Non-IT News Thread
-
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
This is the new canal just one month old. Ships are three times the size that they were two months ago. They use tugs now instead of the mule trains.
That's up and running already? Man, how time flies.
-
@travisdh1 said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
This is the new canal just one month old. Ships are three times the size that they were two months ago. They use tugs now instead of the mule trains.
That's up and running already? Man, how time flies.
I know, @pchiodo @MarigabyFrias and I were just checking out the dig site less than a year ago!
-
Weren't we talking recently about workers not knowing their rights?
-
@coliver said in Non-IT News Thread:
Weren't we talking recently about workers not knowing their rights?
Yup, it's not going to change. No amount of telling people what their rights are ever gets people who are doing these kinds of jobs to listen.
-
When I was sixteen and a job denied us our rights, I called a "union" and we walked out, en masse. One guy fired us, I said okay, see you in court. I wasn't to my car in the parking lot before the owner was outside running after us screaming that we were not fired, were getting full pay and could go home and enjoy ourselves
-
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@coliver said in Non-IT News Thread:
Weren't we talking recently about workers not knowing their rights?
Yup, it's not going to change. No amount of telling people what their rights are ever gets people who are doing these kinds of jobs to listen.
It's unfortunate, this is a pretty open and shut case.
-
@coliver said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@coliver said in Non-IT News Thread:
Weren't we talking recently about workers not knowing their rights?
Yup, it's not going to change. No amount of telling people what their rights are ever gets people who are doing these kinds of jobs to listen.
It's unfortunate, this is a pretty open and shut case.
Yeah, but on the upside, no one to blame but themselves.
-
The girl said she 'didn't know' if she would push legal action or not, but I think it'd be a smart idea on her part. There's absolutely no reason for A) her to be making less than the guy who was hired, and ~B) for them to be fired, even if they were discussing wages.
-
@dafyre said in Non-IT News Thread:
The girl said she 'didn't know' if she would push legal action or not, but I think it'd be a smart idea on her part. There's absolutely no reason for A) her to be making less than the guy who was hired, and ~B) for them to be fired, even if they were discussing wages.
Paying new hires more than previous ones is standard practice in the food service industry. This was institutionalized in the big fast food chains. There are two simple factors here:
-
It's simply standard to pay new people more, why I don't know, but it encourages turnover and stops people from becoming entrenched employees. You'd think that you'd want that, but often places do not.
-
People negotiate different rates. Even if the value and skill of the employee is the same, it's up to each employee to negotiate the rate that makes sense for them. Taking legal action because someone else is a better negotiator isn't legal. Saying that there was no reason for the pay to be different means she doesn't understand how pay works and indicates why she might make less - because she doesn't understand the process.
-
-
@dafyre said in Non-IT News Thread:
for them to be fired, even if they were discussing wages.
As long as they are not at work at the time, and didn't get paid lots of money to give up their rights, there should be no grounds for firing people over things that they are legally required to disclose in many situations.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@dafyre said in Non-IT News Thread:
for them to be fired, even if they were discussing wages.
As long as they are not at work at the time, and didn't get paid lots of money to give up their rights, there should be no grounds for firing people over things that they are legally required to disclose in many situations.
I understood it that they both got hired the same day.
-
@dafyre said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@dafyre said in Non-IT News Thread:
for them to be fired, even if they were discussing wages.
As long as they are not at work at the time, and didn't get paid lots of money to give up their rights, there should be no grounds for firing people over things that they are legally required to disclose in many situations.
I understood it that they both got hired the same day.
Yeah, at the same time, and discussed it before even starting.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@dafyre said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@dafyre said in Non-IT News Thread:
for them to be fired, even if they were discussing wages.
As long as they are not at work at the time, and didn't get paid lots of money to give up their rights, there should be no grounds for firing people over things that they are legally required to disclose in many situations.
I understood it that they both got hired the same day.
Yeah, at the same time, and discussed it before even starting.
Then I have a problem with him getting $8.25 and her getting $8, even though they agreed to it. They were both new hires, they both should have started at $8.25.
-
@dafyre said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@dafyre said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@dafyre said in Non-IT News Thread:
for them to be fired, even if they were discussing wages.
As long as they are not at work at the time, and didn't get paid lots of money to give up their rights, there should be no grounds for firing people over things that they are legally required to disclose in many situations.
I understood it that they both got hired the same day.
Yeah, at the same time, and discussed it before even starting.
Then I have a problem with him getting $8.25 and her getting $8, even though they agreed to it. They were both new hires, they both should have started at $8.25.
Why? You feel that all new hires should always make the same no matter what? You don't believe that people should be able to negotiate or differentiate and that all people be treated like cogs in a wheel with a union overseer that determines their wages? I understand that we assume that these two are equal here and it is likely true, but we don't know it. While I agree that there is little to no chance that there wasn't sexual discrimination here, that comes solely from the fact that they were fired, not that they were paid differently.
-
@dafyre said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@dafyre said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@dafyre said in Non-IT News Thread:
for them to be fired, even if they were discussing wages.
As long as they are not at work at the time, and didn't get paid lots of money to give up their rights, there should be no grounds for firing people over things that they are legally required to disclose in many situations.
I understood it that they both got hired the same day.
Yeah, at the same time, and discussed it before even starting.
Then I have a problem with him getting $8.25 and her getting $8, even though they agreed to it. They were both new hires, they both should have started at $8.25.
This is one of those situations where the person needs to advocate for themselves honestly.
-
@dafyre said in Non-IT News Thread:
They were both new hires, they both should have started at $8.25.
Also, when does a change in pay policy take effect? What if new hires used to make $8 but now make $8.25. There has to be some moment in time, even with uniform pay, that this changes. Even if people are hired minutes apart, that "line" between pay rates has to happen sometime. So even in a perfectly unionized world with all people treated as just interchangeable and having no individual value, the problem still exists, just not as often.
-
If you sell yourself for $8/hour, you are worth $8 an hour. Your Ego vs. Their perceived gains from hiring you vs someone else.
-
@wirestyle22 said in Non-IT News Thread:
@dafyre said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@dafyre said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@dafyre said in Non-IT News Thread:
for them to be fired, even if they were discussing wages.
As long as they are not at work at the time, and didn't get paid lots of money to give up their rights, there should be no grounds for firing people over things that they are legally required to disclose in many situations.
I understood it that they both got hired the same day.
Yeah, at the same time, and discussed it before even starting.
Then I have a problem with him getting $8.25 and her getting $8, even though they agreed to it. They were both new hires, they both should have started at $8.25.
This is one of those situations where the person needs to advocate for themselves honestly.
They do, absolutely, and she needs to call the state attorney general's office. If she does not, we have to assume that it is made up or she knows why he likely makes more money. It's not at all uncommon for jobs like this to pay differently because they also make people do different jobs, even with the same title. Having worked in pizza service, I know that just being male meant that I had to work in the freezer, take out garbage, stay to guard the store and other things that girls were never required to do. There were no equal jobs. Did I get paid more? No, I was discriminated against (also, there was a glass ceiling and only women could be managers) yes. But these things are common.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@wirestyle22 said in Non-IT News Thread:
@dafyre said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@dafyre said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@dafyre said in Non-IT News Thread:
for them to be fired, even if they were discussing wages.
As long as they are not at work at the time, and didn't get paid lots of money to give up their rights, there should be no grounds for firing people over things that they are legally required to disclose in many situations.
I understood it that they both got hired the same day.
Yeah, at the same time, and discussed it before even starting.
Then I have a problem with him getting $8.25 and her getting $8, even though they agreed to it. They were both new hires, they both should have started at $8.25.
This is one of those situations where the person needs to advocate for themselves honestly.
They do, absolutely, and she needs to call the state attorney general's office. If she does not, we have to assume that it is made up or she knows why he likely makes more money. It's not at all uncommon for jobs like this to pay differently because they also make people do different jobs, even with the same title. Having worked in pizza service, I know that just being male meant that I had to work in the freezer, take out garbage, stay to guard the store and other things that girls were never required to do. There were no equal jobs. Did I get paid more? No, I was discriminated against (also, there was a glass ceiling and only women could be managers) yes. But these things are common.
Political correctness gone mad.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@dafyre said in Non-IT News Thread:
They were both new hires, they both should have started at $8.25.
Also, when does a change in pay policy take effect? What if new hires used to make $8 but now make $8.25. There has to be some moment in time, even with uniform pay, that this changes. Even if people are hired minutes apart, that "line" between pay rates has to happen sometime. So even in a perfectly unionized world with all people treated as just interchangeable and having no individual value, the problem still exists, just not as often.
Thinking about he situation at hand... They both had the same amount of experience in this type of job. They were both the same age, they were both hired on the same day (this is really where my problem is). They should be paid the same way... Otherwise it looks like the guy is being paid more simply because he's a guy.
I'm not saying new hires should always be paid the same, not at all. But all things being equal (like in this case), they should be paid whatever the company set starting pay is. It's not likely that the company is going to send out a memo: "Everybody hired before noon today is paid $8.25 an hour. Everybody hired after noon today and in the future will be paid $8 an hour".
