Well this is the first time anyone has ever suggested I was privileged for having a minimum wage fast food job where sometimes customers didn’t come in so we didn’t have to work for a while.
You have a very strange idea of privilege if you think you can be privileged to have a job that doesn’t pay a livable wage. Or a fast food job at all.
During downtime, were you not expected to clean, restock, & prep for the next rush? If not, then your store was run by a dunce, and that would also constitute as your privilege.
If you knowingly sat on your ass, taking pay, while your coworkers did those jobs… that makes you a dick, but a privileged dick nonetheless.
You are claiming that “downtime” is unpaid time at work, but you know you were likely supposed to be working on something.
An unspoken agreement with management to chill out after the rush, as a reward for working the rush in the first place… yep, you guessed it! That’s a privilege.
Those people took those jobs because the pay structure & work requirements suit their needs. Get off your soapbox & leave ‘em be.
I have literally never heard anyone call a fast food job privileged before just because sometimes there’s downtime. That’s the weirdest claim I have ever heard.
Those people took those jobs because the pay structure & work requirements suit their needs.
Cool, so we better not pay them more money because giving the disabled more money to spend would be bad for some reason.
Really, paying them what anyone non-disabled would have to legally be paid for the exact same job would just be an insult to them. I know I get insulted every time I get paid more money at my very privileged jobs that you are certain I have had.
Did you ever think maybe they took the job because it suited their needs & they didn’t want to have to fuck with a 9-5?
Did you ever think maybe the jobs are low paying because they really aren’t that important & serve more purpose as structure than income?
Your argument is that the job is bad because the terms are bad, but no one is twisting anyone’s arm to take the jobs.
The jobs get taken because there are people that want that type of flexibility.
Yes they want more money, we all want more money, but you don’t get to shit on their employment opportunities because they have different priorities than you do.
The only difference here is for the first job you’ve agreed to a payment of $15/hour regardless of how many widgets you make & for the second job you’ve agreed to a payment of $15/widget regardless of how long it takes.
Job A: you can dick around for 6 hours & still make $90
Job B: if you can make 6 widgets in 15 minutes, you’ve just made $90 & you get to keep your extra 5.75 hours.
This isn’t complicated. Nobody’s forcing these people to hit a quota, they work at their own pace & are paid accordingly.
I’m guessing you just want to fight over something right now, so you’re intentionally being obtuse. This really is a simple concept that comes down to the workers preference.
Well this is the first time anyone has ever suggested I was privileged for having a minimum wage fast food job where sometimes customers didn’t come in so we didn’t have to work for a while.
You have a very strange idea of privilege if you think you can be privileged to have a job that doesn’t pay a livable wage. Or a fast food job at all.
During downtime, were you not expected to clean, restock, & prep for the next rush? If not, then your store was run by a dunce, and that would also constitute as your privilege.
If you knowingly sat on your ass, taking pay, while your coworkers did those jobs… that makes you a dick, but a privileged dick nonetheless.
You are claiming that “downtime” is unpaid time at work, but you know you were likely supposed to be working on something.
An unspoken agreement with management to chill out after the rush, as a reward for working the rush in the first place… yep, you guessed it! That’s a privilege.
Those people took those jobs because the pay structure & work requirements suit their needs. Get off your soapbox & leave ‘em be.
I have literally never heard anyone call a fast food job privileged before just because sometimes there’s downtime. That’s the weirdest claim I have ever heard.
Cool, so we better not pay them more money because giving the disabled more money to spend would be bad for some reason.
Really, paying them what anyone non-disabled would have to legally be paid for the exact same job would just be an insult to them. I know I get insulted every time I get paid more money at my very privileged jobs that you are certain I have had.
Nobody’s saying don’t pay them more money. You’re just refusing to acknowledge that this is not an hourly based job, it is a performance based job.
If you take a performance based job, & you either underperform or don’t perform, you aren’t getting paid.
If you want more money for your performance, you negotiate a rate based on each performance, not how long each performance takes.
If you go under contract, you’ve agreed to the terms of that contract. These people agreed to this contract you’re so perplexed by.
You have the privilege of going to work each day & getting paid an agreed upon amount based on the time you spend doing your job.
These folks have the privilege of potentially spending less time on the job, while getting paid the same, depending on how fast they perform.
There are privileges on both sides.
Did you ever think maybe they agreed to the contract because they didn’t think that Goodwill would give them any more money even if they wanted it?
What if what if what if…
Did you ever think maybe they took the job because it suited their needs & they didn’t want to have to fuck with a 9-5?
Did you ever think maybe the jobs are low paying because they really aren’t that important & serve more purpose as structure than income?
Your argument is that the job is bad because the terms are bad, but no one is twisting anyone’s arm to take the jobs.
The jobs get taken because there are people that want that type of flexibility.
Yes they want more money, we all want more money, but you don’t get to shit on their employment opportunities because they have different priorities than you do.
No, my argument is that no one should be paid less than minimum wage for any reason.
…but they ARE GETTING PAID THE SAME WAGE
You work 2 hours @ $15, you get $30
You build two widgets @ $15, you get $30
The only difference here is for the first job you’ve agreed to a payment of $15/hour regardless of how many widgets you make & for the second job you’ve agreed to a payment of $15/widget regardless of how long it takes.
Job A: you can dick around for 6 hours & still make $90
Job B: if you can make 6 widgets in 15 minutes, you’ve just made $90 & you get to keep your extra 5.75 hours.
This isn’t complicated. Nobody’s forcing these people to hit a quota, they work at their own pace & are paid accordingly.
I’m guessing you just want to fight over something right now, so you’re intentionally being obtuse. This really is a simple concept that comes down to the workers preference.
Nope, I just want people to be paid for their time and not what they’re able to do within that time.
Paying people for productivity is ultracapitalist and Protestant work ethic cruelty.
But I guess that’s just the privileged outlook I took away from that privileged fast food job I worked.