Does a picket line ever influence you?

[poppy]

There is a local grocery store where just about ALL the workers are protesting.  That's a picket line I won't cross.  First of all, because if they're all in agreement, who am I to say they're all wrong?  Second of all, because the shelves are pretty much empty so it's useless!

 

I used work in finance. We'd occasionally get a half dozen people picking because we had mutual funds out of countries with human rights abuses. I appreciate the sentiment, but, I still went to work those days.

 

 

Does a picket line ever influence you?

 

[Reefgazer]

Nope, not at all.  The only thing I would do if I were uneducated about their stand is investigate for myself and make my decision based on my findings.

[dirty ethel rackham]

It may influence me to do some research on the issue, but I often don't agree with the union.  The union leadership's interests often do not coincide with the interests of the rank-and-file employees.  My husband has to deal with a "white collar" union and he is prohibited from giving people raises, even when the employee clearly deserves the raise.  He recently hired an employee and was unaware that the HR department screwed up on her pay grade.  She is very underpaid for her position, but the union won't let him give her a raise - a raise that he lobbied for and was approved by HR (a rare event.)  But, they are negotiating some idiotic nickel-and-dime issues that won't substantially improve the lot of the workers in the union.  He is frustrated that he is prevented from being a good manager to his employees. 

[brehon]

Nope, not at all. I make those types of decisions (places to patronize, etc) based mainly on other factors.

[FaithManor]

No. I read up on the issues and try to find the least biased sources.

[T'smom]

I probably would not cross a picket line. I would have to be very well informed on the specific incident and come to the conclusion that I disagreed with them. But honestly, I probably wouldn't care enough to do that much research, so I would just respect the picket line.

 

I have never encountered a picket line in front of a place I wanted to go.

[Arcadia]

We have seen too many to be sympathetic. They end up turning us off instead. If I am attending an event at a hotel or visiting someone at a hospital, I will cross the picket line.

I'm also annoyed by the activists blocking people from going into PetCo and PetSmart. We end up buying pet food that day at Walmart instead.

[redsquirrel]

It depends on why they are picketing, but I will take the time to find out what is going on. If workers are picketing a business I won't cross it. It's not like I can't find somewhere else to do my business around here.

[ebrindam]

Yes.

[TrixieB]

My only picket line experiences:

 

schoolteacher strikes -- my mom kept us kids home from school

 

grocery store strikes -- family members worked for the striking stores, and were on the picket lines; I didn't cross the picket lines

[KrissiK]

Depends in how many picketers and if they were paid picketers what their issue was. Our local Fresh & Easy Grocery Store has had paid picketers out front ever since it opened. Nobody seemed to care and the grocery store is thriving. I haven't seen them there in a while.

[SadieMarie]

I don't cross them either.

[lynn]

If you are in mass or nh and you are referring to market basket then no I would not cross.

[Wabi Sabi]

I just got home from a vacation in NH. I went across the street to Hannaford's. I'm from the midwest so I know nothing of the chain or why the employees are on strike, but there's no point in going to a store with bare shelves anyhow.

[HS Mom in NC]

Not at all.  I only saw a picket line once at my grocery store, so it's not something I've ever seen but the one time.

No, I've never participated in a boycott over anything.  I have chosen to buy fair trade coffee though just to see if my husband liked it.  If he did, I was willing to make the switch for a good cause.  He didn't like it.  I've chosen to buy grocery products where a percentage of the proceeds go to charity, but to be clear, I have to like the product just as much I liked its competitor's product to make the permanent switch.
 

[Arcadia]

Our local Fresh & Easy Grocery Store has had paid picketers out front ever since it opened. Nobody seemed to care and the grocery store is thriving. I haven't seen them there in a while.

F&E was bought over in September last year. Here they became 24/7 after the buy over. Didn't see the picketers after the buy over.

 

I just saw picketers at the entrance to the parking area of the premium outlet recently. People just packed the outlet as usual.

[chiguirre]

I wouldn't cross a picket line of workers, but I'd probably cross a line of protesters if I didn't agree with them. If it looked dangerous, I'd go somewhere else. I absolutely boycott businesses I don't agree with--until they change their policies.

[poppy]

I just got home from a vacation in NH. I went across the street to Hannaford's. I'm from the midwest so I know nothing of the chain or why the employees are on strike, but there's no point in going to a store with bare shelves anyhow.

 

The story is kinda nuts. Long running family feud blows up. http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2014/07/28/market_basket_empty_shelves_in_beantown.html

[Lady Florida.]

I have never and likely will never cross a picket line. As a PP said, if I knew details about the situation and totally disagreed with them I might consider it. Probably not though. 

[Lady Florida.]

I wouldn't cross a picket line of workers, but I'd probably cross a line of protesters if I didn't agree with them. If it looked dangerous, I'd go somewhere else. I absolutely boycott businesses I don't agree with--until they change their policies.

 

I don't really think of that as a picket line, though I know it is one. In my mind there are protesters and picketers. I have crossed lines of people protesting for or against a cause (the last was in Washington, D.C.) when I've disagreed with them. I've always thought of a picket line as involving workers in a dispute. Those I will not cross.

[Matryoshka]

It may influence me to do some research on the issue, but I often don't agree with the union. 

 

In this particular case, there is no union.  They just all walked out, en masse.  The delivery truck drivers aren't even delivering anything, so the shelves are literally empty.  This has been going on for weeks.  This isn't a couple of disgruntled workers picketing - it's virtually all the employees at every level (that's around 25,000), and yes, with no union.

 

Their complaint?  The board ousted the CEO.  They want him back, because he always treated them well.  The reason the CEO was ousted was a long-running family feud; now the other side of the family is in charge. The previous CEO has offered to buy them out, but they're just dragging their feet while the whole chain goes under.

 

[Annie]

The only time I've crossed picket lines was in college. The teaching assistants went on strike over a couple of very reasonable cost cutting measures. I went to a very liberal/pro union university, but they did not have much sympathy from the professors or student body. My classes that I paid thousands of dollars for weren't cancelled, and I wasn't going to miss them! I would say at least 2/3 of students in my classes showed up. There was the occasional professor that cancelled out of solidarity, but they were the exception.

 

The strikers made sure going crossing the lines was an unpleasant experience, but you got used to it. Some of my TAs didn't strike (I was in the business school which was more politically moderate), and they had a terrible time coming into the buildings.

 

If I saw a random strike, I would likely try to learn more, but I wouldn't necessarily refuse to cross the line.

[Word Nerd]

I have never encountered a picket line in front of a place I wanted to go.

I haven't either, but I doubt it would influence my decision. I did visit a church that happened to be the target of a Westboro Baptist protest one Sunday, and I've walked on past other groups of protesters at various times.

[mamaraby]

Protestors? Yes, if I disagree with them. Workers/unions? Absolutely not.

[DawnM]

I was a teacher during a strike.  I did not cross the picket line.  I  had a friend who did (at another school.)

 

I didn't begrudge her and she didn't begrudge me.  We just had different stands on the issue.  

[Cera]

I would cross picket lines without hesitation if I didn't agree with the reasons for picketing (and I haven't agreed the few times I have seen picketers).

[SadieMarie]

I boycott too. If I don't like a comany's actions I don't spend my money there. I don't tell anyone else where to shop or not, but there are definitely places I avoid for reasons that have nothing to do with prices or the quality of products.

[Heather in Neverland]

I probably would not cross a picket line but mostly because I've seen them erupt in violence back in Detroit and I don't want to be a part of that.

[Audrey]

A picket line of workers? I'd never cross one.  I am staunchly pro-union. Real blood was shed for your right to organize.

 

A group of protestors who are not workers of the business?  Maybe, I might cross that line if I disagree with them.  I may be inclined to do some homework to think for myself on their arguments.

 

I try, to the best of my ability, to use my dollars consciously and according to my ethics.  I do and will boycott companies and products that involve unethical practices.

[fraidycat]

I don't know. I've never experienced one.

 

I'm anti-union, though, so... It would probably depend on the actual issue at hand. I would not refuse to cross just to "stand in solidarity" with workers.

[creekland]

Whether or not I would cross a picket line would depend upon how I felt about the reason for it.  I'd do my research.

 

I ignore protesters. 

 

I have my own places I boycott and won't step foot in, but I never join a boycott "just because."  I've been actually known to go to a business even if I wouldn't normally if they are being boycotted for a reason I don't support.

[Catherine]

Recently, there was a strike\labor dispute where I work. I was not faced with the choice of having to cross a picket line, fortunately, but after several weeks of negotiation, it was resolved. I turned it into a little educational moment for my kids! We read the editorials and did a bit of research about the background of the dispute. In this situation, the low wage workers (dietary, housekeeping, and patient technicians) were striking for a raise. They only had a strike for 3 days out of the several weeks of negotiation; instead, they took out ads in the paper about the situation. And the CEO wrote an editorial in the paper.

 

The most effective tactic IMO was the advertisements in the newspaper. These featured photos of families of the workers, often single parents, who are collecting welfare to make ends meet, because their full time job at the world class university did not pay them enough to feed a family, even after working there for more than a decade. They also argued that the low wages had the effect of depressing wages for ALL low wage workers in the area, since no other employer would need to pay any more than the university did. There is some truth in this, if the largest employer in the area is involved. The workers showed very effectively how the largest employer in area was shifting costs onto taxpayers by underpaying some of its employees.

 

The frosting on the cake for me in this situation was the totally lame CEO editorial that attempted to clarify why he should be making in the high 6 figures, along with several of his colleagues, when the university "can't afford" the 0.2% of its budget that it would have taken to meet, and even exceed, the demands of the workers. When there is a huge sparkling, brand new main building, constant construction, a high-gear development office chasing down every donor, it's hard to justify paying the people who clean the operating rooms $9 an hour. Their work matters to patient care too.

 

They eventually got the raise.

[lynn]

In this particular case, there is no union.  They just all walked out, en masse.  The delivery truck drivers aren't even delivering anything, so the shelves are literally empty.  This has been going on for weeks.  This isn't a couple of disgruntled workers picketing - it's virtually all the employees at every level (that's around 25,000), and yes, with no union.

 

Their complaint?  The board ousted the CEO.  They want him back, because he always treated them well.  The reason the CEO was ousted was a long-running family feud; now the other side of the family is in charge. The previous CEO has offered to buy them out, but they're just dragging their feet while the whole chain goes under.

 

 

I grew up going to Demoulas before it was Market Basket.  I hope they let Arthur T(I hope I have it right) have it all.  I knew several people who worked there over the years and really liked the company.

[HS Mom in NC]

Unions are something I don't have a high opinion of.  My step-dad was a negotiator for the union (he was a printer for newspapers until about 15 years ago.)  He openly talked about "sticking it" to his employer and bragged about how much of his time was spent sitting around doing nothing but watching TV and getting paid for it because he had a life time contract.  Not a good commercial for unions.  My step-brother is a unionized electrician and goes on and on about how little he has to work and how much time he spends player poker and dragging out jobs and still gets paid and rehired for government jobs.  I don't think that's how life should be.

 

My husband is a software contractor working for himself.  The more he works the more money he makes.  The less he works the less money he makes.  His reputation is built entirely on how fast he can produce high quality products and services.  If he doesn't earn that reputation by delivering a high quality product quickly, he doesn't get more work.  I think that's how life should be. 

[gardenmom5]

no.   and i grew up with very union supporting/member grandparents.  they had much the same attitude "homeschool mom in AZ" described.

[poppy]

I know it's not a perfect system, but the alternative is not ideal either. I have a relatives who work low wage non union and sometimes they are exploited - such as, no notice for schedule changes, hours kept exactly below benefits eligibility, etc. Walmart in particular is terrible to its employees in a systematic and deliberate way IME. And it's no coincidence that it mercilessly crushes unions.

[HS Mom in NC]

I know it's not a perfect system, but the alternative is not ideal either. I have a relatives who work low wage non union and sometimes they are exploited - such as, no notice for schedule changes, hours kept exactly below benefits eligibility, etc. Walmart in particular is terrible to its employees in a systematic and deliberate way IME. And it's no coincidence that it mercilessly crushes unions.

 

My husband never has notice of schedule changes.  When he's done with a software job, he has to go out and find another one with another company.  The shedule is when the customer needs the product.  Job after job after job.  No schedules. Get it done by the deadline and move on to the next one. We don't consider that exploitation.

 

My mother's first cousin had triplets 22 years ago then her good for nothing husband abandoned her and never paid a penny in child support.  She only had to work at Walmart for 3 days a week to get full medical benefits.  So, like everything else in life, there are pros and cons.

 

My husband doesn't get any benefits from his job-just pay to get the job done. Some of them are willing to contract for a fixed rate.  Others by the hour.  Sometimes the hours are limited to their budgets. We buy our own medical insurance and have to supply our own retirement plan.  I'm not sure why people think everyone is entitled to these things from an employer. Is it nice?  Yes, but you're stuck with the ones the employer chooses, and lately that's caused a stink. I think there's more freedom in employers paying in wages and salaries what they have been and then adding to those wages and salaries the amount they spend on benefits and then wash their hands of benefits all together.  Let people choose medical and retirement benefits for themselves like they choose car and home insurance for themselves. Insurance companies need to adjust to groups of individuals joining their buying power instead of only recognizing employees doing that. 

 

I don't believe in ideal situations in real life.  I think every option in real life is a packaged deal where people have to pick the one that's the best fit, but none of us can expect an ideal fit.

[LibraryLover]

Poppy. You might like to read up on that situation. What happens will affect your community. The workers are protesting to support the ousted CEO of the company. If you don't have time to read everything, read about how he spared his workers in the 2008 crash by putting up some of his own (company) money-- which upset his billionaire shareholding relatives. (Oops just outed my opinion. lol) Profit shares are greater when benefits are not part of the equation, and living wages are not paid. Respected employees making a living wage+ is/was the backbone of a solid middle class.

[poppy]

My husband never has notice of schedule changes. When he's done with a software job, he has to go out and find another one with another company. The shedule is when the customer needs the product. Job after job after job. No schedules. Get it done by the deadline and move on to the next one. We don't consider that exploitation.

 

My mother's first cousin had triplets 22 years ago then her good for nothing husband abandoned her and never paid a penny in child support. She only had to work at Walmart for 3 days a week to get full medical benefits. So, like everything else in life, there are pros and cons.

 

My husband doesn't get any benefits from his job-just pay to get the job done. Some of them are willing to contract for a fixed rate. Others by the hour. Sometimes the hours are limited to their budgets. We buy our own medical insurance and have to supply our own retirement plan. I'm not sure why people think everyone is entitled to these things from an employer. Is it nice? Yes, but you're stuck with the ones the employer chooses, and lately that's caused a stink. I think there's more freedom in employers paying in wages and salaries what they have been and then adding to those wages and salaries the amount they spend on benefits and then wash their hands of benefits all together. Let people choose medical and retirement benefits for themselves like they choose car and home insurance for themselves. Insurance companies need to adjust to groups of individuals joining their buying power instead of only recognizing employees doing that.

 

I don't believe in ideal situations in real life. I think every option in real life is a packaged deal where people have to pick the one that's the best fit, but none of us can expect an ideal fit.

You husband is a highly skilled consultant who is well compensated. Higher risk leads to higher rewards, Software Engineers arent typcially union in any context (with a few exceptions, like civil service.) I am talking about minimum wage workers who don't have tons of options and aren't really well educated in self advocacy. It's apples and oranges. My cousin who was developmentally delayed can work at Walmart. Walmart being anti union hurts her, it doesn't do a thing for situations like your family's.

[chiguirre]

My husband never has notice of schedule changes.  When he's done with a software job, he has to go out and find another one with another company.  The shedule is when the customer needs the product.  Job after job after job.  No schedules. Get it done by the deadline and move on to the next one. We don't consider that exploitation.

 

My husband doesn't get any benefits from his job-just pay to get the job done. Some of them are willing to contract for a fixed rate.  Others by the hour.  Sometimes the hours are limited to their budgets. We buy our own medical insurance and have to supply our own retirement plan. 

 

From what you've posted, I'd venture to say your dh is an independent contractor and not an employee. That has certain advantages and disadvantages. It's not fair to compare his work conditions to an employee whose employer could post the schedule once a week and stick to it. Your dh can choose whether or not to accept an assignment. If it's unreasonable, he can pass on it. I know that my dh sometimes refuses to submit a proposal if the terms are not acceptable to him. Very often those projects reappear with modified terms because nobody was willing to bid for them. The key to this is that my dh builds in enough margin into his bids so that he isn't forced to take another project immediately if the terms are unfavorable. A Walmart worker can't really tell them to take a hike if they start jerking around their schedule.

[HS Mom in NC]

Not all places can post work schedules regularly. My oldest is a barista at a Barnes and Noble's coffee shop.  Everyone seems to want afternoon hours with nights and weekends free.  Not everyone can have that, so they have to take turns with shifts.  And everyone has to figure in school schedules and family vacations, so no, there isn't going to be a predictable schedule. 

Also, if you make a life choice that involves learning no marketable skills after high school, there are consequences for that decision.  If you choose to start a family before you have marketable skills, there are consequences for that. That isn't saying those people are bad, it's just stating a fact: choosing to start a family before you have a skill set that earns a living wage means you will probably live in poverty. Going back to school or getting marketable skills training is much harder when you're trying to support a family at the same time. We can see that one coming.

People pay skilled labor for the time and money they invested in their skills training and their expertise if it makes financial sense for their business.  If people choose not to get a marketable skill set, it's not the employer's fault that they can't command a higher wage.  People with low skills can expect low pay. If you have skills that are not marketable, you can expect lower pay. The higher your marketable skill set, then you can usually expect higher pay.  It's not the job of your employer to compensate you the same as higher skilled labor when you're not contributing needed higher skills to his/her business.

No one is going to pay an excellent artist to produce art the artist likes. Whoever hires the artist will be paying the artist to produce art the employer likes.  We're all responsible for the choices we make in life, if a person doesn't do their homework weighing the cost of their skills training (certification, college degree, etc.) against how in demand and how much that specialization generally gets paid, it's not the their employer's job to make for up it financially.  Choices all have consequences and most, certainly not all, of them are very predictable.  This excludes out of left field things like serious illness, accidents, acts of nature that destroy economies, etc.  I'm talking about the usual stuff. 

Don't get a degree in Russian if you don't plan on teaching Russian or translating Russian for organizations that need that. If no or very few organizations need someone fluent in Russian, you'll have to study Russian on your own and learn a different skill set to support yourself.  No one is obligated to pay you more than your services are worth to them.

 

My husband could see the writing on the wall when the engineering company he worked for went from 60 to 15 employees over a 5 year span.  The market for engineering is shrinking and technology is changing.  The dinosaur programmers who refuse to learn new computer languages are being let go in droves.  The young ones and the older ones who are learning the latest skills and a broader range of skills like  my husband who has has chosen to invest his personal time  learning to program in half a dozen other computer languages and staying a breast of technology, researching the markets and making contacts will survive because they're willing to be more flexible with employment and take short term jobs.  That's reality.  You can keep making horse drawn carriages but if most people are buying cars, it's time to update your line of work. No one is going to keep paying to make what people don't need.

[chiguirre]

The problem is that not everyone is capable of learning marketable skills that will command more than minimum wage. 50 years ago an unskilled worker could make a solid, lower middle class income working in a factory or a mine or a mill. Those days are gone, but the new jobs require intellectual capabilities that not everyone has. Should the third of workers with the poorest academic skills just resign themselves to living hand to mouth, fearing that they're one illness away from homelessness. That's really harsh and it will cause huge problems for all of us. That's a lot of people to write off and hope they don't revolt.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

The problem is that not everyone is capable of learning marketable skills that will command more than minimum wage. 50 years ago an unskilled worker could make a solid, lower middle class income working in a factory or a mine or a mill. Those days are gone, but the new jobs require intellectual capabilities that not everyone has. Should the third of workers with the poorest academic skills just resign themselves to living hand to mouth, fearing that they're one illness away from homelessness. That's really harsh and it will cause huge problems for all of us. That's a lot of people to write off and hope they don't revolt.

 

Correct. For all the complaints against unions, it is no surprise that the downward pressure on the middle class and the stagnation in real wage rates coincides with the decline in unions. 

[poppy]

Perhaps the smartest path is to marry a successful software engineer?

 

Look, no one is arguing that unskilled labor should earn as much as specialized , highly educated workers. Or that people should be paid more than they are worth. The question is, are there ever cases where workers unite against their employer in a way that gains the sympathy of customers - and in some cases, voters? I have seen the bumper stickers talking about how we have the labor movement to thank for the concept of a weekend. We also have the labor movement to thank for minimum wage, required overtime, lunch breaks, limited child working hours, maternity leave, safety standards. Making incentives to NOT unionize too: pensions plans and later IRAs and 401ks. More recently, smoking being prohibited in bars and restaurants was a worker vs employer legal battle. Whether or not any of us directly benefit from these, I think the world is a better place because we live in a nation without - say - sweatshops employing children full time 6 days a week.

 

There is a balance that must be struck of course, and some unions are just lousy. But the idea of pure capitalism without the workers being able to advocate and organize on their own behalf is a little chilling.

[1GirlTwinBoys]

I would not cross a picket line.

[HS Mom in NC]

Perhaps the smartest path is to marry a successful software engineer?

 

Look, no one is arguing that unskilled labor should earn as much as specialized , highly educated workers. Or that people should be paid more than they are worth. The question is, are there ever cases where workers unite against their employer in a way that gains the sympathy of customers - and in some cases, voters? I have seen the bumper stickers talking about how we have the labor movement to thank for the concept of a weekend. We also have the labor movement to thank for minimum wage, required overtime, lunch breaks, limited child working hours, maternity leave, safety standards. Making incentives to NOT unionize too: pensions plans and later IRAs and 401ks. More recently, smoking being prohibited in bars and restaurants was a worker vs employer legal battle. Whether or not any of us directly benefit from these, I think the world is a better place because we live in a nation without - say - sweatshops employing children full time 6 days a week.

 

There is a balance that must be struck of course, and some unions are just lousy. But the idea of pure capitalism without the workers being able to advocate and organize on their own behalf is a little chilling.

 

Comparing the sweatshops of yesteryear to today with all sorts of regulation for businsses may pull at people's heart strings, but it's not accurate. Unions filled the gap until the laws caught up.  That's not the case today. I was addressing specifically predictable schedules. Not even a close or reasonable comparison.

 

It's a snarky comment about marrying the software engineer.  Another emotional ploy.  I'm making the argument that there are people expecting their employer to make up for their bad life choices.  There are plenty of these people around.  They refuse to get skills after high school and that's not how the world works today.  It's just not. We had to deal with today's reality and adapt to changing situations in real time, not decide it should adapt to us.  Do you recommend people not get skills training after high school?  Are you arguing that point?  Are you arguing that a person in today's job market can expect a living wage? 

 

I never advocated that unions be disbanded, I pointed out that I have a low opinion of the ones I saw close up because they were demanding unreasonable things and made those workers look like lazy, selfish bums.  I think the laws have caught up with business creating a reasonable work environment for most people.  Are you suggesting the laws are behind the times and sweatshop situations exist in America today? 

[HS Mom in NC]

The problem is that not everyone is capable of learning marketable skills that will command more than minimum wage. 50 years ago an unskilled worker could make a solid, lower middle class income working in a factory or a mine or a mill. Those days are gone, but the new jobs require intellectual capabilities that not everyone has. Should the third of workers with the poorest academic skills just resign themselves to living hand to mouth, fearing that they're one illness away from homelessness. That's really harsh and it will cause huge problems for all of us. That's a lot of people to write off and hope they don't revolt.

 

So here's an example of some beliefs that I think are shocking.  Are you suggesting that a significant percentage of the poor are intellectually incapable of learning academic and life skills or do you think they're being failed by their ps situations and subcultures?   I have a neighbor being trained as a teacher to work with poor Hispanic children. She's being told by her teacher mentors that the 1st graders she's dealing with "Just aren't college material."  In 1st grade.  Where is the problem here?  Is the problem those teaching the children and assuming those children are categorically not capable, or is the problem that kids are stuck in classrooms with teachers who do little with them and expect little of them because they think they're intellectually inferior?  I agree there's a big problem, but I think people are blowing off the possibility of real solutions out of a very nasty underlying attitude about this group of people. The purpose of public education was to provide a quality education to the poor so they had a way out of poverty. 

 

I'm also a huge advocate of charity hospitals and churches providing help to the poor, but we'd have less poor if the poor could get decent schooling.  I've been around illegal immigrants a loooong time and I'm telling you their children are NOT intellectually inferior.  My pediatrician and his siblings are children of illegal immigrants and they all got college degrees in professions because that nasty attitude hadn't fully developed about them.  Their parents insisted they do well in school.  If the latest generation of parents have bought into this idea that their kids shouldn't have to do well academically, don't blame employers or expect employers to solve that problem.  

 

[chiguirre]

Are you saying that everyone is capable of college level work? I don't agree. I don't even think that most people can master Algebra II, Physics and Chemistry. I think that some people have to struggle a lot to learn to read at a 5th grade level and do basic arithmetic.

 

Conflating that with discrimination against minorities is a straw man. Plenty of the people who have below average IQs are white, native born Americans. There's no shame in falling below the average on a Bell curve of IQs. By definition, there's always going to be people who are less gifted at academics.

 

Saying that everyone needs to measure up academically or be condemned to not earning enough money to pay for basic necessities is a new trend. That wasn't the case until the 80s and didn't reach the current heights of rapaciousness until the 2000s. I doubt that would be the case today if someone had managed to organize workers at the current crop of corporate vultures. Since no one did, they've ridden roughshod over their employees and the taxpayer.

 

We need a new Teddy Roosevelt to bust the new crop of trusts!

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Comparing the sweatshops of yesteryear to today with all sorts of regulation for businsses may pull at people's heart strings, but it's not accurate. Unions filled the gap until the laws caught up.  That's not the case today. I was addressing specifically predictable schedules. Not even a close or reasonable comparison.

 

It's a snarky comment about marrying the software engineer.  Another emotional ploy.  I'm making the argument that there are people expecting their employer to make up for their bad life choices.  There are plenty of these people around.  They refuse to get skills after high school and that's not how the world works today.  It's just not. We had to deal with today's reality and adapt to changing situations in real time, not decide it should adapt to us.  Do you recommend people not get skills training after high school?  Are you arguing that point?  Are you arguing that a person in today's job market can expect a living wage? 

 

I never advocated that unions be disbanded, I pointed out that I have a low opinion of the ones I saw close up because they were demanding unreasonable things and made those workers look like lazy, selfish bums.  I think the laws have caught up with business creating a reasonable work environment for most people.  Are you suggesting the laws are behind the times and sweatshop situations exist in America today? 

 

If we end up with a society filled with only college educated software engineers or similar, the garbage will pile up a bit, grocery shelves won't get stocked, and I think you can forget going out to eat.

 

I should also point out that a fair number of people in low wage occupations actually have more skills than you might imagine, but that due to downsizing and outsourcing their employment options have dried up.

 

And yes, I do believe that an adult holding down a 40-hour/week job deserves a lving wage. 

[idnib]

I usually don't cross picket lines but I have made 2 exceptions:

 

1) Nurses at my managed health care facility. Insurance won't cover it if I go anywhere else and if I or my family need medical care, I'm crossing the line, no problem.

 

2) There's a picket line sometimes at a cinema I attend. The picketers don't actually work there but are protesting that the cinema workers are not union.   Because they are not actual employees and because the theatre is ridiculously convenient for me (walk instead of try to find crazy parking) I go anyway. The alternative would be to drive miles and then circle for awhile looking for expensive parking, or spend 45 minutes on a bus, and I'm unwilling to do that for people who are not actually employed at the theatre. The people who are employed there seem really happy when I've asked them about management.