Unemployment/wages/economy/the future/I need more coffee

[Carrie12345]

Just now, JumpyTheFrog said:

I am under the impression that decades ago it was much more common for teens to work on farms than now. Is part of the problem a lack of transportation

I think there are a lot of reasons.
Fewer family farms compared to industrial farms. (Which impacts transportation.)
Higher academic/extracurricular expectations.
Higher consumerism opened more non-farm job opportunities.

My dds have seen a lot of high schoolers get dropped off on the farm and never come back the next day. Some haven’t even made it through the first day.  So, in my local experience, few kids are “built” for farm work anymore. (And I’d include most of my own in that, despite a few of them making a good go of it.)
 

[Bootsie]

36 minutes ago, JumpyTheFrog said:

Maybe more businesses will get desperate enough to begin hiring teens again. It seems like most places I go don't have anyone under 18-20 working there. Even most fast food workers have been adults for the last 10+ years. I suspect (but have no proof) teen employment tanked during the Great Recession and never recovered.

I have found statistics back further than 2011 but this chart shows the percent of 16-19 year olds who are employed--that does span the 18-19 year old range so doesn't show under 18 and it does not tell anything about the number of hours--just the percent who are employed at some level.

But, overall the percent is higher than it was a decade ago.

https://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet

 

[Carrie12345]

3 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

Nothing in this world is permanent.  The norm is constantly changing.  Mostly, it's slow, and that makes us comfortable.  Sometimes it's fast and that makes things really rough for people. 

But if there's one thing you can be sure of.....change happens.  There's a saying in Indiana......"if you don't like the weather here, just wait, it will change in a few hours. " 

 

Change is constant.  Capitalism actually thrives on it.  But it's because of that fact that it's also something that can be incredibly difficult to live with. 

... right.  Hence my initial question of (and I’m paraphrasing instead of going back) what should we expect to adapt to.

[skimomma]

Teens around my area have a hard time with part-time jobs because many businesses don't want to deal with the limitations of hiring someone under 18, both the rules and working around school schedules.  Especially when there are plenty of adults who will work those jobs.  And if you are a teen who is lucky enough to land one, you had better clear your schedule indefinitely because most employers do not care about that band festival or NHS induction ceremony or ACT test.  You work when they want or they will find someone who will.  If you are involved in any extra curricular, forget it.  Family vacation?  Nope.  

My dd does work on a farm.  This will be her third summer so she is apparently cut out for it.  She loves working outside and enjoys physical labor.....but would also tell you that none of her friends would even consider it.  The dirt and "ick factor" alone is a hard no for most of her friends.  Her employer works around her schedule.  She is really lucky.  Transportation is a real issue.  Our family owns one car and for each shift we have to decide between all being stranded while dd is at work, or someone driving her to and from, which is a 40 minute round-trip drive.  The only reason it works is because dh is currently unemployed and therefore can either do the driving or can be very flexible about when he needs a car.  If we were operating "normally," this would never work and would be a barrier to dd having a job.

The lowest wage positions are being filled around here with no problem.  It's the trades, construction, and skilled nursing jobs that are going unfilled.  I nearly had to sell my soul to the devil to find a contractor to reroof my house.  

[Carrie12345]

2 minutes ago, skimomma said:

 

The lowest wage positions are being filled around here with no problem.  It's the trades, construction, and skilled nursing jobs that are going unfilled.  I nearly had to sell my soul to the devil to find a contractor to reroof my house

Construction is a rough game! It’s still one of the biggest employment sectors in my area, but it was ENORMOUS before the housing bust. Revving it back up is no easy task, and its in very high demand now. Once it dies down again, it’ll be another hard adaptation.

[Amy in NH]

1 hour ago, Carrie12345 said:

The local farm my kids have worked on has been having difficulty hiring LOCAL pickers for years.  They don’t pay any sort of amazing wage, but it is well above our legal minimum wage. (Still 7.25 here, though I don’t know a single place that pays that low.)

But my teen can work at the local supermarket bakery for $11/hour, and then get another $2/hour COVID pay on top of that.  Why would they want do backbreaking work in a hot field for not much money when they can work at the local auction house for $10/hour +tips. 

[Amy Gen]

When our California had our first lock down, our outdoor pool closed. My friends were very proactive and wrote letters to our city officials with research showing how being in a chlorinated pool was one of the safest places the kids could be. We also included diagrams of how we would keep them socially distanced. We made sure they received our letters before the vote was brought up to reopen so they could have facts at hand. 
 

Amazingly, we got the shutdown overturned, but there was an unexpected kink in the process. The mothers of the teenaged lifeguards started calling saying it was way too risky for their kids to sit up high in a guard chair.  Their kids got unemployment plus extra payments during the brief closing and did not want to return to work for less money than they were making at home. The manager told us that we couldn’t open without lifeguards. A couple of adult swim instructors said they would take a couple of shifts of guarding and ONE high school student picked up the phone when the manager called. She said she would work every hour they would give her and get her school work done around work. She has already been accepted into her first choice college and will be heading there in the fall with a pocket full of savings. 
 

Is lifeguarding a job that should pay enough to support a family of 4? I really don’t know, that is why I’m asking. 
 

I see such a difference in my kids’ personalities that are leading to very different income potential. My 14 year old has her future planned out. As soon as she turns 15, she wants to be a bagger at Safeway. Then when she turns 16, she wants to move up to working at Starbucks. She will also start lifeguard training when she turns 15 so she can stack her jobs. Then she wants to go to a private university and on to law school. 
 

Contrast that with her next oldest sister who just graduated with highest honors and an interdisciplinary degree in English, Psychology and women/gender studies. She has been given a car, but doesn’t drive. She will be lucky to get a job paying $13 per hour. She just doesn’t have the same will to visualize her goals and start going after them. I can’t blame the system for her predicament. 
 

My 2 oldest children are just as different. Some may remember that my oldest has autism. And yet, she makes a way for herself everywhere she goes. She finishes her masters next month and has always been able to find great paying jobs in her own special talent niche. 
 

My son is my most highly gifted kid. He has had high paying jobs, even without finishing his undergraduate degree. But he decided that it isn’t worth it to him. He is an extreme introvert and hates having to deal with people. His girlfriend is buying a condo for them to move into and I warned her that she needed to make sure that she could pay bills for both of them. She assured me that she can because she is the kind of person who is always going to school full time plus working 3 jobs. She has the ambition that my son just doesn’t have. That isn’t the systems fault either. ThankfullyI think he might make a great stay at home dad someday. 
 

So I guess what I’m trying to say is that there are problems with the capitalist system that need to be addressed, but one person can have every gift and privilege but choose not to do the work it takes to become financially secure while another person can have so many strikes against them, but have so much determination that they find a way to succeed. 

[Carrie12345]

3 minutes ago, Amy in NH said:

But my teen can work at the local supermarket bakery for $11/hour, and then get another $2/hour COVID pay on top of that.  Why would they want do backbreaking work in a hot field for not much money when they can work at the local auction house for $10/hour +tips. 

Agreed.
The irony is that, as a whole, supermarkets are rather useless without agricultural workers!  We can adapt to a lot of things, but we can’t adapt to not growing (or, more specifically, not harvesting) food.  There are only so many crops that industrialization has conquered.

[Amy in NH]

I have a kid who has planned to go into the trades since the age of 10.  They are now finishing their first year working as an HVAC/R tech, and just yesterday completed a 2/night per week third-year electrician apprenticeship training course.  They are considering quitting the HVAC/R job, and maybe even quitting that career, in spite of the fact that they like the work.  A year ago they were told the job would start at 7am and be 40 hours+ occasional overtime, but the reality of the entire year has been 50-55+ hours per week, with 2-3 days each week of a 6am start time.  They are working that poor kid right out of a future career.  Looking around online, that seems to be the norm in the skilled trades - there is no room for quality of life outside of the job.  It is unsustainable.

[frogger]

4 minutes ago, Amy in NH said:

But my teen can work at the local supermarket bakery for $11/hour, and then get another $2/hour COVID pay on top of that.  Why would they want do backbreaking work in a hot field for not much money when they can work at the local auction house for $10/hour +tips. 

Exactly, when teens have better opportunities they will choose something else. 

 

It was called dangerous thinking earlier in this thread but if recognizing reality is dangerous we are in trouble. People will take a job they like better or is more comfortable or fulfilling or just has better perks and schedules if the pay is equal to a job that is miserable. 

Some people will gladly do the more miserable or risky job if they get paid a lot. 

Some people would prefer comfort or fulfillment even if it means they must live frugally.

That is just reality.

[frogger]

3 minutes ago, Amy in NH said:

I have a kid who has planned to go into the trades since the age of 10.  They are now finishing their first year working as an HVAC/R tech, and just yesterday completed a 2/night per week third-year electrician apprenticeship training course.  They are considering quitting the HVAC/R job, and maybe even quitting that career, in spite of the fact that they like the work.  A year ago they were told the job would start at 7am and be 40 hours+ occasional overtime, but the reality of the entire year has been 50-55+ hours per week, with 2-3 days each week of a 6am start time.  They are working that poor kid right out of a future career.  Looking around online, that seems to be the norm in the skilled trades - there is no room for quality of life outside of the job.  It is unsustainable.

Will they fire him if he just says no? It seems if they need him that badly, they couldn't do without him.

 

We have a lot of work that needs done due to still putting our house back together from an earthquake and we were thinking about putting up a garage but we are waiting until things calm down. If prices were allowed to continue to skyrocket people like me would pull back. I'm really worried we are in for a boom and then a bust. The problem with stimulating demand is that our problem wasn't demand, it was lack of supply. Now we have a scrambling for resources that simply isn't sustainable.

[Scarlett]

1 hour ago, ktgrok said:

 

And how are they "teen jobs" when they are open during school hours? 

 

Homeschoolers?  LOL Seriously, I don't know.  It is a valid point.

[Amy Gen]

1 minute ago, Scarlett said:

Homeschoolers?  LOL Seriously, I don't know.  It is a valid point.

Also remote learning. 

[Carrie12345]

2 minutes ago, Scarlett said:

Homeschoolers?  LOL Seriously, I don't know.  It is a valid point.

 

Just now, Amy Gen said:

Also remote learning. 

In my state, all minors are supposed to be held to their district’s school hours, regardless of their academic setting.  I think that might be federal, but I’m not 100% sure.

[Scarlett]

1 minute ago, Amy Gen said:

Also remote learning. 

And also, those positions don't ALL have to be filled with teens.  There are older people who are semi retired who might like a little part time work, and moms with kids in school who could do a breakfast or lunch shift before kids get out of school.

[Scarlett]

1 minute ago, Carrie12345 said:

 

In my state, all minors are supposed to be held to their district’s school hours, regardless of their academic setting.  I think that might be federal, but I’m not 100% sure.

I don't think that is true for the two states I've lived in, but I wouldn't swear to it.  Well, I know my dss worked 2-close shift when he was in school. It was a public virtual.

[Amy Gen]

Here, the school just needs to sign a work permit for 14 and 15 year olds to work during school hours. 

[Carrie12345]

6 minutes ago, Scarlett said:

I don't think that is true for the two states I've lived in, but I wouldn't swear to it.  Well, I know my dss worked 2-close shift when he was in school. It was a public virtual.

My own have definitely.. um.. done some finagling in that area, but this is what I found:

Q: If a student is being home schooled, do all of the child labor laws apply? 
A: The U.S. Department of Labor has ruled that home schooling is not grounds for an exception to the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and thus all work by 14- and 15-year-olds is prohibited during the time the local public school is in session. Since the FLSA does not cover 16-and 17-year-olds, the Pennsylvania Department of Education has ruled that home schooled students who are 16 and 17 may work during the time school is in session as long as they do not work more than 6 consecutive days in one week, or work more than 8 hours per day or more than 44 hours per week. Those students may not work after midnight (Sunday through Thursday) during the school year. It would be helpful if the parent provides the employer with written verification that the student is being schooled at home.

[Scarlett]

3 minutes ago, Carrie12345 said:

My own have definitely.. um.. done some finagling in that area, but this is what I found:

Q: If a student is being home schooled, do all of the child labor laws apply? 
A: The U.S. Department of Labor has ruled that home schooling is not grounds for an exception to the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and thus all work by 14- and 15-year-olds is prohibited during the time the local public school is in session. Since the FLSA does not cover 16-and 17-year-olds, the Pennsylvania Department of Education has ruled that home schooled students who are 16 and 17 may work during the time school is in session as long as they do not work more than 6 consecutive days in one week, or work more than 8 hours per day or more than 44 hours per week. Those students may not work after midnight (Sunday through Thursday) during the school year. It would be helpful if the parent provides the employer with written verification that the student is being schooled at home.

Thank you.  Learn something new every day.  I just realized when I think 'teen worker'  I am thinking of over 16.

Edited April 28, 2021 by Scarlett

[Bootsie]

Although the unemployment rate has dropped significantly since its peak a year ago, the amount of people working in the labor force has dropped significantly.  in March 2021, 57.8% of the noninstitutionalized 16+ US population was employed.  In February 2020, the percent was 61.1%.  https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

 

[kbutton]

 

6 hours ago, SKL said:

It depends how you define low wages.  I think that in general, even in service jobs, there are raises over time, so that if the minimum wage is a reasonable minimum, then a 40-hour week should support a person.  And those who are unable to gradually rise to the level of a living wage, due to various issues, should have access to tax-funded subsidies.

I'm not commenting on whether the current minimum wage is reasonable.  It varies by location.  I don't believe minimum wage needs to be a "living wage."

I do not understand how your two paragraphs don't contradict one another. You said if a minimum wage is reasonable, it should support a person. I thought that was the definition of a living wage. 

3 hours ago, skimomma said:

Teens around my area have a hard time with part-time jobs because many businesses don't want to deal with the limitations of hiring someone under 18, both the rules and working around school schedules.  Especially when there are plenty of adults who will work those jobs.  And if you are a teen who is lucky enough to land one, you had better clear your schedule indefinitely because most employers do not care about that band festival or NHS induction ceremony or ACT test.  You work when they want or they will find someone who will.  If you are involved in any extra curricular, forget it.  Family vacation?  Nope.  

The lowest wage positions are being filled around here with no problem.  It's the trades, construction, and skilled nursing jobs that are going unfilled.  I nearly had to sell my soul to the devil to find a contractor to reroof my house.  

I wonder if the teen job thing is regional. Most places here seem to ask what hours you are available. 

Yes, it's really difficult to find someone to do construction!

2 hours ago, Carrie12345 said:

Construction is a rough game! It’s still one of the biggest employment sectors in my area, but it was ENORMOUS before the housing bust. Revving it back up is no easy task, and its in very high demand now. Once it dies down again, it’ll be another hard adaptation.

I don't know that it will be a huge problem when it dies down--too many skilled trades people are retiring without replacements. 

I would guess it will be regional, but maybe not. I hope it's fairly stable--my son is going into the trades. 

2 hours ago, Amy in NH said:

I have a kid who has planned to go into the trades since the age of 10.  They are now finishing their first year working as an HVAC/R tech, and just yesterday completed a 2/night per week third-year electrician apprenticeship training course.  They are considering quitting the HVAC/R job, and maybe even quitting that career, in spite of the fact that they like the work.  A year ago they were told the job would start at 7am and be 40 hours+ occasional overtime, but the reality of the entire year has been 50-55+ hours per week, with 2-3 days each week of a 6am start time.  They are working that poor kid right out of a future career.  Looking around online, that seems to be the norm in the skilled trades - there is no room for quality of life outside of the job.  It is unsustainable.

I don't think 50-55 hours per week is ideal, but I know tons of people that work that much, some of whom are salaried and having to just suck it up. I do think it's crazy to misrepresent the job hours though.

I agree with the other poster who said that if they are that desperate, he might be able to just say no to extra hours except in emergency situations (like someone needing their entire HVAC replaced in the dead of winter--happened to us; we had a replacement scheduled, and something broke while we were waiting).

1 hour ago, Carrie12345 said:

My own have definitely.. um.. done some finagling in that area, but this is what I found:

Q: If a student is being home schooled, do all of the child labor laws apply? 
A: The U.S. Department of Labor has ruled that home schooling is not grounds for an exception to the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and thus all work by 14- and 15-year-olds is prohibited during the time the local public school is in session. Since the FLSA does not cover 16-and 17-year-olds, the Pennsylvania Department of Education has ruled that home schooled students who are 16 and 17 may work during the time school is in session as long as they do not work more than 6 consecutive days in one week, or work more than 8 hours per day or more than 44 hours per week. Those students may not work after midnight (Sunday through Thursday) during the school year. It would be helpful if the parent provides the employer with written verification that the student is being schooled at home.

My DS has his first job (seasonal), and he's working during some school hours. He's finished some of his courses for the year (started early and we take very few days off unless we travel), and the place that hired him doesn't have evening hours. They have a lot of young people working there, so I don't know if others are homeschooled, or if it's just that school lets out earlier than I think it does.

[teachermom2834]

Where I am passing a drug test is a real barrier to employment. There are jobs available. There are people that claim they want work. But the jobs available require drug testing and that is just a bar too many people can’t clear 🙁 all three of my boys have had multiple teen/college summer jobs in this town and the only question ever asked in an interview is “can you pass a drug test?” 
 

So lots of problems all wrapped up together and it just makes my head hurt. 

[SKL]

6 hours ago, Frances said:

No benefit to them? How about almost free excellent health insurance, increased wages, and participation in a retirement saving plan? That’s what low wage home health aids, including part-time workers, got in my state when they unionized. And already public employees represented by unions don’t have to pay dues, they can opt out and still get the benefits. I have mixed feelings about unions, but to claim they provide no benefits to workers is quite the stretch.

They really don't benefit the part-time, short-term workers in most industries.  Benefits, retirement, etc. are normally for full-timers and/or people who are in a job longer. 

That's great that your state doesn't require union dues.  I know that's the case in some places, but not most states afaik.

[SKL]

1 hour ago, kbutton said:

I do not understand how your two paragraphs don't contradict one another. You said if a minimum wage is reasonable, it should support a person. I thought that was the definition of a living wage.

No, I said that if the minimum wage is reasonable, then a person who starts at mw and gets raises over time should eventually be able to earn enough to support him/herself on a 40-hour work week.

[Amy in NH]

1 hour ago, kbutton said:

I don't think 50-55 hours per week is ideal, but I know tons of people that work that much, some of whom are salaried and having to just suck it up. I do think it's crazy to misrepresent the job hours though.

Yeah well you can see how a kid who is taking 10 hours per week of school, and also working more than full time, might want some leisure time too.  There should be a work/life balance. 

I'll also mention that this is the kid who was making $13 per hour at the grocery bakery before taking the HVAC/R job, where he started at $13/hour.  At the time he was asking why he should bother working that much harder for the same pay - the answer was on-the-job training for a future career that has way more room for advancement. 

He's afraid they will tell him "to just suck it up" - but not in those words - if he tells them he'd prefer to stick to a max of 45 hours.
He just walked in the door now, at 6pm, after having been to work at 6am, after working 10 hours plus night school yesterday .

IMO that's too much for a kid just starting out - people burn out.  That's his opinion, too. 
FWIW, I kept my opinion to myself until he offered his...

At least he's young enough that he could walk away and find a job as an electrician instead, because we are here to support him in that choice and its ramifications.  We shall see what he decides.

But, going back to the OP, I think it's crazy for employers to complain that they can't find or keep workers when they are offering too little (compensation, regular schedules, etc.) or expecting too much (giving up all of your leisure time, etc.).

Where did we ever get the idea that people should have to live only to work, in order to have a decent quality of living which they can't really enjoy because they're too busy at work.  Salaried positions shouldn't be more than 40 hours per week, even though I understand that is not the norm.  There is no spare time anymore, and the stress of it is not good for your health. 

[SKL]

I remember when I was a teen, how thrilled I was to land a job.  Right or wrong, I was willing to work extreme hours even for low pay.  Teens and young adults have a lot more energy than we old ladies do.  😛

There is so much we learned in those early jobs - including when, why, and how to say "no."

[HeartString]

39 minutes ago, teachermom2834 said:

Where I am passing a drug test is a real barrier to employment. There are jobs available. There are people that claim they want work. But the jobs available require drug testing and that is just a bar too many people can’t clear 🙁 all three of my boys have had multiple teen/college summer jobs in this town and the only question ever asked in an interview is “can you pass a drug test?” 
 

So lots of problems all wrapped up together and it just makes my head hurt. 

They could just change that. Cocaine or heroin use might  not be great in an employee, but weed stays in the system for months.  An employee who smokes pot on Friday night  is perfectly fine to work on Monday.  There’s no real reason to hold recreational weed use as any different than alcohol and cigarettes, especially in states where it’s decriminalized.   

[historically accurate]

35 minutes ago, SKL said:

They really don't benefit the part-time, short-term workers in most industries.  Benefits, retirement, etc. are normally for full-timers and/or people who are in a job longer. 

That's great that your state doesn't require union dues.  I know that's the case in some places, but not most states afaik.

You can opt out of union dues in any "Right to Work" state, which is approximately half of the states. In other states, there are ways around certain fees and dues. Not always well known, but they are available to most employees in the US. 

Also, no public employee can be forced to support a union. https://www.optouttoday.com/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2015/08/26/not-just-in-right-to-work-states-union-workers-can-opt-out-of-membership/?sh=50602d337141

https://employment.findlaw.com/wages-and-benefits/how-to-stop-paying-union-dues.html

FWIW, I was raised in a union household (my parents were auto assemblers), and overall, I see mostly benefits to them. Good healthcare, good retirement, good pay. 

[elegantlion]

5 hours ago, Amy in NH said:

I have a kid who has planned to go into the trades since the age of 10.  They are now finishing their first year working as an HVAC/R tech, and just yesterday completed a 2/night per week third-year electrician apprenticeship training course.  They are considering quitting the HVAC/R job, and maybe even quitting that career, in spite of the fact that they like the work.  A year ago they were told the job would start at 7am and be 40 hours+ occasional overtime, but the reality of the entire year has been 50-55+ hours per week, with 2-3 days each week of a 6am start time.  They are working that poor kid right out of a future career.  Looking around online, that seems to be the norm in the skilled trades - there is no room for quality of life outside of the job.  It is unsustainable.

Ex dh was in construction and the work hours were similiar - either that or nothing due to the weather. HVAC isn't prone to that down time in the winter, so I can see the hours being a year long requirement. Ds worked with his dad sometimes as a teen and realized pretty quickly it was not a career for him. I can see how those hours and starting times just become the requirements of the job. 

We've talked about this in other threads but it's easy to work hard, long hours as a kid, but unless they have a backup or work their way into management, the physical labor costs can force them into an early retirement. 

[elegantlion]

I also think there are some business owners that don't know how to treat employees or just adopt the broken system of their predecessors. I worked cleaning hotel rooms for exactly two weeks. I think it was just over minimum wage. I was able to quit because I was starting college and had some income, but the work environment was ridiculous. I wasn't afraid of the cleaning work, but the manager kept changing his mind about when I was supposed to work. Seriously, within two weeks, they did the following: Called me in on what was supposed to be my day off twice and asked why I wasn't there - because you told me I had the day off. Scheduled me to work on a day I had specifically asked off when I was hired (I was taking placement tests at school - couldn't change that date). Asked me to stay late at least 3 days to help clean with another woman who was clearly too sick to be at work. I am immune compromised and ended up sick from being around her. Had a pest control person blow off my concern about them spraying chemicals in the same room I was in, even after I told them I was very sensitive to chemicals. I ended up having an asmatic type coughing fit for 15 minutes. I could handle the cleaners we used, but some chemicals really get to me. 

I worked with another woman who had been for years and saw it more as her lot in life and bitched the whole time about everything. She thought a lot of this was normal.  I finally told the manager I was quitting on the third day they called me into work when I wasn't scheduled. It was the most disorganized, uncaring atmosphere I have ever worked in. 

I can see why teens don't want to work jobs where they'll get exploited or treated in a servile manner just because they're young. I worked retail as teen and while I still complained sometimes, it was decent work and environment.

[JumpyTheFrog]

2 hours ago, Amy in NH said:

Salaried positions shouldn't be more than 40 hours per week, even though I understand that is not the norm.

We had a friend who worked 50-60 hour weeks for IBM for years, until they laid him off. 

I've read in the past that technically salaried positions are supposed to be limited to management and that most salaried jobs actually violate the rules. The companies supposedly do this rather than make people hourly and have to pay them overtime. Maybe someone here with more knowledge can clarify if this is correct or not.

[Bootsie]

22 minutes ago, JumpyTheFrog said:

We had a friend who worked 50-60 hour weeks for IBM for years, until they laid him off. 

I've read in the past that technically salaried positions are supposed to be limited to management and that most salaried jobs actually violate the rules. The companies supposedly do this rather than make people hourly and have to pay them overtime. Maybe someone here with more knowledge can clarify if this is correct or not.

The distinction between non-exempt (hourly) and exempt (salaried) workers is not simply a management position.  An exempt (salaried) worker is one who performs professional, administrative, professional, computer, or outside sales.  There is also a minimum annual salary threshold (currently around $36,000).

[JumpyTheFrog]

3 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

The distinction between non-exempt (hourly) and exempt (salaried) workers is not simply a management position.  An exempt (salaried) worker is one who performs professional, administrative, professional, computer, or outside sales.  There is also a minimum annual salary threshold (currently around $36,000).

Thanks for the correction. Based on this, do you think many companies are incorrectly classifying people as salaried? Certainly many companies are calling people contractors but then treat them mostly like employees.

[HeartString]

35 minutes ago, JumpyTheFrog said:

I've read in the past that technically salaried positions are supposed to be limited to management and that most salaried jobs actually violate the rules. The companies supposedly do this rather than make people hourly and have to pay them overtime. Maybe someone here with more knowledge can clarify if this is correct or not.

Yes, companies do this all the time because they know the chances of getting caught are slim and the consequences minimal. Just like some companies mis classify independent contractors even though they know better. I don’t know that most salaried positions are incorrectly classified but I would say many. 

Edited April 29, 2021 by HeartString

[kbutton]

3 hours ago, SKL said:

No, I said that if the minimum wage is reasonable, then a person who starts at mw and gets raises over time should eventually be able to earn enough to support him/herself on a 40-hour work week.

I didn't catch that if/then, I guess. 

3 hours ago, Amy in NH said:

Yeah well you can see how a kid who is taking 10 hours per week of school, and also working more than full time, might want some leisure time too.  There should be a work/life balance. 

 

At least he's young enough that he could walk away and find a job as an electrician instead, because we are here to support him in that choice and its ramifications.  We shall see what he decides.

 

Where did we ever get the idea that people should have to live only to work, in order to have a decent quality of living which they can't really enjoy because they're too busy at work. 

I didn't catch that he is a student. I don't know how electricians do in your area, but here they are harder to find than contractors. 

I am mostly pushing back on the idea that previous generations didn't work extra hours. Even in an era where people could feed a family on a fairly ordinary job, many of my relatives had side hustles on top of their really good day jobs to make things less tight. Many also took on overtime to get paid time and a half. 

I do think it's increasingly less likely for people to be able to live reasonably on a lot of these jobs; I just think we forget that people still had to deal with overtime or other QOL issues. 

[Bootsie]

29 minutes ago, JumpyTheFrog said:

Thanks for the correction. Based on this, do you think many companies are incorrectly classifying people as salaried? Certainly many companies are calling people contractors but then treat them mostly like employees.

I really don't know how many people are classified as exempt.  The most recent statistics I have seen are about 20 years old--at that time it was about 25% of those employed.  Given that blue collar workers cannot be exempt and that there is a minimum salary threshold, I am not sure how often employers find themselves making a judgment call about classification.  Personally, I have never heard of someone who is classified as exempt who thinks it is a misclassification; I would think it is probably more common in certain industries than in others

[Bootsie]

10 minutes ago, kbutton said:

I didn't catch that if/then, I guess. 

I didn't catch that he is a student. I don't know how electricians do in your area, but here they are harder to find than contractors. 

I am mostly pushing back on the idea that previous generations didn't work extra hours. Even in an era where people could feed a family on a fairly ordinary job, many of my relatives had side hustles on top of their really good day jobs to make things less tight. Many also took on overtime to get paid time and a half. 

I do think it's increasingly less likely for people to be able to live reasonably on a lot of these jobs; I just think we forget that people still had to deal with overtime or other QOL issues. 

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the average work week in manufacturing in the US in 1900 was 53  hours   https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/cwc/american-labor-in-the-20th-century.pdf

I think we have also forgotten the standard of living that was being provided by the typical job was in previous generations.  The post-war boom, new single-family housing in the suburbs lifestyle has not been the norm over a sustained period of time.  

[vonfirmath]

5 hours ago, HeartString said:

They could just change that. Cocaine or heroin use might  not be great in an employee, but weed stays in the system for months.  An employee who smokes pot on Friday night  is perfectly fine to work on Monday.  There’s no real reason to hold recreational weed use as any different than alcohol and cigarettes, especially in states where it’s decriminalized.   

I work for a HVAC/plumbing company.

If the employee fails a drug test we can't send them out on most of our jobs.

 

[bookbard]

There will never be full employment. The system is designed to have a certain percentage of unemployment (there's been heaps written about this). There are also people who cannot, for physical/mental/societal reasons hold down a job. Society should support them, as people are worthy of life whether they hold down a job or not. We're not robots in a factory.

In Australia there are a number of low level jobs that aren't being filled (eg fruit-picking, which is seasonal, in remote areas and poorly paid), but a lot of professionals are struggling to find jobs. This doesn't mean the professionals should become fruitpickers. As I said - we're not robots in factories who can be repurposed at will. Personally I'm happy if those low-level jobs get replaced by machines (as is happening in fruit-picking). The unemployment issue with professionals is a different situation which needs to be examined - is it a particular field, is there an oversupply, is further training needed?

I don't have that sense of anger against people who don't work. I remember on a forum (not this one) years ago, one woman was arguing that there was no excuse for anyone ever not to work - not after childbirth, not for caring, not for volunteering, nothing. Was that logical? No, it surely came from a deep well of anger inside her, that she'd had to work and never take time off. And therefore everyone should experience what she felt. 

[Carrie12345]

14 hours ago, Amy Gen said:

Is lifeguarding a job that should pay enough to support a family of 4? I really don’t know, that is why I’m asking. 

Pulling this point out because my development always has a hard time staffing lifeguards.  Seriously, it’s every year. Part of that is because we’re surrounded by water parks and most of them pay a lot better than we do, many year round. But I picked it out for other reasons.

I don’t think I’m on the side of believing all wages should support a family of four. I mean, I might not actively argue against it if it were to come to that, but I don’t imagine myself pushing for it either.  But I vividly remember being a family of 3 with 2 full-time working adults (one salaried, one hourly, one college degree, one high school diploma) and digging up couch change for milk.  I don’t think the expectations there should have been to have a big house in the suburbs, new cars, nice furniture, and lots of dinners out... but it was a struggle to get by in a run down 3rd floor walk up on the edge of a rough city with a car that didn’t have reverse. I dreaded waiting to see if my math was right at the grocery check out. And that was when student loans were up a bit, but nowhere near the average today.

I don’t particularly like the way lifeguarding is often viewed. It’s easy to joke about kids spending their days getting tan, but they carry an enormous responsibility. Not only are they supposed to prevent death and injury, but they’re supposed to work on victims until someone gets there to take over. I do think that deserves to be a factor in compensation.
No one in my family, including myself, has ever been a strong enough swimmer to legitimately consider lifeguarding, so I’m not trying to boost anyone’s importance. But I do think it’s a Big Deal Job that should be recruiting Big Deal Employees.

I feel like almost all businesses need and should want Big Deal Employees for their positions and the issues that come with them, though those are obviously going to vary by business and position.

[Carrie12345]

I just talked to my mom last night. She took a (vaccinated) trip to a nice little outdoor-focused city last week and told me all about how her waiter has been working his fingers to the bone because the restaurant can’t get people to work. Of course the focus was on people milking unemployment boosts.
That city has a 4.6 unemployment rate.  For reference, it was 4.9 in the summer of 2019.  We have GOT to stop making up our own facts!

[TexasProud]

Yes. tons and tons of jobs available, especially with restaurants. Most around here cannot staff, and are having to return to carry out only because they don’t have the staff.  I think this may drive even more out of business. I don’t have a clue what the answer is.

[SKL]

10 hours ago, Bootsie said:

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the average work week in manufacturing in the US in 1900 was 53  hours   https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/cwc/american-labor-in-the-20th-century.pdf

I think we have also forgotten the standard of living that was being provided by the typical job was in previous generations.  The post-war boom, new single-family housing in the suburbs lifestyle has not been the norm over a sustained period of time.  

It wasn't the norm then either, except on TV.

[skimomma]

9 hours ago, vonfirmath said:

I work for a HVAC/plumbing company.

If the employee fails a drug test we can't send them out on most of our jobs.

 

This  probably deserves a spin off, but why?  My understanding, which might be incorrect, is that this kind of drug testing is only going to pick up pot use.  The harder drugs leave the system quickly and therefore are not detected.  I personally would WAY rather have someone working on my HVAC system that might smoke a little weed here and there than a heroin, meth, or coke user.  Even heavy alcohol use would be more concerning to me.  Someone could be falling down drunk of the job and still pass a drug test.  I feel drug testing has more roots in racial and class discrimination than anything else.  I can even see it backfiring......"Well, I shouldn't partake in my low level weekend pot habit because I might fail a drug test, maybe I should drink more or try prescriptions meds or or or....."  Sure, the "best" and healthiest practice is to abstain from everything, but we know white collar workers are certainly NOT doing this so why the double standard?

 

[vonfirmath]

14 minutes ago, skimomma said:

This  probably deserves a spin off, but why?  My understanding, which might be incorrect, is that this kind of drug testing is only going to pick up pot use.  The harder drugs leave the system quickly and therefore are not detected.  I personally would WAY rather have someone working on my HVAC system that might smoke a little weed here and there than a heroin, meth, or coke user.  Even heavy alcohol use would be more concerning to me.  Someone could be falling down drunk of the job and still pass a drug test.  I feel drug testing has more roots in racial and class discrimination than anything else.  I can even see it backfiring......"Well, I shouldn't partake in my low level weekend pot habit because I might fail a drug test, maybe I should drink more or try prescriptions meds or or or....."  Sure, the "best" and healthiest practice is to abstain from everything, but we know white collar workers are certainly NOT doing this so why the double standard?

 

Because the universities, state departments, etc that we work for require a clean drug test before anyone works on their job. It may have to do with the requirements on their insurance.

BTW sending someone drunk is also strictly not allowed and our supervisors would throw someone off the job who came in drunk.

[TexasProud]

31 minutes ago, skimomma said:

This  probably deserves a spin off, but why?  My understanding, which might be incorrect, is that this kind of drug testing is only going to pick up pot use.  The harder drugs leave the system quickly and therefore are not detected.  I personally would WAY rather have someone working on my HVAC system that might smoke a little weed here and there than a heroin, meth, or coke user.  Even heavy alcohol use would be more concerning to me.  Someone could be falling down drunk of the job and still pass a drug test.  I feel drug testing has more roots in racial and class discrimination than anything else.  I can even see it backfiring......"Well, I shouldn't partake in my low level weekend pot habit because I might fail a drug test, maybe I should drink more or try prescriptions meds or or or....."  Sure, the "best" and healthiest practice is to abstain from everything, but we know white collar workers are certainly NOT doing this so why the double standard?

 

No. No. No.  You do not  want a painter painting your room when he is high on anything!  Ask me how I know....police got involved.

[skimomma]

1 minute ago, TexasProud said:

No. No. No.  You do not  want a painter painting your room when he is high on anything!  Ask me how I know....police got involved.

Well, of course not.  I am not advocating for people working while high.  Just pointing out that these drug tests are not actually making a work environment safer, they only indicate when a person has specifically used pot within the last 30 days.  No other drugs or alcohol.  Which makes them pointless.  I do not care one little bit if my painter smoked week last weekend.....any more than I care if they had a beer.  I DO care if they are a raging meth-head, but the test does not pick that up.  To me, that makes drug testing a pointless barrier.  It does not make the workplace or employee safer but does prevent some qualified people from working.

[Bootsie]

4 hours ago, Carrie12345 said:

I just talked to my mom last night. She took a (vaccinated) trip to a nice little outdoor-focused city last week and told me all about how her waiter has been working his fingers to the bone because the restaurant can’t get people to work. Of course the focus was on people milking unemployment boosts.
That city has a 4.6 unemployment rate.  For reference, it was 4.9 in the summer of 2019.  We have GOT to stop making up our own facts!

The fact that the city has a  4.6% unemployment rate and that restaurants are having trouble getting people to work because they are making more on unemployment are not necessarily at odds with each other.  You have to look much more closely at what is behind the unemployment number in order to conclude that.  There have been major shifts in the workforce over the past year that make the unemployment rates at two points in time not directly comparable. 

[vonfirmath]

1 hour ago, skimomma said:

Well, of course not.  I am not advocating for people working while high.  Just pointing out that these drug tests are not actually making a work environment safer, they only indicate when a person has specifically used pot within the last 30 days.  No other drugs or alcohol.  Which makes them pointless.  I do not care one little bit if my painter smoked week last weekend.....any more than I care if they had a beer.  I DO care if they are a raging meth-head, but the test does not pick that up.  To me, that makes drug testing a pointless barrier.  It does not make the workplace or employee safer but does prevent some qualified people from working.

Actually, this article says the most frequently used drug test DOES pick up much more than pot -- including meth. https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/326305#what-drugs-can-the-test-find

 

[Carrie12345]

1 hour ago, Bootsie said:

The fact that the city has a  4.6% unemployment rate and that restaurants are having trouble getting people to work because they are making more on unemployment are not necessarily at odds with each other.  You have to look much more closely at what is behind the unemployment number in order to conclude that.  There have been major shifts in the workforce over the past year that make the unemployment rates at two points in time not directly comparable. 

I’m not trying to claim an entirely 1:1 situation. I’m just saying it’s a stretch to call intentional unemployment a large problem when overall unemployment is technically down.
No, that doesn’t mean there hasn’t been any shift anywhere else in the statistics. But it DOES mean that there are slightly fewer people collecting unemployment than there were, in this specific location, at the height of their last peak season pre-COVID.  I don’t see how we can blame unemployment checks for the problem when there are fewer of them.