Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by LaminatorX on Friday November 28 2014, @03:10PM   Printer-friendly
from the power-concedes-nothing-without-a-demand dept.

The Center for American Progress reports:

On Tuesday evening, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors unanimously passed the Retail Workers Bill of Rights, the country's first-ever legislation aimed at improving life for retail employees.

The new rules will require retail chains that have 11 or more locations across the country and employ 20 or more people in San Francisco to provide advance notice of schedules, improve the treatment of part-time employees, and give current workers the opportunity to take on more hours before hiring new people. Employers will have to give their workers at least two weeks' advance notice of their schedules, and if they fail to do so they will have to give those workers additional "predictability pay." Workers also get paid if they're required to be on call but their shifts are canceled. Employers will have to give part-time employees the same starting wage as those working full time in the same position and access to the same benefits.

The bill's passage comes at a time when erratic schedules are increasingly wrecking havoc on people's lives, particularly in retail. Nearly half of part-time workers and just under 40 percent of full-time ones only find out their schedules a week or less in advance.(NYT paywall) In a survey of more than 200 retail employees in New York City, nearly 40 percent said they don't get a set minimum of hours they'll work each week and a quarter are required to be on call for shifts, often finding out just hours ahead of time that they'll have to go to work. Many say schedules are posted on Saturdays for workweeks that start on Sunday.

Workers also show up just to be told to go home thanks to computer software that uses algorithms to determine if there are too many employees compared to sales volume. McDonald's employees have sued the company over its use of exactly this technology.

At the same time, workers often struggle to get enough hours to survive. [...] getting more hours or full-time status is treated like a reward and docking hours is used as a punishment.

[...]Bills similar to its Retail Workers Bill of Rights are being pushed in Milwaukee, New York, and Santa Clara, California. Federal lawmakers have taken notice as well. In July, Reps. George Miller (D-CA) and Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) introduced the Schedules that Work Act(PDF).

Related Stories

Colleges Consider "Trigger Warnings" in Curriculum 55 comments

Raw Story summarizes a New York Times report that Colleges across the country this spring have been wrestling with student requests for what are known as "trigger warnings," explicit alerts that the material they are about to read or see in a classroom might upset them or, as some students assert, cause symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder in victims of rape or in war veterans.

The debate has left many academics fuming, saying that professors should be trusted to use common sense and that being provocative is part of their mandate. Trigger warnings, they say, suggest a certain fragility of mind that higher learning is meant to challenge, not embrace. "Any kind of blanket trigger policy is inimical to academic freedom," said Lisa Hajjar, a sociology professor, who often uses graphic depictions of torture in her courses about war. "Any student can request some sort of individual accommodation, but to say we need some kind of one-size-fits-all approach is totally wrong. The presumption there is that students should not be forced to deal with something that makes them uncomfortable is absurd or even dangerous."

Greg Lukianoff, president of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, said, "It is only going to get harder to teach people that there is a real important and serious value to being offended. Part of that is talking about deadly serious and uncomfortable subjects."

A summary of the College Literature, along with the appropriate trigger warnings, assumed or suggested in the article is as follows: Shakespeare's "The Merchant of Venice" (anti-Semitism), Virginia Woolf's "Mrs. Dalloway" (suicide), "The Great Gatsby" (misogynistic violence), and "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn" (racism).

Note: The Raw Story link was provided to provide an alternative to the article source, the New York Times, due to user complaints about the NYT website paywalling their articles.

NYT paywall by Anonymous Coward
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 4, Funny) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Friday November 28 2014, @03:33PM

    by GreatAuntAnesthesia (3275) on Friday November 28 2014, @03:33PM (#120856) Journal

    This kind of crazy commie bullshit will be the death of retail in the US. How are companies like Walmart supposed to survive if they can't drive employee wages down into the ground? Don't people realise that there are about a hundred billion Chinese just across the water who will work for almost nothing? Do they want US customers going to China for their groceries? My great great granddaddy came here in 1824 with nothing but the shirt on his back and he used to get up for work every and... you know what? Fuck this. I was going for Poe's law, but it's Friday and I just don't have enough bile in me. Let's have some Python instead... up for work every day and lick road clean wit' tongue, eat a handful of hot gravel and pay mill owner for privilege of coming to work.... Yay SF. Sometimes sanity comes from the crazy places.

    • (Score: 2) by cafebabe on Friday November 28 2014, @03:46PM

      by cafebabe (894) on Friday November 28 2014, @03:46PM (#120860) Journal

      How are companies like Walmart supposed to survive if they can't drive employee wages down into the ground?

      I know you're being facetious but Henry Ford would have recognized this situation. You're either in the luxury market or the commodity market. If your employees cannot afford your products then you're in the luxury market. So, if a retailer drives down wages until its employees cannot afford its products then it is unrealistic for the retailer to maintain broad appeal.

      --
      1702845791×2
      • (Score: 0, Troll) by jmorris on Friday November 28 2014, @04:24PM

        by jmorris (4844) on Friday November 28 2014, @04:24PM (#120872)

        You are unwittingly repeating a popular myth. Ford started out paying the prevailing wage but it turns out that people do not want to be factory machinery on an automated assembly line. They quit as fast as they could be hired until Ford raised the wage high enough people would put up with it. Give credit for the positive PR spin he put on it but he had no choice.

        Which is too bad because the actual lesson to take from the story is educational. In a free economy people do not have to work a hellish job and they didn't need the hippy SanFran government, The Mouth of Soros (CAP) or even a union to get a fair wage. Fix the Obama depression and wages and labor conditions will improve by virtue of the invisible hand again.

        All this BS is going to do is drive brick and morter retailing into the history books. Then when those people are unemployed, people who have never worked an honest day in their lives will be all over TV telling us how much compassion they have and how we have to 'do something' for the plight of those poor people. But they don't want a handout, they want jobs. The ones willing to abase themselves enough to suckle the government teat are already doing that.

        • (Score: 2) by emg on Friday November 28 2014, @06:24PM

          by emg (3464) on Friday November 28 2014, @06:24PM (#120913)

          Indeed. When are they going to pass the Buggy Whip Makers' Bill Of Rights?

          The end result here will be less people employed in stores, and more people whining about higher prices and how they're going to buy from Amazon in future.

          • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 28 2014, @09:48PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 28 2014, @09:48PM (#120963)

            You seem to have missed the online pet supply companies of the tech bubble who came to realize that people won't buy a 20 pound bag of cat litter from you if it comes with a FedEx bill.

            There are still things for which brick and mortar shops are the way to go.

            -- gewg_

            • (Score: 2) by emg on Friday November 28 2014, @10:24PM

              by emg (3464) on Friday November 28 2014, @10:24PM (#120969)

              You seem to have missed that Amazon sell 18 pound bags of cat litter with free shipping (first one that came up on a search of amazon.com for 'cat litter').

              • (Score: 1) by jmorris on Friday November 28 2014, @11:08PM

                by jmorris (4844) on Friday November 28 2014, @11:08PM (#120981)

                Well he was talking about the tech bubble.. and Amazon has yet to generate much of a profit and unhealthy losses more often than not. But for now it is ok because they are untouchable by Wall Street since everybody just buys on the dips. But retail is an easy business to dominate if you don't need to worry about margins and can just make up the losses with volume and magical thinking.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 29 2014, @02:21AM

                by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 29 2014, @02:21AM (#121001)

                The sell it with 'free' shipping.

                example

                http://www.amazon.com/LITTER-261365-Multiple-Strength-34-Pound/dp/B00D9DUPOG [amazon.com]

                I can get that *exact* same box at the local k-mart for 13 bucks, 12 bucks at the local pet smart instead of 24 from amazon. If I dont buy the premium junk its ~3 bucks for 20 pounds.

                They are putting the 'free' shipping into the total cost. Dont be fooled by 'free' shipping. Look to the total cost. Only the very lightweight items get real free shipping.

                I love me some amazon but their prices are not always the best. They fail at most grocery store type items. Many times they are wildly more expensive. As they do not really stock much of it. Most of it is shipped from 3rd party.

                Much like you can not beat the loading up a trunkload of LTO tapes for moving volumes of data. You can not beat the price of an LTL truck moving 70k pounds in freight. Think 100-200 bucks for 2.5 tons. If you can arrange a dead head run even less. For the dedicated hauler it is even lower as they own the truck and trailer.

              • (Score: 2) by frojack on Saturday November 29 2014, @03:38AM

                by frojack (1554) on Saturday November 29 2014, @03:38AM (#121020) Journal

                The first that came up for me was Precious Cat Ultra Premium Clumping Cat Litter, 18 pound bag and the shipping was about 5 bucks EVEN with Prime.

                --
                No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 28 2014, @10:23PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 28 2014, @10:23PM (#120968)

          Having a work schedule a couple weeks in advance instead of the day before is too much of a burden?
          How about having employees being "on call"? WTF, they aren't doctors.
          What will these stores do if they can't avoid providing benefits to full-time workers by hiring multiple part-time workers?

          Of course all these workers are lazy, dishonest people that shockingly would like some stability in their worthless lives.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 29 2014, @06:17AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 29 2014, @06:17AM (#121042)

            Having a work schedule a couple weeks in advance instead of the day before is too much of a burden?
            not really

            How about having employees being "on call"? WTF, they aren't doctors.
            Yeah that is a new one on me. I had no idea. It sounds like they have more employees than need.

            What will these stores do if they can't avoid providing benefits to full-time workers by hiring multiple part-time workers?
            The stores are optimizing to the new environment they are in (more seekers of employment than jobs, and healthcare benefits they do not want to pay). Most stores are in it for profit of the owners. Not the profit of the employees. It is a rare employer that sees otherwise.

            Of course all these workers are lazy, dishonest people that shockingly would like some stability in their worthless lives.
            Hardly, you are being hyperbolic and know it. We are not worth what we think we are. The average person on this planet makes about 2.50 a day. We are the 1% compared to them.

            There is only one thing that is proven to remove unemployment. That is jobs. You create jobs by creating guidelines that make sense. This measure seems reasonable. But is in fact another barrier to entry for anyone looking to grow their business. 11 seems oddly specific too. So it was law was probably written to avoid hurting some specific favored employer. The more barriers you create to creating jobs means less jobs. The more favoritism shown (either by creating artificial scarcity or monopolies) will erase jobs. That area did not create a huge housing problem by building houses. It did it by limiting building and creating favorites with existing owners. Then locking in rents. That area has a huge history of bungling laws. If you create scarcity of jobs but not employees you end up with unemployment. It becomes a buyers market.

            For example a friend of mine moved out there. He had a 'useless degree'. So he ended up working retail. Obviously you can not live on a part time retail salary in the bay area. He moved back to this area. EXACT same job, same company, same wage even. He is getting by now and has even picked up some work here and there in his 'useless degree'. He is not alone in the number of people I see go out and quickly leave once they realize they can have a mansion for what they are paying for a crap condo.

  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by cafebabe on Friday November 28 2014, @03:35PM

    by cafebabe (894) on Friday November 28 2014, @03:35PM (#120857) Journal

    I've got a few vaguely unrelated comments.

    Firstly, even if this doesn't affect you personally, please appreciate the scale of the problem. I understand that 10% of UK employees are on "zero hour" short schedule contracts. I'd be wholly unsurprised if it was higher in the US.

    Secondly, if you want to understand the insidiousness of scheduling software on people's lives, now is a good time to read Manna by Marshall Brain [marshallbrain.com].

    Thirdly, a large number of good people are caught in this poverty trap. I am particularly disgusted that US State Department whistleblower Peter Van Buren could only find a job at Target after his security clearance was suspended [warincontext.org].

    --
    1702845791×2
    • (Score: 1) by Ethanol-fueled on Friday November 28 2014, @10:30PM

      by Ethanol-fueled (2792) on Friday November 28 2014, @10:30PM (#120971) Homepage

      Never dismiss the need for more stable and mature workers, even at the retail level. I know firsthand that hiring the bottom of the barrel will leave semen stains [soylentnews.org] on your merchandise and show every employee in the store those nude photos in that roll of film you dropped off.

      People who don't give a shit about serving you over the course of their employment can affect you in ways which would be unthinkable. That's why we need to pay 'em a little better and treat 'em a little better.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 28 2014, @11:02PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 28 2014, @11:02PM (#120980)

      To those who currently have full-time work:

      This stuff **will** affect YOU.
      Reagan's "trickle down"? That doesn't apply to good stuff.
      This sort of bad shit, however, tends to easily cross demographic lines. [wikipedia.org]

      If they haven't already replaced you with 1 or more H-1B indentured servants, I see a time when they will expand the staff by a small percentage THEN MAKE EVERYONE PART-TIME (no benefits).

      You don't see that as a possibility?
      How long did the big boys in Silicon Valley get by with their "no poaching" conspiracy?
      Changing jobs when the Captains of Industry are colluding against the Working Class?
      Good luck with that.

      -- gewg_

  • (Score: 2, Informative) by babywombat on Friday November 28 2014, @03:42PM

    by babywombat (2880) on Friday November 28 2014, @03:42PM (#120858)
    From the article:

    Workers also show up just to be told to go home thanks to computer software that uses algorithms to determine if there are too many employees.

    From Manna by Marshall Brain [marshallbrain.com]:

    They connected Manna to the telephone network and the public email network. So Manna was able to begin calling and emailing employees and reminding them to show up on time. [...] [In next SW version] you would get a call from Manna and it would say, "Your Burger-G restaurant is experiencing unexpected customer volume. Can you help?" The word "help" meant, "Can you be here in less than 10 minutes?" You could say yes or no. The problem was that if you said "no" too many times, you got fired. And when you got fired, it meant you were blacklisted in the system.

    And this is just Chapter 2!

  • (Score: 2) by Snotnose on Friday November 28 2014, @04:11PM

    by Snotnose (1623) on Friday November 28 2014, @04:11PM (#120865)

    Back when I had part time jobs (1970's) I always had a known shift. Sometimes I opened, sometimes I closed, sometimes I did the lunch rush. The only time it changed was when I switched with a co-worker for some reason.

    Are managers really farking worker's schedules around willy nilly now days? How can that possibly make workers more productive?

    --
    In this month in 1958 Project Snot was started. This has upset many people and is widely considered a bad idea.
    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by hoochiecoochieman on Friday November 28 2014, @04:28PM

      by hoochiecoochieman (4158) on Friday November 28 2014, @04:28PM (#120874)

      Are managers really farking worker's schedules around willy nilly now days?

      Yes.

      How can that possibly make workers more productive?

      I have no idea. They don't give a shit. The same for companies that force their workers to work long hours, weekends and not take vacations. I can't understand it.

      Overworked people are less efficient, less patient, less creative, less healthy, etc. One would expect that at least companies would base their policies in scientific facts, but no. They fall in the same stupid fallacies as the average barely-literate Joe on the street. You have to work like a slave or you're a useless bum.

      I guess the problem is that many managers are adrenaline junkies who need to be busy and worried all the time to feel they're alive. So much that they even create problems so they'll have something to stress about. And they think the whole world should be like them, so they don't give a fuck about the subordinate that has a life.

      I have had to put up with idiots yelling at me "I don't have vacations for 10 years!" or "I come to work even with 40C fever!". Yeah, good for you, jerk.

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Friday November 28 2014, @04:50PM

      by GreatAuntAnesthesia (3275) on Friday November 28 2014, @04:50PM (#120886) Journal

      Short answer: They aren't more productive, but it doesn't matter.

      Productiveness is just not a factor in some jobs. Sometimes you just need someone to put on a silly hat and shovel fries into cardboard boxes for 6 hours. In those situations the employee is either shovelling or they're not, it's a binary choice: There is no finely-nuanced scale of productiveness that can be influenced by a employee morale, environmental factors or anything else other than (a) are there fries? (b) is there a cardboard box? and (c) is there a shovel? That means that any warm body capable of shovelling fries for the duration of the shift is 100% fully interchangeable with any other. Cogs in a machine. Replaceable, disposable, just another irritating cost nibbling away at the profit margin. Any emotions, hardships or grievances these employees have can be safely ignored (until, of course, they start flipping out, going postal and shovelling fries into the scooped-out skullspace of the customers.)

    • (Score: 2) by tibman on Friday November 28 2014, @09:16PM

      by tibman (134) Subscriber Badge on Friday November 28 2014, @09:16PM (#120956)

      Seems pretty common. I worked at a hotel for a year and they were always messing with the days off. They posted a schedule and i would write it down. A week later I'd get a call from the manager asking why i wasn't at work. Some days after posting the schedule she decided to rearrange it because someone wanted a specific day off. No biggie except she didn't notify anyone. She did not consider this to be her problem.

      --
      SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
      • (Score: 2) by Snotnose on Saturday November 29 2014, @02:00AM

        by Snotnose (1623) on Saturday November 29 2014, @02:00AM (#120998)

        I'd be taking pictures of that schedule, when the manager asks why you weren't there show them the pic and ask them to show you the memo saying it got changed.

        Then again, I haven't been a minimum wage plebe for some 35 years now, sounds like my experience has no relevance to today's workplace.

        --
        In this month in 1958 Project Snot was started. This has upset many people and is widely considered a bad idea.
  • (Score: 2) by Justin Case on Friday November 28 2014, @04:14PM

    by Justin Case (4239) on Friday November 28 2014, @04:14PM (#120867) Journal

    These working conditions sound horrible! Why would anyone agree to them?

    I can predict the answer: they have no choice. And that's probably correct. So why don't they have a choice?

    Why doesn't some business, seeing this situation, offer employees better conditions? Such a business would lure employees away from its abusive competitors. The good employer would be successful and the bad employers would have to change or die.

    Why doesn't this happen?

    After all, employees are the kingpin on which the business rests. The worker is the almighty producer and the other elements are unimportant. Capital, investors, owners, management, the corporation... none of those add value. Indeed they suck away the value that comes only from the workers. Businesses should be doing everything they can to get those workers... if the worker==source-of-value theory is correct, that is.

    • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday November 28 2014, @04:38PM

      by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Friday November 28 2014, @04:38PM (#120880) Homepage Journal

      After all, employees are the kingpin on which the business rests.

      No, that would be profit. Without profit, employees get laid off even if the company really needs them.

      Also, without owners there is no business, thus no jobs, thus no workers. Owners do not own a business for worker charity reasons, they own it to feed their own family. If the business is not doing that, it will likely be closed and the assets sold off at a loss. Again, thus no jobs, thus no workers. Saying owners add no value to a business is like saying air adds no value to the atmosphere.

      Workers, unlike owners, are easily (depending on the worker and the necessary skills for the job) replaced, thus less valuable. If you want to be of real value to a company, have difficult to acquire skills that are necessary to your job. Failing that, your ass can and should be replaced by a teenager/mexican willing to work for as little as management can get away with paying them. Why? Because you're not offering them anything of value in return for the higher value of compensation you're demanding. You're literally asking to be paid for your need rather than your work. Fuuuuuuck that.

      --
      My rights don't end where your fear begins.
      • (Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Friday November 28 2014, @05:25PM

        by GreatAuntAnesthesia (3275) on Friday November 28 2014, @05:25PM (#120896) Journal

        > No, that would be profit. Without profit, employees get laid off even if the company really needs them.
        > Also, without owners there is no business, thus no jobs, thus no workers. Owners do not own a business for worker charity reasons, they own it to feed their own family. If the business is not doing that, it will likely be closed and the
        > assets sold off at a loss. Again, thus no jobs, thus no workers. Saying owners add no value to a business is like saying air adds no value to the atmosphere.

        I think we can all agree that the idea of a business being built upon a single thing is ridiculous. It needs employers AND employees. Just because individual workers are more replaceable than owners, it doesn't make workers as a group less important.

        > Failing that, your ass can and should be replaced by a teenager/mexican willing to work for as little as management can get away with paying them.

        Trouble with that law-of-the-jungle kind of attitude is that if everyone adopts it, you end up in the situation where employers can treat employees like utter shit and get away with it. They pay below a minimum wage, waste the employees time calling them in for shifts that evapourate before the employee even arrives, and always keep them just under the threshold of paying any benefits. The employees, despite being employed, are in poverty. "So what?" I hear you you say. "Not my problem." Except that it is. Poverty is everybody's problem. Poverty increases crime and civil unrest. Poverty leads to ignorance and missed opportunities. Poverty leads to ill health and disease. Poverty decreases the spending power of the economy. These are things that affect everyone in society, no matter how hard the upper classes try to insulate themselves in their gated communities.

        And what's more, you know they will keep pushing. Now that millions of employees are caught in this snare, the employers will tighten it more and more, pushing for lower wages, less benefits, weaker employee protections so that they can make the situation worse and worse. They will also work their way up the ranks: Your precious "hard to acquire skills" might one day be as easily replaced as a WalMart greeter. Maybe then you'll see the other side of the coin. None of this is science fiction. The working poor is reality right now, and we aren't so far away from the kind of situation depicted by Steinbeck in the Grapes of Wrath, where people would fight one another for the chance to work themselves to the bone to earn less than they need to eat.

        Oh, and there's also the whole thing about treating people with respect and enabling them to live in dignity and earn an honest living for an honest day's work. But I know those kinds of arguments are terribly unfashionable these days, and we aren't supposed to think of human beings as anything more than numbers in a spreadsheet, which must produce a profit in order to justify their own existence.

        • (Score: 1) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday November 28 2014, @05:50PM

          by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Friday November 28 2014, @05:50PM (#120905) Homepage Journal

          Just because individual workers are more replaceable than owners, it doesn't make workers as a group less important.

          Er, yeah, it absolutely does if you at all subscribe to logic. Something easily replaceable is inherently less valuable than something less easily replaced.

          Your precious "hard to acquire skills" might one day be as easily replaced as a WalMart greeter.

          I should certainly hope so. That's how you mark human progress. It's also my tough fucking luck if it happens to me, though I like to think I'm personally smart enough in my choices to keep it from ever happening. If it does though, I'll suck it up and acquire another skill if none of the many, many, many I've taught myself over my lifetime are still marketable.

          Oh, and there's also the whole thing about treating people with respect and enabling them to live in dignity and earn an honest living for an honest day's work.

          Fuck respect. Respect, like money, must be earned. Also, fuck enabling them. They are not my children; I did not take them to raise and I will not support them. Not one dime without a dime's value in return from them. Dignity? There's no dignity in having to sponge off others. You want dignity you have to comport yourself in a dignified manner.

          Value for value or starve and die. I can get behind charity for people who've had a tough break but I will never back charity for people who are simply too stupid to live.

          --
          My rights don't end where your fear begins.
          • (Score: 3, Informative) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Friday November 28 2014, @06:10PM

            by GreatAuntAnesthesia (3275) on Friday November 28 2014, @06:10PM (#120910) Journal

            I agree that automating jobs is a mark of progress, but only if the fruits of that automation are shared. You, on the other hand, seem to want to automate everything away and concentrate the benefits all in one place, leaving 99.9% of the population without what any of what you call value and therefore fit only to "starve and die".

            It seems paradoxical to me that you mark human progress by how quickly you can eradicate humanity.

            • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday November 28 2014, @06:32PM

              by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Friday November 28 2014, @06:32PM (#120916) Homepage Journal

              Humans worth the air they breath are extremely adaptable and will always either find or create work. Those that can't, yeah, they are absolutely unfit to live, barring value already received such as crippled vets. I'll even go as far as to say people who've fallen victim to just flat shit luck are worth shelling out some charity to keep around for their potential future contributions. Those that go through life like it owes them not only survival but comfort though? To hell with them. They fail at the basic darwinian qualification of being able to survive in their own environment. They deserve and will receive neither pity nor money from me.

              --
              My rights don't end where your fear begins.
              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 29 2014, @06:54AM

                by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 29 2014, @06:54AM (#121043)

                You do know that murdering people that still have something left worth stealing is a form of work too right? That is what happens when people are pushed too far; they push back.

            • (Score: 0) by jmorris on Friday November 28 2014, @11:14PM

              by jmorris (4844) on Friday November 28 2014, @11:14PM (#120982)

              The only place the fruits of automation need be shared is with the stockholders. The only way a worker has a right to the 'fruits of the business' beyond their regular paychecks is if they are commissioned or shareholders. You want to share the rewards, first share the risks; otherwise cash your paycheck and be happy you don't have to worry about losses until it gets bad enough to cause layoffs. Be glad you can quit on at most two weeks notice if you get a better offer, unlike owners.

          • (Score: 2) by mhajicek on Friday November 28 2014, @06:38PM

            by mhajicek (51) on Friday November 28 2014, @06:38PM (#120918)

            I have valuable and hard to acquire skills as a CNC programmer with 20 years experience, and I get calls from headhunters at least once a week. In ten years or so my job will likely be automated, as will my most others. The total number of jobs will be far smaller than the number of people looking for work, which, by supply and demand, means that even the most skilled and talented people will be paid a pittance and the rest will be left to starve while the owners hoard everything of value. That is the logical conclusion of capitalism.

            --
            The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
            • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday November 28 2014, @10:39PM

              by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Friday November 28 2014, @10:39PM (#120974) Homepage Journal

              I'd start acquiring a new skill now then. Most others? Horse shit. Plumber, electrician, carpenter, bricklayer, farmer, industrial fabricator, heating and air technician, CNC machine owner. Pick any one of the previous top-of-my-head selection and you will never be obsolete. If you starve due to your lack of ability to see that you don't have to, you are one of the ones we can do well without.

              --
              My rights don't end where your fear begins.
              • (Score: 2) by mhajicek on Saturday November 29 2014, @12:26AM

                by mhajicek (51) on Saturday November 29 2014, @12:26AM (#120989)

                Most farmers are already out of work. Ever hear the phrase "bought the farm? Bricklaying is simple and easy; anyone can do it, but then so can a robot. 3d printed buildings and SIP construction render bricklaying and carpentry obsolete however. Being a CNC machine owner isn't a skill. Owning a real CNC takes real money, though I'm working on building one (I already have a hobby grade one). Yes, all of those jobs will be automated, leaving the owners of the automation as the only ones with money and power. There exists no job that is safe from automation. When the robots can do anything a human can and more, what use will there be for employees? The entire human race then will be surplus population.

                I'm encouraging my 11yr old son to study robotics, because I think roboticists will be some of the last employable people.

                --
                The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
                • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday November 29 2014, @12:54AM

                  by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Saturday November 29 2014, @12:54AM (#120991) Homepage Journal

                  Seek help for your paranoid delusions, friend. You really should try brick laying sometime by the way. You, and any robot created to lay brick, will fail miserably. It is very much a skill and can not be automated. Much like fixing things when they go tits-up can not be automated. The ways things can break are far too close to infinite for even any supercomputer to deal with.

                  --
                  My rights don't end where your fear begins.
                  • (Score: 2) by mhajicek on Saturday November 29 2014, @02:24AM

                    by mhajicek (51) on Saturday November 29 2014, @02:24AM (#121002)

                    http://construction-robotics.com/Gallery/ [construction-robotics.com]

                    --
                    The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
                  • (Score: 2) by mhajicek on Saturday November 29 2014, @02:34AM

                    by mhajicek (51) on Saturday November 29 2014, @02:34AM (#121004)

                    Also:

                    "The machines can also automatically embed all the conduits for electrical, plumbing and air-conditioning systems, as well as place electronic sensors to monitor the building's temperature and health over time. "

                    http://www.computerworld.com/article/2489664/emerging-technology/3d-printer-constructs-10-buildings-in-one-day-from-recycled-materials.html [computerworld.com]

                    --
                    The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
                  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 30 2014, @05:21AM

                    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 30 2014, @05:21AM (#121208)

                    You, and any robot created to lay brick, will fail miserably. It is very much a skill and can not be automated

                    The very same thing was said about welders, and now welding machines make more consistent and stronger welds on ship hulls than any human could ever make.

                    Even the best.

                    So hang onto your hat, bitch, because the axe is swinging for your neck.

                  • (Score: 2) by Whoever on Sunday November 30 2014, @07:56PM

                    by Whoever (4524) on Sunday November 30 2014, @07:56PM (#121308) Journal

                    You really should try brick laying sometime by the way. You, and any robot created to lay brick, will fail miserably. It is very much a skill and can not be automated

                    Perhaps. But alternative building techniques will make bricklaying skills largely obsolete. Brick buildings will become a luxury item only affordable by the very wealthy. How many bricklayers will be needed to satisfy that demand?

                • (Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Monday December 01 2014, @05:26PM

                  by GreatAuntAnesthesia (3275) on Monday December 01 2014, @05:26PM (#121567) Journal

                  > Being a CNC machine owner isn't a skill.

                  No, unless "rent-seeking" is a skill. For all his talk about "skills" and "value" and "human progress", Buzzard doesn't seem to be interested in nurturing potential, maximising value or progressing the human condition. He only seems to care about protecting and furthering that minority who already have more than they need. That, and making oh-so-shocking statements that reveal a casual disregard for the value of human life in order to shock us trembling, timid little politically-correct hippies.

          • (Score: 3, Informative) by Whoever on Friday November 28 2014, @08:56PM

            by Whoever (4524) on Friday November 28 2014, @08:56PM (#120950) Journal

            Fuck respect. Respect, like money, must be earned. Also, fuck enabling them. They are not my children; I did not take them to raise and I will not support them. Not one dime without a dime's value in return from them. Dignity? There's no dignity in having to sponge off others. You want dignity you have to comport yourself in a dignified manner.

            The thing is, it's Walmart that is sponging off the rest of us. When a company pays so little to its full time employees that they are eligible for food stamps and other benefits, the company is relying upon the taxpayer to pay its employees.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 28 2014, @10:29PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 28 2014, @10:29PM (#120970)

              When a new employee is given his/her W-2 at Wally World, s/he also gets instructions/forms to apply for food stamps, Medicaid, WIC (Women/Infants/Children nutritional assistance), and Section 8 housing.

              Studies have found that workers at a single Wal-Mart [billmoyers.com] receive as much as $900,000 in Medicaid, food stamps, and other assistance, and that low-wage workers in the fast-food industry alone claim $7 billion per year in public benefits.

              -- gewg_

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 29 2014, @09:56AM

                by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 29 2014, @09:56AM (#121063)
                note. that 900k number.

                that's PER STORE. not total. each walmart. million bucks... poof. of our tax money.
            • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday November 28 2014, @10:41PM

              by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Friday November 28 2014, @10:41PM (#120975) Homepage Journal

              See, now that is a valid point. The only one that's been responded with today. Kudos.

              --
              My rights don't end where your fear begins.
              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 29 2014, @07:07AM

                by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 29 2014, @07:07AM (#121045)

                It is also the only one that has fit your worldview. Something that confirms a bias isn't necessarily logical, nor are things that shake your own reasoning.

                Take this for example. You said fuck respect, yet you respect goods and services, marketable skills, and versatility. Clearly irrational behavior. You claim to be willing to help others that are victims of chance, yet also say tough luck and those that are hit with it must live or die with it. Will you change your views to remove those irrational beliefs?

          • (Score: 2) by aristarchus on Friday November 28 2014, @09:04PM

            by aristarchus (2645) on Friday November 28 2014, @09:04PM (#120954) Journal

            uck respect. Respect, like money, must be earned. Also, fuck enabling them. They are not my children; I did not take them to raise and I will not support them. Not one dime without a dime's value in return from them. Dignity? There's no dignity in having to sponge off others. You want dignity you have to comport yourself in a dignified manner.

            Value for value or starve and die. I can get behind charity for people who've had a tough break but I will never back charity for people who are simply too stupid to live.

            So wrong. Not even wrong. Not your children? Do not send to ask for whom the bell tolls, they are all your children. Dignity? And you want your dime's worth? Child prostitution is just wrong, selling yourself does not get you dignity, it turns you into a commodity. Starve or die? Ah, that's the ticket! Not surprising, I suppose, that a buzzard would be a Social Darwinist, and possibly making a "Modest Proposal"! Are all Libertarians actually Social Darwinists? Charity for people too stupid to live? Oh, my, to quote George Takei. You mean like people with severe retardation, people in comas, people who vote Republican? And perhaps there are whole races of, let's say, indigenous peoples who meet this standard, and why should we have to wait for them to all die off before we take that land that they are not using to its full potential, anyway?

            No, that would be wrong. Maybe you should rethink that whole paranoia about paying for other people libertarian thing. Just saying.

            • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday November 28 2014, @10:51PM

              by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Friday November 28 2014, @10:51PM (#120976) Homepage Journal

              Nice incoherent rant.

              Only point I'll bother with due to the absurdity of it all is that no, people who vote Democrat are the ones I'd call fools above all others. That's not just a Libertarian thing. They, the Republicans, and most other independents think you lot are idiots. You think we're evil, we think you're morons.

              --
              My rights don't end where your fear begins.
              • (Score: 1) by jmorris on Friday November 28 2014, @11:30PM

                by jmorris (4844) on Friday November 28 2014, @11:30PM (#120985)

                You think we're evil, we think you're morons.

                Which is why they have been winning for about a Century. Because they are right and it is we who are terribly wrong.

                Not stupid, evil. By their moral compass it is not disputable that we are quite evil. And they have been acting on this belief for a lon time, working on eliminating us. Logic tells us that the opposite must also be true. That a moral compass oriented such that they see us as evil must of necessity point in an evil direction by our lights. No they don't all wear snappy black costumes with stylish jackboots, they stroke white cats in a volcano lair or other cartoonish things, in point of fact many appear quite nice. Evil often wears a pleasant face.

                Coldly examine the morality of a Progressive against any standard of Western Civilization. If you are religious try the Ten Commandments but the U.S. Founding Documents will do equally well for a secular equivalent except they aren't laid out as neatly in listicle format. How many of those rules do they not only reject outright but hold that violating them is actually a virtue? Doesn't matter whether it is Rule of Law vs Rule of Men or Thou Shalt Not Covet, they believe exactly the opposite. Evil, not stupid.

              • (Score: 2) by aristarchus on Saturday November 29 2014, @12:15AM

                by aristarchus (2645) on Saturday November 29 2014, @12:15AM (#120988) Journal

                So, you missed the reference to John Donne, "No Man is an Island", Jonathan Swift's "Modest Proposal", genocide against Native Americans and the Nazi program of eugenics? And you think something. We (and I have to admit on the question of group self-identification I am somewhat confused, who said anything about Democrats?) need some actual evidence of thinking, some proof of a grasp of concepts and understanding of reality.

          • (Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Monday December 01 2014, @04:32PM

            by GreatAuntAnesthesia (3275) on Monday December 01 2014, @04:32PM (#121548) Journal

            > Er, yeah, it absolutely does if you at all subscribe to logic. Something easily replaceable is inherently less valuable than something less easily replaced.

            I said "workers as a group", not as individuals. The wheels on my car are easily replaced. Does that mean that wheels aren't important on my car? It's not much of a car without wheels, and a business isn't much of a business without workers.

            > my tough fucking luck if it happens to me, though I like to think I'm personally smart enough in my choices to keep it from ever happening. If it does though, I'll suck it up and acquire another skill if none of the many, many, many I've taught myself over my lifetime are still marketable.

            Well that's lovely for you. You are in the privileged position of having free time and resources to educate yourself. You are ahead of the game, and with just a little work you can stay there. Now imagine you are young and penniless. Try gaining marketable skills while holding down 4 zero-hour contract jobs and still having to choose between rent and food at the end of each month. Try going to evening classes when your employer expects you to show up at all hours, with a few hours notice, only to send you home unpaid half the time because they didn't need you after all. Try telling that employer to go fuck himself when he can replace you with someone even more desperate in a heartbeat, and every other employer is offering exactly the same deal. That is the situation people find themselves in now. It's not like it was 30, 40, 50 years ago when a bright, plucky kid could fall out of school, work a few crappy jobs and live cheap while picking up valuable skills to get ontot he first rung of the career ladder. If you don't start off in a good position, the chances are you will be a slave for life.

            > Value for value or starve and die.

            Trouble with this (apart from the complete absence of humanity, obviously) is that both sides of your little equation are controlled by one party: The employer. High unemployment and underemployment gives them the leverage to set not only the value of the work, but also the value of the worker. Therefore, without governmental interference they can drive the price of labour arbitrarily low. What you end up with is Value for Practically Nothing. Your "Value for value" is a luxury that millions of people in the west can only dream of.

        • (Score: 2) by Hairyfeet on Saturday November 29 2014, @03:24PM

          by Hairyfeet (75) <{bassbeast1968} {at} {gmail.com}> on Saturday November 29 2014, @03:24PM (#121120) Journal

          The Ayn Randians running these corps have already planned for everything you speak of...ever see Brazil? How you have these gated kingdoms of splendor and outside the city its a hellhole? You ship all the money overseas through tax dodges so you don't pay any taxes and think only about short term gains so if things go to shit you can just stripmine the business of assets like Bain Capital and move on.

          I hate to break the news to ya but short of a violent overthrow the USA of the future will be just another banana republic, rich on the mountaintop living like gods while the rest live in shitholes and if the poor say boo? Send in the tanks and the goon squads to put the boot to 'em.

          --
          ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
      • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 28 2014, @09:16PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 28 2014, @09:16PM (#120955)

        Worker can be owners.
        There is absolutely NO NEED for a separate ownership class who does no labor.

        The only reason any folks would think otherwise is that the aristocrats control Lamestream Media and they also have the educational^W indoctrination system set up to reinforce acceptance of a continued top-down societal structure.

        To see a very successful example of worker-owners, check out this outfit in Spain.
        Mondragon [googleusercontent.com] (orig) [wikipedia.org]
        They have been doing this since 1956. [googleusercontent.com] (orig) [rdwolff.com]

        People, stop taking your money to too-big-to-fail banks.
        Find a credit union that benefits its members (aka the community, aka YOU).

        Find the employee-owned businesses in your area and patronize them.
        (Every time you go to Wally World|McDonald's, YOU are reinforcing the problem.)

        Join cooperatives where you can find them.
        (Joining a food cooperative will get you healthier chow and will keep your money local, maximizing the Multiplier Effect.)

        Here's the big one:
        Try to imagine how your own work environment could be run without a separate ownership class.
        ...then make it happen.

        -- gewg_

        • (Score: 0, Troll) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday November 28 2014, @10:54PM

          by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Friday November 28 2014, @10:54PM (#120978) Homepage Journal

          Thank you, Karl Marx. How about you get on your little red boat and row back to Russia now. Oh, wait, they're not communist any more because it produced nothing but abject poverty there, the same as it's done every last place it's been tried in the history of the world.

          --
          My rights don't end where your fear begins.
          • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 29 2014, @12:33AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 29 2014, @12:33AM (#120990)

            Lenin and then Stalin liked to use the "Communist" rhetoric while they were doing forced collectivization.
            Russia has ALWAYS been a dictatorship.
            Top-down systems are the antithesis of Marxism.

            A better name to have dropped would have been Cuba.
            Cuba is a shining example of how to get rid of aristocracy and empower the Working Class.

            If it wasn't for the embargo imposed by that "bastion of freedom", the USA, things in Cuba would be absolutely amazing.
            ...but the (Neoliberal/Crony Capitalist, Imperialist) USA is going to be the world-oppressing bully until it collapses under its own weight as all empires have ever done.

            Now, wanna try to rebut the 6 decades of success Mondragon has had?

            -- gewg_

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 29 2014, @03:37AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 29 2014, @03:37AM (#121019)

              If it wasn't for the embargo imposed by that "bastion of freedom", the USA, things in Cuba would be absolutely amazing.

              Complete and utter bullshit. Cuba trades on the world stage, and even imports from the US. You'll need to look somewhere else than your "big bully" excuse as to why Cuba isn't the Utopia you'd wish it would be:

              The United States does not block Cuba's trade with third-party countries: other countries are not under the jurisdiction of U.S. domestic laws, such as the Cuban Democracy Act (although, in theory, foreign countries that trade with Cuba could be penalised by the U.S., which has been condemned as an "extraterritorial" measure that contravenes "the sovereign equality of States, non-intervention in their internal affairs and freedom of trade and navigation as paramount to the conduct of international affairs."). Cuba can, and does, conduct international trade with many third-party countries; Cuba has been a member of the World Trade Organization (WTO) since 1995.

              . . .

              At present, the embargo, which limits American businesses from conducting business with Cuban interests, is still in effect and is the most enduring trade embargo in modern history. Despite the existence of the embargo, the United States is the fifth largest exporter to Cuba (6.6% of Cuba's imports are from the US). However, Cuba must pay cash for all imports, as credit is not allowed.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 29 2014, @04:45AM

                by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 29 2014, @04:45AM (#121027)

                So, there is an embargo, but there isn't an embargo.
                What a bunch of doublespeak bullshit.

                Cuba must pay cash

                Bingo! The embargo is conducted via USA banks.
                Wanna do business with Cuba?
                Fine. USA banks won't process your payments to/from Cuba.
                Oh, and USA banks will also not process your payments from other countries (especially the USA).
                Still want to do business with Cuba, Chumpbergistan?

                Subtle, technically-legal bullying is still bullying.

                -- gewg_

  • (Score: 1) by srobert on Friday November 28 2014, @04:32PM

    by srobert (4803) on Friday November 28 2014, @04:32PM (#120877)

    I don't like to see this sort of thing legislated by local governments. It only encourages business to relocate. Such actions should be legislated at a federal level. Moreover, in the increasingly international economy, laws to protect workers should be negotiated into trade agreements and enforced stringently.

    • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday November 28 2014, @04:44PM

      by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Friday November 28 2014, @04:44PM (#120883) Homepage Journal

      I'm just the opposite, I'd rather see this legislated locally so that businesses can relocate if some town passes a moronic law. Besides which, I dare say the federal government has no constitutional standing to pass this kind of law. They're allowed to regulate interstate commerce; not intra-state and most definitely not strictly local commerce.

      --
      My rights don't end where your fear begins.
      • (Score: 1) by srobert on Friday November 28 2014, @05:49PM

        by srobert (4803) on Friday November 28 2014, @05:49PM (#120904)

        Government has done many things that have been beneficial by way of a broad interpretation of the constitution. I suspect that you don't advocate such a strict interpretation when it would interfere with legislation that you favor.

        • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday November 28 2014, @05:57PM

          by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Friday November 28 2014, @05:57PM (#120907) Homepage Journal

          I'm libertarian-ish in my views, so yes, I absolutely do. The constitution was purposefully written to not be interpreted broadly. See the bit about all rights not enumerated herein being reserved for the states and the people if you have any doubt. The current federal government and its massively expanded powers is a monstrosity that the founders would have taken up arms against.

          --
          My rights don't end where your fear begins.
        • (Score: 2) by HiThere on Saturday November 29 2014, @07:43PM

          by HiThere (866) Subscriber Badge on Saturday November 29 2014, @07:43PM (#121156) Journal

          I have to doubt that the beneficial effects of ignoring the constitution to accomplish something "good" outweigh the damage done by ignoring the constitution.

          I do agree that the current civilization could not operate with a strict interpretation of the constitution, but by just ignoring it whenever they wanted to they have so weakened it that it has lost much of its value as a protection. What they should, instead, have done is amend the constitution...but that would mean getting most people to agree that what they wanted to do was a worthy thing.

          --
          Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
      • (Score: 1) by Delwin on Friday November 28 2014, @08:59PM

        by Delwin (4554) on Friday November 28 2014, @08:59PM (#120953)

        The trick here is that the business is stuck just like the employees are. This effects retail - and a retail business cannot easily relocate when you're talking about something the size of San Francisco.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 28 2014, @04:50PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 28 2014, @04:50PM (#120885)

      I agree with the desirability of having sane labor protections deployed in a wider manner - however in this case we're talking about retail chains, where proximity to your customers is vital to success. If you relocate all of your Acme Commodity Widget stores outside city limits, the Foobar Commodity Widget chain would see a tremendous increase in sales if they left their stores in place.

    • (Score: 1) by Ethanol-fueled on Friday November 28 2014, @10:10PM

      by Ethanol-fueled (2792) on Friday November 28 2014, @10:10PM (#120964) Homepage

      The legislation targets only businesses that have "11 or more locations across the country," which means that they're targeting the businesses who can kindly fuck off and won't be missed.

      Don't know how they came up with the magic number "11" though.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 29 2014, @12:10AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 29 2014, @12:10AM (#120987)

        Don't know how they came up with the magic number "11" though.

        Don't think of it as "11 or more". Think of it as "More than 10".

  • (Score: 2) by Leebert on Friday November 28 2014, @04:44PM

    by Leebert (3511) on Friday November 28 2014, @04:44PM (#120882)

    The new rules will require retail chains that have 11 or more locations across the country and employ 20 or more people

    This kind of crap annoys me. If it's a problem for which it is necessary to impose a solution, then it's necessary to impose that solution everywhere.

    • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday November 28 2014, @04:48PM

      by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Friday November 28 2014, @04:48PM (#120884) Homepage Journal

      And kill small business that creates the majority of the jobs in the nation? Even SF isn't that insane. Small businesses often fly by the seat of their pants, not knowing what work they'll have from day to day. This would utterly and completely destroy nearly every contractor of any sort, for instance.

      --
      My rights don't end where your fear begins.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 28 2014, @10:35PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 28 2014, @10:35PM (#120973)

      A business that doesn't have that many employees or working hours may not be able to have fewer full-time workers do the same work as multiple part-time workers.

  • (Score: 1) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 28 2014, @05:19PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 28 2014, @05:19PM (#120893)

    They hire part-time employees only, to keep them from full-time benefits. Low management are paid salary to work them more hours at no add'l wages for those hours. Some companies pay on a productivity basis, but flood the place with so many employees that there is not enough work to keep them busy, and requiring them to do housekeeping duties at no pay during that time (Auto Repair Industry) but give them a "guarantee" amount if there isn't enough work, which is a low amount. Companies let employees go after a period of time to prevent them from acquiring benefits. I have seen all of the above, and have been in some of those situations. Corporate wants this to happen.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 28 2014, @06:13PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 28 2014, @06:13PM (#120911)

      I worked at one of those Auto repair shops, a very well known one, that did that. Worse, they hired unskilled workers only with the exception of one skilled worker (which was me) to fix all the F-ups. Talk about a clusterfuck, very dangerous things happened. Management also used to turn work away to starve the techs if they weren't able to collect their management bonus that month, to make it easier to get the next month. Management also knew nothing about the trade, and only sold hi profit items while ignoring critical needed items. I feel sorry for the customers that got screwed along with the employees.

  • (Score: 1) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 28 2014, @05:40PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 28 2014, @05:40PM (#120900)

    "Workers also show up just to be told to go home"

    The law should then probably require employers to compensate those workers for their transportation expenses (ie: Gas or cost of taking the bus both ways) and transportation time (again, both ways). There should probably be a minimal number of hours that employers must pay employees just to show up even if they go home. Transportation is essentially a form of ‘work’, this work was solicited, and if the employer calls someone to come in and they come in they essentially ‘worked’ to get there (and work again to go back home) and deserve to be compensated for their expenses and time. Otherwise employers are asking employees to work with the reasonably implicit promise/agreement/contract of paying them for that work and then deciding they don’t want to meet their end of the agreement to pay employees for that work (despite the fact that the employees met their end of the agreement to show up). Sounds like a violation of contract law or contract principles.

    “give current workers the opportunity to take on more hours before hiring new people”

    This is government micromanagement. The government has no business managing a business.

    “Employers will have to give part-time employees the same starting wage as those working full time in the same position and access to the same benefits.”

    Again, more government micromanagement. Full time employees tend to be more experienced and so I should expect that they would be more productive and deserve higher pay and benefits.

    “Workers also get paid if they're required to be on call but their shifts are canceled.”

    Perhaps not the full wages but the employer should probably be required to compensate the employee for last minute schedule cancellations to some extent. Anything else would be an implicit violation of contract law. The employer has an implicit agreement with the employee that the employee won’t have plans during that time (ie: perhaps a side job or to go out with friends or whatever) because the employer will pay the employee for that time. If the employer breaks his end of that agreement (the employee presumably relied on on that agreement) one could argue that’s almost promissory estoppel (the employer didn’t meet his end of the agreement and the employee was damaged because he couldn’t plan a side job or something else ahead of time somewhere else and make money or go out with friends or whatever. This could even cause him to be behind on his rent now that he lost out on a side job so the potential for estoppel damages are real).

    “Employers will have to give their workers at least two weeks' advance notice of their schedules, and if they fail to do so they will have to give those workers additional "predictability pay."”

    I have mixed feelings about this. I know someone that often does get last minute ‘emergency’ calls to work and it does often screw up this person’s ability to plan anything. I wouldn’t mind a law like this so much, though it does violate free market capitalistic principles it sort of falls under overtime/minimum wage type laws which I’m not really against.

    • (Score: 1) by bswarm on Friday November 28 2014, @06:02PM

      by bswarm (4564) on Friday November 28 2014, @06:02PM (#120909)

      Last I heard if you show up for work and get sent home they have to pay you 1/2 days wages. May be a California only rule, but it was law.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 28 2014, @09:42PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 28 2014, @09:42PM (#120962)

        When I worked field service, if I showed up at the scheduled time and place and you weren't ready for me, you got billed for 4 hours labor.
        It's a standard practice.

        I can't imagine how the oligarchs got it so that this doesn't apply to paymasters wrt workers reporting to their job sites.

        -- gewg_