframe: TheBaconDwarf
But talking politics and current affairs would be, I believe, just about exactly the last reason why I read the PA forum so if this is what we're going to do, I'll see you folks in tomorrow's comic thread.
You kind of lit the fuse and ran with that post.
And I'm really disappointed people have become so jaded to unions. I'm confused how else workers expect to be protected. I don't consider that a political question, but a honest to goodness concern.
Warframe: TheBaconDwarf
The problem I have with unions, and why I'm glad I live in a right-to-work state, is bound up in the fact that I work for a union company.
I dislike the union, and refuse to give union dues to them, because the function that they have for me, personally, is as my enemy. I have low seniority: therefore, I should be treated like shit. The end. The worst part is that, because they stopped hiring for my job title shortly after I got this job, I will ALWAYS be low seniority. I could be with this company for 20 years (and I probably will be, I like the job well enough and see no reason to leave at the moment), and I still won't increase in seniority, unless at some point they decide to hire in this job title again, which seems highly unlikely at this point.
Heck, the job I have in the company, the one that switched me out of mandatory overtime, and switched me over to friendly managment and compelling work - I wouldn't even have this job if the union had any say in it. It doesn't matter that I'm one of the few people who is competent to do the work with efficiency. I have low seniority, therefore I shouldn't ever have even been offerred this position. Someone with high seniority, who doesn't know the first thing about the work I do or how to do it, should have gotten the job. And the union did in fact fight to try to get me taken out of this job. They succeeded with some people, and competent people who should be working beside me here are not, because they didn't have enough seniority.
And THAT is why I hate unions.
This type of employment situation wouldn't even exist if people didn't keep buying into it with the belief that "well, I've got to work, and this will do, but oooh darn them for taking advantage of me, but I'll do it anyway, but it's their fault." But but but take some responsibility. As for "....but few people know their rights..." that's no excuse. Ignorance isn't an excuse for breaking the law, and it's no excuse for allowing someone else to treat you in such a manner. If you don't educate yourself (and don't kid yourself that labour laws are difficult to look up, or that finding someone to discuss such with is difficult) then again, nobody to blame but yourself. Afterall, whose job should it be to teach you your rights, if not your own? Again, take some responsibility for yourself.
And why on earth would looking up your state/province/whatever labour laws on a computer at the library require a substantial commitment of anything, nevermind legal council? What are you talking about? You're not suing anybody, you're quitting a job.
I'm not "describing somebody with no clout and power taking on somebody with all the clout and power"at all, what nonsense is this? When did I say that Joe Blow 60 hours work for 40 hours pay should storm his bosses office and demand he change his employment policy? I said Joe Blow needs to take a goddamn stand and have enough pride to walk out the door rather than be stepped on. As for "walking out on your morals" I have no idea what you're even talking about. It's immoral to quit your job when you're jerked around by an exploitative boss?
In short, again, blame the people that have taught companies that there're enough suckers that'll put up with this sort of garbage and accept it that they don't need to change their model. You may have a hard time finding another job, but don't pretend that that means you have no choice. It doesn't have to be easy to be a choice. McDonalds is always hiring, and so is Walmart.
Final thought: if you accept a job knowing the conditions, then suck it up. If they spring "surprise mandatory overtime" or somesuch on you after the fact then shame on them, certainly, but if you walked into a job knowing that it could happen then you're in no position to bitch about it later; you shouldn't have accepted the job in the first place.
It's good to know that if I quit my job, McDonald's and Wal-Mart will be there to pick up the pieces.
Warframe: TheBaconDwarf
I didn't even got in to the fact that there are certain job titles in my company for which there is simply no work, but the company can't fire them because of the union. So there are people who go to work and read the newspaper or a book for 8 hours, then leave. Criminal waste. There is much to despise in modern unions.
Warframe: TheBaconDwarf
A "right-to-work" state means that if the job is a union shop, they can't force you to pay dues. You have the "right-to-work" and they can't force you out of your job because you refuse to be a part of a union. I believe it's also called an open-shop, and states that don't have "right-to-work" laws can still have open-shop unions if the members vote for it.
Because I'm not in a "right-to-work" state, I can't opt-out of paying my union dues. So no matter how poorly they represent me, I can't do a thing about it and I'm stuck paying them for the poor job they are doing. There's probably a lot more to it than that, but I haven't looked it up in a while. To me, being able to choose to pay dues or not keeps the union in check to do a good job. If the leaders do a poor job, less people will voluntarily pay their dues and the union will be strapped for cash. If they do a good job, more people will pay dues to allow them to keep doing a good job.
Oh, I see. Here in Norway we have something called "organizational freedom" which means you can join a union if you want, but you don't have to. There's no such thing here as an all-union workplace.
I know some people who have previously worked in a place (a chain of music shops) where managers discouraged employees from joining a union, and I think most of the employees were unorganized.
That meant they had fewer rights, lower pay, no free legal help etc. It worked that way for a while, because the employees were afraid - they could easily be replaced, it was a popular place to work.
But then some of them joined the relevant union, and soon more followed, and then the managers had a little less absolute power over the employees.
And my apologies, I hadn't realised that calling a person on their strawmen and then their retreat into sarcasm instead of standing behind their statements made me a silly goose. You got me.
Now that seems like a reasonable system.
And yeah, a right-to-work state in the US is one that allows someone to work for a union shop without having to join the union if they don't want to. For some strange reason, some states in the US require people to join unions in order to work, and lawmakers some how make out that this is for the good of the workers.
Oh yup, the entire south and the midwest.
Also, a state that is not "right to work" doesn't mean they have to join a union, it means that a business can agree to do a closed shop with a union. And, just because you, yourself, have had a negative experience with unions does not mean that unions are across the board evil.
It's also been proven that workers in RTW states make less than those in states without those laws. And large businesses are the leading fundraisers for right to work legislation. Man, I wonder why that is?
Have you ever been so far in disagreement with a person you know the only outcome is frustration for both parties? I'm not trying to be rude.
Regardless, I did have a nice chat with Cambiata about this. He's a classy fellow.
Warframe: TheBaconDwarf
This is another classy fellow.
Warframe: TheBaconDwarf
Yes, please try raising a family with two kids and staying above the poverty line while working the cash register at mcdonalds or walmart, making minimum wage.
oh wait, that is literally impossible. When the choice is between making ends meet or walking out based on you sticking it to the man, guess what reality dictates that you do? This is why you're being a silly goose. It's an amazingly stupid thing to say. People in these positions often don't have a choice.
That map is hilarious to me for an entirely different reason. It fairly accurately maps out those areas of my telecom where the employees are known to be raging silly gooses. Any time you have to call the (north) east coast for anything, It's well known that it's going to be a struggle to try to get them to do their jobs and they will use any means necessary to try to convince you that they can't do any work for you. That includes them just hanging up on you. The further south you get, the better the people get (at least in terms of willingness to help).
The west coast has a completely different issue. They just tend to be woefully incompetent, to the point where I have to walk them step-by-step on how to do their job, despite the fact that I do not have the access that they do and don't even know what the programs they use look like. In some cases it's simply devolved down to them asking bluntly, "Mary, can you tell me what is wrong with this order and why it's in my queue?"
I mean, it's kind of amazing to me how accurate a predictor that map is for failure vs competence (in my company). It almost makes it seem like the stronger the union, the more entitled the worker is, the less likely they are to be afraid of losing their job due to incompetence or outright neglect. Interesting stuff!
This began with people working in essentially minimum wage jobs that shoved extra unpaid hours down their throats to begin with, and come on, the McDonalds/Walmart reference clearly wasn't suggesting that those are your only two other options, good lord, do I need to explain the concept of context? Yes, clearly I'm the silly goose. Either way I've said my piece, and if people would rather continue to blame everyone else for their situations then more power to them.
And for the record, I lived everything I'm describing. I DID raise a kid as a single dad working a dead-end, below-poverty-line job. Two in fact. I made the sacrifices I had to to better my position and there's no reason that other people can't too. That's right, I'm the guy that quit smoking and now hassles smokers that say it's too hard. Again, to reiterate: hard choices are still choices. You can't say you have none just because the other option is difficult.
--
The comic looks much more like they're working in a warehouse. People involved in modern offices usually just send emails or IMs, or just yell at you in person.