this post was submitted on 09 Dec 2023
1087 points (88.8% liked)
Leftism
2115 readers
1 users here now
Our goal is to be the one stop shop for leftism here at lemmy.world! We welcome anyone with beliefs ranging from SocDemocracy to Anarchism to post, discuss, and interact with our community. We are a democratic community, and as such, welcome metaposts that seek to amend the rules through consensus. Post articles, videos, questions, analysis and more. As long as it's leftist, it's welcome here!
Rules:
- Absolutely no fascism, right wing extremism, genocide denial, etc.
- Unconditional support of authoritarians will not be tolerated
- Good faith discussion about ideologies is encouraged, but no sectarianism
- No brocialism/sexism
- No ableism
- No TERFs/ anti-LGBTQ+ rhetoric
- No racism
- No trolling
- No insults, dunking, or personal attacks
- No posting of misinformation, disinformation, or fake news
- Mods have final say
Posting Expectations:
- Comics/memes/shitposts/propaganda are only allowed on weekends
- Try to avoid liberalism unless discussing electoral politics. Even then, try to focus on tactical agreement towards leftist goals
- Only one meta post seeking consensus per person per day
- Posts about a particular ideology are ok, but remember the rules above
- Remember that there is no “right way” to implement leftist theory. This rule does not prevent academic criticism.
- Try to avoid extremely sensitive topics unless approaching them with appropriate care for intersectionality. Use your best judgement, and be prepared to provide respectable sources when having these discussions. Wikipedia is not an acceptable source in these cases.
- Post titles must be meaningful and relevant, except on weekends
Sister Communities:
!abolition@slrpnk.net !antiwork@lemmy.world !antitrumpalliance@lemmy.world !breadtube@lemmy.world !climate@slrpnk.net !fuckcars@lemmy.world !iwwunion@lemmy.ml !leftymemes@lemmy.dbzer0.com !leftymusic@lemmy.world !privacy@lemmy.world !socialistra@midwest.social !solarpunk@slrpnk.net Solarpunk memes !therightcantmeme@midwest.social !thepoliceproblem@lemmy.world !vuvuzelaiphone@lemmy.world !workingclasscalendar@lemmy.world !workreform@lemmy.world
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Except it's literally just an economics term referring to positions that can be reasonably learned through on the job training with little or no prior experience.
Stuff like this just muddies and distracts the conversation from the true issue, which is that those jobs deserve a living wage.
Yeah I don’t care if the jobs are literally no skill, that shouldn’t matter when it comes to paying a living wage.
Also, unskilled jobs still end up generating experienced laborers who are worth being compensated for that experience.
The whole point of the term unskilled labor is that it isn’t.
If you’re on an assembly line and you’re putting part A into box B, it takes an afternoon to learn and you’ll be about as fast as someone who’s been doing it for 30 years.
Either part A is in box B or it isn’t. The difference between the best person and the worst person that’s still worth employing is very small, and probably can’t be trained.
You don’t pay extra for someone with experience putting part A into box B.
But they should be paid a living wage.
It’s far more complicated, what is the ROI on the multimillion dollar robot to do pick and place, how long before a packaging or dimension change requires reprogramming, or you stop making part B and instead make part C that the robot needs to be adapted for. How much does labor cost.
There’s a quite a few parameters to analyze, but it is frequently cheaper and makes sense not to automate it, and instead pay someone to stand at an assembly line instead.
But then the whole automation thing…. Good for skilled labor (the people building and programming robots and automated assembly lines), not good for unskilled labor. If you’re not qualified or unable to learn another skill, it’s one more job that disappears.
The only thing that matters is how many hours it takes up in a persons day.
And you don't think the ruling class weaponizes the terminology to prevent wage increases?
people definitely use it in a derogatory way though
Well don't you think we should fix misnomers? Also, "it's an official term" is a poor excuse. Terms change and evolve all of the time.
Tons of jobs can be taught with on the job training with little to no experience. There's a reason unskilled labor typically refers to food service and blue collar work, while white collar jobs are typically considered entry level.
We can fix two things by the way. Complaining about multiple issues under a larger umbrella doesn't "muddy the water."
For the record, I don't totally disagree with you, but don't you think capitalists at the top would rather people spend their energy arguing about the economic terminology rather than fighting for workers rights?
They would happily call it just about anything if it meant not paying workers more.
Which alternative term do you propose?
You've literally just described every job that exists everywhere. It's a bullshit term to other and denigrate certain groups.
A lot of jobs can't be learnt on the fly. They either need prior training, or significant on the job or prior to work training. Those jobs will, by their nature earn a premium (basic supply and demand).
There will always be low skill jobs, and that's ok. The issue is that they are now so poorly paid that you can't survive on them.
E.g. an office janitor is an unskilled job. It's easy to get a new person up to speed on-the-fly. A janitor on a medical ward is low skilled. They require more training, but it can be on the job. Cleaning a surgery theatre is a skilled job. It requires a significant baseline of knowledge to do it right. This requires off the job training.
None are bad jobs, and all should be paid well enough to live on. However, the more specialist roles should also earn more, since they have higher requirements.
So you're saying training isn't training? That's a bold claim. Can you prove it?
And if you think an office janitor is an unskilled job. You've never met many good custodians. It's easy for anyone to go into any field and do a shit job. But whether or not you acknowledge it. Being good at something takes skill regardless of what it is. Even the migrants picking fruit in American fields are highly skilled. Or are you telling me that in less than a single season or week you could match or better them?
I think you've forgotten about pilots and surgeons and such... not exactly OJT material.
I think you made a non-sequitur. They never said anything about that. Simply pointed out how all jobs require knowledge and training of some sort to be good at them. Perhaps in the future you should debate in good faith and not create straw men to push a false narrative.
You could hypothetically have on-the-job training for a surgeon, but it takes a lot longer and gets very expensive. That's probably why they divide it up into pre-med, med school, internships, fellowships, etc. That and it means that companies don't have to absorb all of the cost of training new surgeons. Maybe it's not the ultimate solution to the problem since some doctors have difficulty paying off their loans. Unless you are in a highly paid specialty, you could be repaying your loans for many years.
I’ll keep my surgeons having gone to med school tyvm
They literally used to apprentice them. They still could. They don't but they could.
Do you want a 19th century surgeon?
If I were in the 19th century? Sure. We could still train them that way today even with all the knowledge we now have. It's only the knowledge that's outmoded. Not the method of training.
The method of training has severe deficiencies including the absence of standardization. Also surgeons still have apprenticeship they just have to go to med school first
The current method of training has severe deficiencies as well. Often saddling people with 6 to 7 figures of debt. And in the medical field specifically having them work shifts defined by people originally hopped up on meth and cocaine. I'd take a well rested and healthy surgeon any day over one that's sleep/stress/drug addled.
Oh and there were literal trade groups that set basic standards most times. Listen it's your prerogative if you want to argue training isn't training. It isn't a very defensible position however.
I don’t disagree that education should be free or at least affordable and at a reasonable pace, but I also stand by the position that an academic portion and institutional training are better than a training program without it.
But also you’ve moved from no such thing as skilled labor to adamantly defending apprenticeship which is a form of skilled labor training. Nobody who apprenticed is unskilled labor.
What data do you have to prove that? I get that you believe it. That doesn't make something true. Institutional educations can still vary considerably. As could apprenticeships. Standardization and accreditation are things external to both of them.
No I haven't. I simply pointed out that many people lack the skills for so called unskilled labor. And how it's largely derisive negative bullshit used to minimize and "other" people. Labor is labor. Every person should be able to support themselves via their labor in our society. If you work hard and specialize in a field. Your reward/payment is people's gratitude, respect, and defference as a subject matter expert. Don't get me wrong. As I said, surgeons, engineers etc etc etc deserve respect as anyone does for their work. But who do you think would be missed more if they suddenly disappeared one day. All the highly specialized educated people or all the unskilled labor? Think about it carefully in the context of all of human history. I'm not saying that so-called highly skilled labor doesn't help make society better. All labor does.
Mate everyone here agrees with you on that even entry level jobs should pay enough to pay rent, but that's not any kind of argument for your claim.
Unskilled/entry level (whatever you wanna call it) is just simply that, minimal requirements to get started. And (almost) all labor is valuable, no one is arguing against that.
Go have a sip of tea, read through your own messages and try understand where you went wrong.
Have a good ${TIME_OF_THE_DAY}
At what fucking point did I say or imply that they shouldn’t be compensated with a living wage? I’ve done unskilled labor, I’ve done high skilled labor. I think everyone even those unable to labor should be able to sleep indoors, have reasonable financial security, and all the other basic shit. I just also think that some labor should require a formal education because my current labor is strongly assisted by my formal education.
Your arguments have been all over the place and you’re arguing against people who aren’t taking the positions you insist we are. I’m a fucking communist. I don’t think engineers and physicians need to seize the means of production, but all of labor and yeah that includes retail workers.
And yeah many people do lack the skills to do a lot of unskilled labor, but it’s the difference between a week of training and a few years of training. And that’s fine, some really important things are difficult for reasons other than knowing out how to do them.
Lol sure. Are you ready to be an architect or a biochemist or an ironworker or a paramedic?
After a decent apprenticeship, a lot of people would.
No shit, the apprenticeship is the exact thing we claim makes a difference.
We can argue where exactly we should draw the line: Is a two year apprenticeship required to qualify as skilled labor? Or is 6 months enough already? Maybe even a one month training course can be considered enough to learn a skill. But the fact is that some jobs require more training than others. And this distinction is worth making in some situations.
I worked in unskilled Labor before, a few minutes teaching so I know what to do, maybe two hours supervised to make sure I don't fuck up and that's it.
An apprenticeship is enough to be a biochemist? Lmao go touch some grass.
Training is training regardless of how you receive it isn't it? Perhaps you should take your own advice.
An unskilled job can be learned in an afternoon. That’s the difference.
Said someone who's never mastered it. I have a college education myself. And work in IT. I'm just not that much of an egoist to disrespect people like you do. I've met truly skilled and great people doing menial jobs and not being compensated enough. You wouldn't last a week at most of these jobs. You feel you could master in an afternoon. Simply because you'd be dealing with people like yourself.
No one is claiming that it’s not possible to hone your floorsweeping skills over the course of 50 years and become a sweeper yoda. What they are saying though, is that the difference between the yoda and the apprentice is neglibile from a customers perspective. That’s just factual, if the apprentice wasn’t good enough for the average client, the yodas would be in high demand and be able to set their own rates, thus becoming skilled labor.
How can they set their own rates when the company makes that decision?
Even highly skilled jobs have pay controlled by the company. There are those who can set their rates, but most are at the mercy of their employer's decisions.
A teacher is a highly skilled job and gets insufficient pay. They can't set their own rates and get poor pay even though they are critical for the continuation of society.
Because if your employer doesn’t pay what you’re worth to other employers, you go to those other employers.
It’s easier than ever to see what jobs are worth as many locations require employers to publish salary bands or hourly rate right on the internet. You can find all the jobs near you that are similar and compare pay without so much as going on an interview.
Where is a teaching job "worth it"? Should we all puck up and move to a hogher-payong district?
Who will teach the children? That's an employer problem. They need to compensate us better. People can't just pick up and move. And it isn't the people's fault that everything is getting more expensive while pay is rising at a snail's pace.
A teacher's pay is set on paper. You can see exactly how much we get with a Google search. No wiggle room.
A couple of things. First off, teaching is unique - every public school I’m aware of is unionized. Which is to say there is a collective bargain between the workers and the district. Teachers have far more say in their pay than non-union employees.
Secondly, they can go teach in private schools if they pay more or change careers if they think they can get paid more or have a better quality of life doing something else.
Or they can simply try to get people to vote down their next CBA if they think they aren’t paid enough and force the district to pay more.
Third, I never said anything is “worth it”, but the calculus for teachers is different. The CBA getting voted on by the teachers means your compensation is heavily backloaded towards end of career and retirement. You also have significantly better benefit plans than private sector jobs, because that’s what the union membership voted for.
You can retire in most school districts after 20 years and get paid 2/3rds of your salary for life. Good luck doing that in the private sector. Which is why you’ll also probably get paid less than other jobs with comparable skill sets over those 20 years.
That doesn't answer my question of who will teach students if the solution is to go to a higher-paying job? The next person hired will find the same money problems and then move to a hogher-paying job. The next.... and then there is no one.
Students in this poor area will have inconsistent teachers, unmotivated teachers, or no teachers. What then?
Teacher's unions are something, and definitely a positive. But with all of the unpaid overtime (grading papers at home, formulating lesson plans, creating visuals, etc), it's still laughable. We got about a 4% raise while our insurance premiums rose by more than 50%. And the cost of living has risen dramatically. The union's negotiated raise really just covers new expenses. No raise at all really. A pay cut for some.
Legally, we are not allowed to strike. We depend on the union's negotiations, and I don't get any voting power other than electing some reps. Maybe I voice my opinion at a meeting or through email, but that's it.
If I don't stay with the district for 30 years (30, not 20, for my district), I don't get retirement benefits. So, moving to a higher paying district fucks my retirement. I'm trapped. Better pay now, or suffer for some pay promise in the future. Promises that keep changing...
Just because teachers get some pretty sweet benefits doesn't mean it isn't enough to live a comfortable life. If someone has it worse than me, does that mean my problems don't matter? No.
The school districts will start paying more money, that’s how this works. It takes a while, there will be short term shortages before school districts renegotiate the CBA and a lag before more college kids get teaching certificates.
Or states will lower the requirements to be teachers, and hire less qualified teachers, and more middle-and-above income households will send their kids to private or charter schools.
You have a lot more power in the union than you think - at least collectively. The people you elect negotiate the CBA. And then you get to vote on that CBA. Convince your peers to vote no next time until you get a better contract.
Legally prevented from striking… what does that even mean. If you strike they can fire you? If you’re going to quit anyway, who cares? Lots of states (37) make it unlawful for public employees to strike. They do it anyway. And win.
Or don’t, and find a new job.
Teacher salaries suck - but they also sucked 5, 10 and 20 years ago too.
The school districts won't pay more. That's why we have a union. The districts would happily not give us raises if we didn't have people fighting for us. If they agreed to a measly 4%, that's the most they were willing to give.
Give me a CEO raise please.
And yes. If we strike, we can be fired.
Why does teachers salaries sucking 5, 10, 20 years ago have anything to do with this? Are you telling me to suck it up?
I’m telling you that you shouldn’t be surprised it’s the way it is. Because it was this way when you started.
Every union seems to do this - they backload pay and benefits. It happens to pilots (until the most recent CBA rounds) and flight attendants too. They get paid literally almost nothing and have to share rooms with 4 other people until they’ve gotten 10-20 years in, in which case they start making pretty decent money.
Teachers are the same. They vote for you to make $30,000/yr with shitty raises, but at 30 years in you’re making $100k/year and will retire with $66k/year for the rest of your life in addition to social security.
Adjusted slightly based on district.
It’s always been like this and you knew it when you started.
Sure, try to improve it and make it better - but don’t act surprised like it’s new.
If only everyone got CEO raises, too bad not everyone is a CEO.
I wasn't acting surprised. I thought we were having a discussion about moving to a new place for higher wages and how it wasn't sustainable using teaching as an example.
I'm not sure the direction you've gone.
Telling me "I knew what I was getting into" is a null excuse. Yea, I knew the pay. I want to teach. I deal with the shit pay because it's all I can get. Because "I knew the pay was insufficient", I'm unwise to have become a teacher?
That is a very misdirected excuse that districts completely from the fact the jobs dont pay enough in the first place.
I don’t know why you think calling something an unskilled job is more derogatory than a menial job.
But can anyone learn your job in an afternoon? No.
You can replace a factory line worker with literally almost any human, you can’t be replaced by anyone who doesn’t have a background in IT, at least without months or years of training.
That’s not ego it’s just reality.
It doesn’t mean they don’t deserve a living wage. But if you’re gushing about how everyone is a skilled laborer while talking to someone who makes 1/10th what you do they’re probably going to think you’re a dick.
I don't understand the need to dogpile on someone who is simply stating that jobs needn't be divided by skill because all jobs need skills. Racking hay and stacking it up is a skill. Picking and sorting the good from the bad fruit or veggies is a skill. Interacting with mean and disrespectful people who couldn't care less about your feelings and pretending to be friendly is a skill. Flipping burgers before someone yells at you for taking more than two minutes is a skill.
Obviously, their argument with the biochemist was wrong, and they were misguided, but why the need to pray on their downfall? It's useless to divide jobs, because they all have skills.