You know what, I say we do an exchange program. We will take people from Mexico or Central America to come here to do work along with long term opportunity for the good ones. In exchange we send these entitled brats along with a removal of their citizenship and right to return. I'm not sure it would be worse.
In realistic terms, I'm just mindblown. While I'm not sure I'd want to hold a sign all day, I presume they are done with school and I had actual skills at that age. I'd have taken it over unemployment though. I was absolutely thrilled to have a warehouse job in high school where I worked in whatever weather with no heat or AC and at times it was legit hard work. I still considered it the best job among any of my friends. No uniforms, gross food, weekends, consistent pay and hours, etc. That $100/week I got was my freedom.
We will take people from Mexico or Central America to come here to do work along with long term opportunity for the good ones
How about "no". That is the story of California for the past 60 years, and look where it's gotten them.
If you want to talk about "entitlement", I consider it "entitled" for an employer to expect there always be a large pool of workers willing to work on terms he dictates without any negotiation or concessions on the part of the employer. And if that pool doesn't exist, I consider it "entitled" for an employer to think he can just replace the labor pool with a more complaint/desperate one.
Yes workers should strive to do their job to the best of their ability and act respectfully and honorably and all that. But this idea that you have to take whatever an employer condescends to offer you and be grateful for the privilege isn't a particularly healthy attitude either. This is a business transaction that either party can walk away from at any time and for any reason.
The first comment was a bit tongue-in-cheek and perhaps didn't come off as such. Not that I think we've ever tried a one-for-one trade, nor would that ever work logistically. So it's totally unrealistic and out by default.
I said in another comment that I'm more appalled by their apparent lack of any sort of discretion in their negotiation tactics. I also specifically didn't call out the sign on bonus in that comment, because while I think that's asinine for the job, perhaps it's what's required for the market to bear. I don't have the slightest issue with someone negotiating, I've turned down what seemed like great opportunities myself because it felt like a bad fit or an overly controlling environment I'd be getting in to.
I do know from these sad negotiations, all I see are red flags telling me there's no chance in hell I can count on any of these people to show up on time and consistently. If this were my business I'd raise the pay before I'd hire any of these turds, as it would be a hell of a lot cheaper to pay a reliable person more than to burn money doing nothing because my sign holder was out late and promised he'd show up after he got his bonus. If I can't afford it, then I guess I'm choosing between standing out there and holding the damn sign myself or cutting losses and dealing with contract breach costs and reputation hits.
Yeah I'm not defending this particular guy. And raising the pay would certainly be a hell of a lot more productive use of the boss's time than complaining on the internet. Or tell the foreman "schedule one more road worker than you need and put them on rotating 'sign holding' duty, and we'll still pay him normal"
I just don't think there's a hero and a villain in this particular story.
You know what, I say we do an exchange program. We will take people from Mexico or Central America to come here to do work along with long term opportunity for the good ones. In exchange we send these entitled brats along with a removal of their citizenship and right to return. I'm not sure it would be worse.
In realistic terms, I'm just mindblown. While I'm not sure I'd want to hold a sign all day, I presume they are done with school and I had actual skills at that age. I'd have taken it over unemployment though. I was absolutely thrilled to have a warehouse job in high school where I worked in whatever weather with no heat or AC and at times it was legit hard work. I still considered it the best job among any of my friends. No uniforms, gross food, weekends, consistent pay and hours, etc. That $100/week I got was my freedom.
How about "no". That is the story of California for the past 60 years, and look where it's gotten them.
If you want to talk about "entitlement", I consider it "entitled" for an employer to expect there always be a large pool of workers willing to work on terms he dictates without any negotiation or concessions on the part of the employer. And if that pool doesn't exist, I consider it "entitled" for an employer to think he can just replace the labor pool with a more complaint/desperate one.
Yes workers should strive to do their job to the best of their ability and act respectfully and honorably and all that. But this idea that you have to take whatever an employer condescends to offer you and be grateful for the privilege isn't a particularly healthy attitude either. This is a business transaction that either party can walk away from at any time and for any reason.
The first comment was a bit tongue-in-cheek and perhaps didn't come off as such. Not that I think we've ever tried a one-for-one trade, nor would that ever work logistically. So it's totally unrealistic and out by default.
I said in another comment that I'm more appalled by their apparent lack of any sort of discretion in their negotiation tactics. I also specifically didn't call out the sign on bonus in that comment, because while I think that's asinine for the job, perhaps it's what's required for the market to bear. I don't have the slightest issue with someone negotiating, I've turned down what seemed like great opportunities myself because it felt like a bad fit or an overly controlling environment I'd be getting in to.
I do know from these sad negotiations, all I see are red flags telling me there's no chance in hell I can count on any of these people to show up on time and consistently. If this were my business I'd raise the pay before I'd hire any of these turds, as it would be a hell of a lot cheaper to pay a reliable person more than to burn money doing nothing because my sign holder was out late and promised he'd show up after he got his bonus. If I can't afford it, then I guess I'm choosing between standing out there and holding the damn sign myself or cutting losses and dealing with contract breach costs and reputation hits.
Yeah I'm not defending this particular guy. And raising the pay would certainly be a hell of a lot more productive use of the boss's time than complaining on the internet. Or tell the foreman "schedule one more road worker than you need and put them on rotating 'sign holding' duty, and we'll still pay him normal"
I just don't think there's a hero and a villain in this particular story.