this post was submitted on 19 Sep 2024
1084 points (98.8% liked)

Work Reform

9823 readers
1507 users here now

A place to discuss positive changes that can make work more equitable, and to vent about current practices. We are NOT against work; we just want the fruits of our labor to be recognized better.

Our Philosophies:

Our Goals

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] ansiz@lemmy.world 11 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

And yet a local Domino's Pizza around here is still offering the same $12 an hour rate and advertising a manager salary of $25k a year! Corporations never learn and people wonder why customer service is so crappy.

[–] damnedfurry@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago

Huh, according to Indeed, the range for Domino's delivery drivers around me is $18-$25 an hour. How far over minimum wage is your $12?

[–] SuperCub@sh.itjust.works -3 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago) (1 children)

This is the primary reason that inflation exists—so that business/corporations (the owner class) can steal more of your hard-earned money.

[–] damnedfurry@lemmy.world 8 points 1 hour ago

Uh, no, the primary reason inflation exists is so that there is an economy, lol.

If there was deflation, the 'optimal' thing to do with your extra cash would literally be to stuff it under a mattress.

Too much inflation is obviously bad, but deflation is also really bad. A tiny amount of inflation is optimal long-term.

[–] chemicalprophet@lemm.ee 4 points 6 hours ago

Here it’s north of $40/hr

[–] Cataphract@lemmy.ml 22 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

I remember growing up in the 90's and being acutely aware of the growing minimum wage. I knew no matter what that when I was able to get a job I would be guaranteed "this" amount and always thought about prices and how long I had to work to get something I wanted when I was an adult. Every small bump made it a little mini-celebration like I was getting a future raise that would allow me to have a better life.

Now? Shake and bake costs over 5$, I have to literally work over an hour to buy half a cup of "convenient" seasoned bread crumbs. I could buy the flour, make the bread, and process it to make my own... but now I'm out of time in the day to work enough to actually afford the meat or any other side item. Oh yeah, and at some point I should pay my bills and save for retirement -_-

[–] MapleEngineer@lemmy.world 10 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago) (1 children)

There should be no profits, no bonuses, and no dividends until every worker (not employee, it doesn't matter what your relationship with the company is if they benefit from your labour) is making at least a living wage with full benefits. Executive pay should be capped at a multiple of the pay of the lowest paid worker and of the average pay paid to all workers.

[–] damnedfurry@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

There should be no profits, no bonuses, and no dividends until every worker (not employee, it doesn’t matter what your relationship with the company is if they benefit from your labour) is making at least a living wage with full benefits.

To get anywhere, you must define "living wage" concretely. You can use variables of course, but without at least a 'formula', "living wage" is just a meaningless, unachievable talking point. You at least have to know what you're aiming at, to have any hope of achieving it--you'll never get anywhere just saying "living wage", because 'enough to live on' does not nearly have the same definition for everyone. So, what's the baseline, in your view?

Example: 'the living wage should be enough money to afford [list of things] with $X leftover for discretionary spending/saving.'

[–] MapleEngineer@lemmy.world 1 points 55 minutes ago

The classic definition is the wage needed to cover the basic needs of the family including things like rent, childcare, transportation, etc. I would go one further and say that the family needs to not be living paycheque to paycheque. They should be able to save for the future, go out once in a while, educate their children, save and pay for university, and advance themselves. They should be able to live.

[–] TheDemonBuer@lemmy.world 17 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

The cost of living will just keep going up because inflation is necessary in our current, debt based monetary system. The Fed tries to keep this under control by not allowing the rate of inflation to go much beyond about 2% a year. The recent inflation issue we've been having wasn't about inflation suddenly happening where it hadn't been happening before, it was about the rate of inflation increasing beyond the Fed's 2% target. When they talk about inflation getting back under control, they're talking about the rate of inflation getting back to near 2%. But make no mistake: prices are still going up - they have to, that's how the system works - and they will keep going up every year, seemingly indefinitely. For this reason, a cost of living raise equal to at least the rate of inflation is absolutely essential, otherwise workers are getting a pay cut.

But this is further complicated by the fact that the core inflation numbers are very broad. Housing costs are exploding. Core inflation would be much lower if not for rising housing costs. But the way housing costs increases are measured is by averaging housing costs across all markets, meaning the cost of housing in low demand areas is averaged with the cost of housing in high demand areas. This means that if you live in a high demand area, the core inflation rate doesn't necessarily capture the true cost of living in your area, and that the cost of living in your area is going up much faster than the national average. Therefore, many workers need an annual cost of living increase that is much greater than the national inflation rate.

As far as I know, there is no national law requiring companies to give cost of living raises every year. Many companies do, but many don't. A mandatory, annual cost of living raise is something that unions can negotiate, once again showing the value of unions.

[–] damnedfurry@lemmy.world 1 points 2 hours ago

The cost of living will just keep going up because inflation is necessary in our current, debt based monetary system.

You're making this sound like it's something that was arbitrarily decided by powers that be, but the fact is that if there was deflation instead, the economy would come to a screeching halt, because it becomes more 'optimal' to hold onto cash under a mattress (since in deflation, it grows in value over time) instead of spending it on goods and services.

A tiny amount of inflation is best long-term, for the whole.

[–] NutWrench@lemmy.ml 13 points 11 hours ago

Minimum wage should have been $15/hr at least 10 years ago.

[–] Apytele@sh.itjust.works 193 points 21 hours ago (5 children)

Friendly reminder to people in similar positions that the fact I barely make a living wage as a nurse doesn't mean the techs with less education than me that I supervise shouldn't. In fact, if they're making a living wage, that leaves room for me to advocate to make even more myself. This fight is about us taking from the rich, not from each other, and I refuse to let them control the narrative like that.

[–] Sciaphobia@lemm.ee 1 points 5 hours ago

It isn't about taking from the rich either. It's about letting THEM take less, so there's more for everyone else. Slight distinction, but they are the ones taking, not the workers.

[–] dohpaz42@lemmy.world 87 points 20 hours ago (11 children)

It should also be said that just because I already paid my student loans off doesn’t mean I don’t want other people to be in debt. Student loan forgiveness needs to be up there with the livable wage.

[–] damnedfurry@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago

Student loan forgiveness is regressive by definition (those lucky enough to go to college are a minority that earns on average $0.5 to $1 million more over their lifetimes, than those who don't), aren't you against wealth transfers from poorer to richer?

[–] daddy32@lemmy.world 1 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

There's some double negation confusion at work here, but I think you wrote that you do want other people to be in debt ;)

[–] dohpaz42@lemmy.world 2 points 6 hours ago

Yes. You’re right. Thankfully it seems everyone understands what I meant though. 😊

[–] Apytele@sh.itjust.works 38 points 20 hours ago

Yaaas. Let's uplift each other people! Your fellow workers are NOT the enemy!

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] NovaPrime@lemmy.ml 45 points 21 hours ago

This fight is about us taking from the rich, not from each other.

Beautiful stated, cutting right to the heart of the matter.

[–] 1984@lemmy.today 7 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

They want us fighting eachother, strong move to realize that and put the blame where it belongs.

[–] Sterile_Technique@lemmy.world 7 points 19 hours ago (3 children)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] vzq@lemmy.blahaj.zone 48 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 18 hours ago) (1 children)

If you want the meat robot to work for you, you need to pay the upkeep for the meat robot.

That includes power (food), repairs (health insurance) and upgrades (education).

If you can’t afford that, you can’t afford to have a meat robot on your staff.

[–] orl0pl@lemmy.world 2 points 8 hours ago (2 children)

I wonder what will happen when steel robots take our jobs

[–] b3an@lemmy.world 1 points 3 hours ago

Those things still apply to robots too.

[–] vzq@lemmy.blahaj.zone 10 points 8 hours ago

More time for revolution

[–] _sideffect@lemmy.world 11 points 20 hours ago

All by design

load more comments
view more: next ›