Paramedic’s Angry Post About "Burger Flippers" Making $15/hr Goes Viral

[CZroe]

Sounds like you need a sedagive...

"Sedagive?"

 

[MagickMan]

He's a dork who's watched Young Frankenstein too many times.

 

[Sonikku]

I think the most grating thing about this entire issue is that jobs need to pay a bit more each year just to keep the level of buying power comparable relative to cost of living and our economy. And because of that, keeping the wage the same can actually be a back door pay cut, despite providing the same labor or service. When something like minimum wage hasn't budged in half a decade, we're talking a BIG cut.

And when they do push for an adjustment after years of the wage not budging a cent, they're labeled as being greedy. "Why do you deserve more for the same work?" Well, why are our power companies/grocery stores/apartment buildings entitled to more money for providing the same product? Even the most frugal of poverty earners had their costs increase too. The point of raising the minimum wage by a small margin each year is not so much to ensure they get "rich" as much as it is to ensure that they don't fall further and further behind. But when it's kept the same for over half a decade you get left with these larger bumps being asked for that seem more drastic than if it had simply gotten a nudge every January.

 

[JEDI]

As for the paramedic he should have known he could not live on $15/hr in New York City. He should have worked somewhere else or chose a different field.

wait.. what?

$15/hr is the new min wage for McJobs in NYC?

when did this happen!??!

 

[FerrelGeek]

Ummm, not sure how you got that from what I wrote. As it happens, I agree with you. If you agree to work for someone, you owe it to your employer to do your best til the day you leave. Don't get a promotion? Figure out why and do your best to improve on your performance so that you get it next time. Employer is screwing you? Take it as a lesson and find something better.

That last part is so true. It always makes me laugh when people don't take these jobs seriously (as the worker). If you agreed to do the job, do the job; qualifications are irrelevant. I wouldn't want someone who halfassed a job just because they thought they were better than it, since, as far as I'm concerned, it would eventually happen again (didn't get that promotion, so you figure screw it). It doesn't matter how good you look on paper if your work ethic sucks.

 

[FerrelGeek]

Why? Is fast food not on your list of approved careers?

You didn't answer the question.

I did; I simply didn't give you the answer you wanted. My approval is irrelevant. If somebody wants to make it their life's work to make Big Macs or Baconators, that's their choice. I will not look down on their chosen profession as I was brought up to show kindness to people irrespective to 'perceived' position in society. I grew up in a lower middle class family and saw the struggles of my parents to make ends meet. There were times when I had jelly sandwiches because we couldn't afford peanut butter - or vice versa.

So again, if that's a person's true calling, so be it. But I see no societal obligation to force a business to pay someone in that profession at a level consistent with someone who has worked to acquire more skills.

 

[blankslate]

yawn, keep waving that liberal flag, while allowing millions of illegals into the country

Let's talk about the person who stopped enforcing part of the laws that punished both employers and illegal employees... such that only illegal employees are punished if caught... not that anyone has stepped up to start enforcing the whole of that set of laws.


....

 

[Rakehellion]

Ummm, not sure how you got that from what I wrote. As it happens, I agree with you. If you agree to work for someone, you owe it to your employer to do your best til the day you leave. Don't get a promotion? Figure out why and do your best to improve on your performance so that you get it next time. Employer is screwing you? Take it as a lesson and find something better.

Unfortunately, the real world isn't so black and white. You don't we your employer anything. You have a business relationship, he isn't your best friend.

 

[Rakehellion]

Enjoy your $8 Big Macs, bitches. Heh.

No one in NYC should eat at a McDonald's anyway. You literally have to walk past 10 better quality restaurants just to find one.

 

[davmat787]

Ummm, not sure how you got that from what I wrote. As it happens, I agree with you. If you agree to work for someone, you owe it to your employer to do your best til the day you leave. Don't get a promotion? Figure out why and do your best to improve on your performance so that you get it next time. Employer is screwing you? Take it as a lesson and find something better.

Agreed. This is basically the same points I was making earlier in the thread to several members dismay.

I think there is a significant disparity between each generation going back in regards to work ethic, perceived value of work, and employee - employer relationship.

Also today with so many people trying to support a family working fast food type jobs has certainly skewed how we view things. 20-30 years ago when most of these jobs were filled by teenagers, students, and as second jobs most of these hot issues of today were never even thought of even though they were still minimum wage jobs like today.

So it doesn't seem like the issues or problems are viewed with principle applied, but due to the kind of people filling these positions being so different than 20-30 years ago.

 

[werepossum]

Unfortunately, the real world isn't so black and white. You don't we your employer anything. You have a business relationship, he isn't your best friend.

Of course you owe your employer something; that IS your business relationship. You agree to do your best each day, not whatever you feel like doing. He agrees to pay you the wage on which the two of you agreed, not whatever he feels like paying. Sheesh, and people wonder why they don't get promoted.

 

[FerrelGeek]

Unfortunately, the real world isn't so black and white. You don't we your employer anything. You have a business relationship, he isn't your best friend.

No kidding - your boss isn't your best friend, he's your boss. And the business relationship is defines what you owe each other. You owe your employer an honest day's work and your employer owes you your wages - that you agreed to when you took the job.

 

[FerrelGeek]

Of course you owe your employer something; that IS your business relationship. You agree to do your best each day, not whatever you feel like doing. He agrees to pay you the wage on which the two of you agreed, not whatever he feels like paying. Sheesh, and people wonder why they don't get promoted.

Remember, a lot of the millennials think they deserve a promotion just for showing up and gracing the world with their presence; they have a wall of 'participation' trophies to prove their worth.

 

[werepossum]

Remember, a lot of the millennials think they deserve a promotion just for showing up and gracing the world with their presence; they have a wall of 'participation' trophies to prove their worth.

This is true, we have raised an awful lot of special snowflakes. Not just millennials either; I know people who are retired and still feel entitled, people who earn far above mean income and yet complaining that Obama or Bush didn't do anything for them.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

I think some of you in this thread are the kids from the Monster "when I grow up" super bowl commercial. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJB0CzlzSwY

Here is my perspective on the issue. Fast food has grown into a giant industry. The demand is obviously very high for the products. To the extent that there is room for many purveyors of it in the market place. Given this demand, I contend that a price increase forced on all of the players in the industry, due to an across the board wage hike, will not significantly impact demand for very long. Many are accustomed to it as a lifestyle choice, and considering what imbeciles will pay for a coffee beverage, they will absorb the cost increase (not nearly as radical an increase as to stop it from being eaten) and whine in between mouthfuls.

 

[Kaido]

Paramedic’s Angry Post About "Burger Flippers" Making $15/hr Goes Viral

Mixed feelings on this one. He makes some excellent points in his post. For starters, I do think that people on the low-end of the payment spectrum should make more, especially if you're mentally or physically challenged & that's the best you can ever do. $28k still stinks, but it's better than $17k a year like you'd earn making minimum wage where I live. A quick google says that the CEO of McDonalds & the CEO of Starbucks makes more than $9,200 an hour. So basically in two hours, they make more than they pay their employees all year. Not really a balanced system. On the flip side, you run into this issue:

http://news.investors.com/blogs-cap...e-70000-minimum-wage-backfires-om-company.htm

The CEO of that company cut his personal wage by 90% & upped the minimum wage at his company to $70k a year, which sounded like an awesome idea at the time. Two of his most-valued employees quit right away because they felt offended that the new hires with low contribution skills were earning as much as they were. And I can understand that, but at the same time, what they make is none of your business - be happy with what you get, or else go find something better elsewhere or negotiate a salary increase. However, the problem lies in incentives, because as human beings, we are driven by motivation:

Maisey McMaster told the Times that she initially bought into the raise. But then she thought about it. And "the details gnawed at her."

"He gave raises to people who have the least skills and are the least equipped to do the job, and the ones who were taking on the most didn't get much of a bump," she said.

Grant Moran, a Web developer, became frustrated that some co-workers who "were just clocking in and out were making the same as me."

"It shackles high performers to less-motivated team members," he said.

So not only does it create a perceived mental imbalance between high-performers & low-performers, but it also kills the motivation for the new people, the low-performers, and other people who don't contribute as much as people who try really hard. If you're a lazy person, you're not going to be motivated to finish your degree or put in an ounce more effort at work if someone is already paying you $70k a year just to show up. What he should have done is made the move, but kept it private. But obviously a large part of it was a PR move, otherwise we wouldn't have heard about it

I think the best move is to make everyone a partner in the company (or the local branch they work at). Not necessarily a decision-making partner, but basically a shareholder - you get paid more if the company does well, which incentivizes everyone to do a good job & put in more effort because you're getting rewarded for it. I don't know if that's called an employee-owned company or what, but that way you can do tiered payscales or pay everyone $70k a year, but people are still incentivized to put in effort because they'll get more reward out of it quarterly or annually.

 

[werepossum]

Mixed feelings on this one. He makes some excellent points in his post. For starters, I do think that people on the low-end of the payment spectrum should make more, especially if you're mentally or physically challenged & that's the best you can ever do. $28k still stinks, but it's better than $17k a year like you'd earn making minimum wage where I live. A quick google says that the CEO of McDonalds & the CEO of Starbucks makes more than $9,200 an hour. So basically in two hours, they make more than they pay their employees all year. Not really a balanced system. On the flip side, you run into this issue:

http://news.investors.com/blogs-cap...e-70000-minimum-wage-backfires-om-company.htm

The CEO of that company cut his personal wage by 90% & upped the minimum wage at his company to $70k a year, which sounded like an awesome idea at the time. Two of his most-valued employees quit right away because they felt offended that the new hires with low contribution skills were earning as much as they were. And I can understand that, but at the same time, what they make is none of your business - be happy with what you get, or else go find something better elsewhere or negotiate a salary increase. However, the problem lies in incentives, because as human beings, we are driven by motivation:



So not only does it create a perceived mental imbalance between high-performers & low-performers, but it also kills the motivation for the new people, the low-performers, and other people who don't contribute as much as people who try really hard. If you're a lazy person, you're not going to be motivated to finish your degree or put in an ounce more effort at work if someone is already paying you $70k a year just to show up. What he should have done is made the move, but kept it private. But obviously a large part of it was a PR move, otherwise we wouldn't have heard about it

I think the best move is to make everyone a partner in the company (or the local branch they work at). Not necessarily a decision-making partner, but basically a shareholder - you get paid more if the company does well, which incentivizes everyone to do a good job & put in more effort because you're getting rewarded for it. I don't know if that's called an employee-owned company or what, but that way you can do tiered payscales or pay everyone $70k a year, but people are still incentivized to put in effort because they'll get more reward out of it quarterly or annually.

The wages of people doing the same work as you are none of your business, but the wages of the CEO are relevant?

M'kay . . .

 

[shady28]

The CEO of that company cut his personal wage by 90% & upped the minimum wage at his company to $70k a year, which sounded like an awesome idea at the time. Two of his most-valued employees quit right away because they felt offended that the new hires with low contribution skills were earning as much as they were. And I can understand that, but at the same time, what they make is none of your business - be happy with what you get, or else go find something better elsewhere or negotiate a salary increase. However, the problem lies in incentives, because as human beings, we are driven by motivation:

Should've been obvious he was going to create a dysfunctional workplace.

He would have been better off giving that salary to everyone in the form of a +10% increase in the base salary and +10% for step / merit increases. That would help increase retention and motivate people to qualify for the next level in their respective careers.

What that idiot did was make an environment where people who never really stop working and put much of themselves into their job even outside of normal working hours, a common trait of high performers and those who have made it to a position of some responsibility, make the same as a 9-5 clerk.

So basically he made the extra effort and impact that has on the lives of those high performers not worth anything. In fact, to someone in that position of having to put in extra time / effort for their job it would probably be more like a punishment. Like the web developer, why would he answer the phone for a support call at 10PM while the clerk who makes as much as him has no such expectation?