|
|
Post by iamkristinl16 on Aug 11, 2021 21:09:29 GMT
Employers have to approve the unemployment, so it doesn’t seem like it would be that hard for there to be a system set up for them to go back and say that the person was now offered their job back. At this point it isn’t just “sticking it to the employer” it is also sticking it to the taxpayers who ARE working. And there are potential ramifications for the economy as a whole. I’m not cool with people having a year and a half long vacation to find themselves on our account. And I’m talking specifically about people who were offered the job that they had before. So, if they were working for a restaurant before Covid and when the restaurant opened again they were able to go back to that job but didn’t, I think their unemployment should end. It gets trickier when someone is looking for a for a job that is comparable to what they had before that is harder to find. What if they are "offered their job back" but the hours being offered aren't enough to pay their bills? What if they are "offered their job back" at a lower rate of pay? What if their childcare disappeared, and when "offered their job back" they couldn't take it without endangering their child? What if they are "offered their job back" in a high-risk environment for Covid, but their elderly mother had to come live with them and they can't risk exposing her? No one likes abuse of the system, but the fact is that there are so many intricacies to individual situations that we tolerate some abuse so that legitimately struggling people don't get thrown under the bus. It would be much more expensive to us taxpayers in the long run for the state to hire a bunch of people to carefully investigate each situation. And I'm just going to say this - we taxpayers spend much, much more each year subsidizing corporations' low wages with food stamps, WIC, ADC, etc., subsidizing millionaire tax breaks, and lots of other things than we do on special unemployment. Remember that base unemployment is paid for by companies, which are required to pay into state unemployment insurance so there is a fund for workers laid off. It never came from individual taxpayer money. I understand that there are intricacies of the situation. However, I do believe that there are ways that we could ensure that there are fewer that are taking advantage of the situation right now. Clearly the people interviewed for the Daily podcast are just a few people, but none of them gave any of the reasons listed above as reasons why they aren't going back to work. And it doesn't sound like they are alone in that. THAT makes me really irritated. I also find it irritating that we subsidize huge corporations like you mentioned. I can be irritated by both. I am also curious if the government is subsidizing the state unemployment as well as the extra $300? |
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Aug 11, 2021 21:27:14 GMT
What if they are "offered their job back" but the hours being offered aren't enough to pay their bills? What if they are "offered their job back" at a lower rate of pay? What if their childcare disappeared, and when "offered their job back" they couldn't take it without endangering their child? What if they are "offered their job back" in a high-risk environment for Covid, but their elderly mother had to come live with them and they can't risk exposing her? No one likes abuse of the system, but the fact is that there are so many intricacies to individual situations that we tolerate some abuse so that legitimately struggling people don't get thrown under the bus. It would be much more expensive to us taxpayers in the long run for the state to hire a bunch of people to carefully investigate each situation. And I'm just going to say this - we taxpayers spend much, much more each year subsidizing corporations' low wages with food stamps, WIC, ADC, etc., subsidizing millionaire tax breaks, and lots of other things than we do on special unemployment. Remember that base unemployment is paid for by companies, which are required to pay into state unemployment insurance so there is a fund for workers laid off. It never came from individual taxpayer money. I understand that there are intricacies of the situation. However, I do believe that there are ways that we could ensure that there are fewer that are taking advantage of the situation right now. Clearly the people interviewed for the Daily podcast are just a few people, but none of them gave any of the reasons listed above as reasons why they aren't going back to work. And it doesn't sound like they are alone in that. THAT makes me really irritated. I also find it irritating that we subsidize huge corporations like you mentioned. I can be irritated by both. I am also curious if the government is subsidizing the state unemployment as well as the extra $300? No. State employment is paid by the companies who employ people in that state. Taxpayer money doesn't go into it. I really don't think some anecdotal stories here and on a podcast are evidence of widespread fraud. There have been numerous stories about the people who haven't been able to go back to work for all the reasons I brought up and then some - why are these discounted? I get that you can be annoyed by both, but if we're concerned about waste of taxpayer dollars, we should all be way, way more annoyed about corporations and billionaires than about poor people. In the grand scheme of annoying things our money is spent on, this is a drop in the bucket. Poor people overcollecting on unemployment are not the enemy of the middle class taxpayer. The billionaire class wants you to think they are, so you won't pay so much attention to them. And as I mentioned before, it would cost more to research each situation than it does to just keep some people on the payroll who might be scamming it. Do you feel that justice demands we waste that additional money? |
|
|
|
Post by jlynnbarth on Aug 11, 2021 21:42:08 GMT
Anecdotal scenarios that I know of, that are adding to the "people not going back to work" equation- I know two of my dd's friends were hospital nurses in Seattle. They got so burned after a few months of COVID, that they left the hospital setting and did traveling nursing jobs. They both made some really good money doing that. Enough money to pay for more schooling. One is studying to be an anesthesiologist and one is studying to be a radiologist. My sister (49) who was a waitress at a very small restaurant in her small town, has been out of work since the shutdown started. She was making "decent" money on unemployment with the extra 600.00 (and then lowered to 300.00) a week. She just stopped getting unemployment within the last couple of months. Her boss still hadn't called her back yet, as he and his family were covering the few pick-up orders they got a day during shut down and business just started picking back up a couple months ago. He called back a couple other waitresses who really wanted to go back to work, knowing my sister was "ok" and she wasn't "needed" yet. My sister's youngest child finished college last year, so they no longer have that expense. They reevaluated their budget within this last month and decided that due to that and other budget reductions they have made, that she no longer needs to work, so she's not going back. She and her boss were in constant communication during the whole covid situation. He totally understands her choice and is happy for her. He told her "I'm happy for me too! You were my highest paid employee!" She says he was a great boss and did pay her well, as he does all his employees. He knows the value of good employees. I think these scenarios may be more prevalent than some would think. Re-evaluation of life priorities, budgets, etc... (over the last year and a half) are changing people's outlooks on a lot of things. I have a feeling that I too, will be in a situation similar to greendragonlady coming up here shortly, as I am 51, soon to be 52. My boss is retiring. He is selling the building (it's in escrow) and is trying to sell the business. If he does sell the business, there is zero assurance I will keep my job. If he doesn't sell the business I am out of a job too, as he will just shut it down. I am holding out on finding a new job, as everything I am seeing available in my field (bookkeeping/admin assistant) is paying much less than what I make currently, so I don't see the sense in leaving until I absolutely have to. My mind is all over the place on what to expect. I'm trying not to think about it much(other than looking at available job listings a few days a week) and just live in the moment until I am no longer employed. I thankfully don't "have" to work per se. My dh is employed and can cover our bills, but my income pads our savings for retirement, pays for extras, and allows us to live the way we have become used to since the kids grew up and moved out on their own. I know I will feel like I'm not contributing and the independent woman in me wouldn't like that at all. I've worked since I was 15, minus 6 weeks maternity leave for each of my 2 kids and a one year hiatus when we moved to WA and my dh was recalled to active duty after 9-11. It's hard to imagine not working (yet lol). |
|
|
|
Post by dewryce on Aug 11, 2021 21:56:38 GMT
Wait. Three stimulus checks? I thought there were only 2?
I think a lot of the jobs not being filled are because parents are no longer asking, and perhaps not allowing, their children to work part time for their fun money or to help pay for gas or insurance. And older people that worked for the same type of reason, where the job is not necessary to support themselves.
I saved a quote from a pea a while back, but I think it’s applicable to the discussion. I’m sorry I didn’t note who it was!
I recognize that it’s an exaggeration stating “rather then having one person game the system” but I think the point still stands. There will be some people that do that with every initiative, no matter what party supports it. If there are large amounts of people gaming it the same way and that can be stopped, I’m all for that. But definitely not at the expense of those who have legitimate problems finding a job to support themselves and their families.
And I hate the way a lot of people just assume that if you don’t have a job right now it’s because you’re lazy and just don’t want one. There are so many factors that come into play. Now, more than ever. Find some compassion.
|
|
|
|
Post by hop2 on Aug 11, 2021 23:49:22 GMT
, "turn the safety net into a hammock that lulls able-bodied people to lives of dependency and complacency." Unfortunately the rules are set up to keep them there not to move up & on. For example, once you get into public housing, it is difficult to get out. The rules made made to keep you there. If you do get a job to try to get out your rent can go up %150 pretty much immediately. Often that’s more than rent on an equivalent apartment that is not public housing. And you can’t really move because you don’t have the funds for 1st months rent & security deposit. You have to report interim income changes by the end of the first week of the following month. The last subsidized housing I was in was an unmaintained mess. The system is not set up to help you then support you while you move on, it’s set up to retain you and punish you for having been poor. If you want people to use a safety net then move on you need to provide transition periods between stages. And no a month is NOT a transition period. There should be 6 months to a year to support a family to move to unsubsidized/not public housing. Remember to get in there you pretty much have to have no assets. Your not going to have savings right away when getting a job. The system is not set up to be a helping hand on the way to self sufficiency, it’s set up to keep you there. |
|
twinsmomfla99
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,118 
|
Post by twinsmomfla99 on Aug 11, 2021 23:53:10 GMT
I see a couple of factors adding to the lack of employees in my town.
1. We have an aging (and decreasing) population. We had a lot of older employees retire who did not want to work remotely (or didn’t have the computer skills to do so) or work in person due to fear of getting sick. Those jobs were filled by younger workers who left lower paying jobs.
2. Those vacated lower paying jobs are now sitting empty because we have seen our high school graduation rates decrease over the last several years. Old folks aren’t popping out babies to replace them in the workforce.
That obviously doesn’t apply to areas with a growing population.
|
|
twinsmomfla99
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,118
|
Post by twinsmomfla99 on Aug 11, 2021 23:57:59 GMT
, "turn the safety net into a hammock that lulls able-bodied people to lives of dependency and complacency." Unfortunately the rules are set up to keep them there not to move up & on. For example, once you get into public housing, it is difficult to get out. The rules made made to keep you there. If you do get a job to try to get out your rent can go up %150 pretty much immediately. Often that’s more than rent on an equivalent apartment that is not public housing. And you can’t really move because you don’t have the funds for 1st months rent & security deposit. You have to report interim income changes by the end of the first week of the following month. The last subsidized housing I was in was an unmaintained mess. The system is not set up to help you then support you while you move on, it’s set up to retain you and punish you for having been poor. If you want people to use a safety net then move on you need to provide transition periods between stages. And no a month is NOT a transition period. There should be 6 months to a year to support a family to move to unsubsidized/not public housing. Remember to get in there you pretty much have to have no assets. Your not going to have savings right away when getting a job. The system is not set up to be a helping hand on the way to self sufficiency, it’s set up to keep you there. I think it would be okay to do rent increases based on income as residents move up to better jobs. This allows them to get used to budgeting around the higher amount they will need outside of public housing. BUT…that rent increase should be placed in a fund and held until there is enough to cover first month rent and deposit on a new apartment. This would encourage upward mobility and open up space in public housing units for those who need it. |
|
|
|
Post by hop2 on Aug 12, 2021 0:01:06 GMT
Unfortunately the rules are set up to keep them there not to move up & on. For example, once you get into public housing, it is difficult to get out. The rules made made to keep you there. If you do get a job to try to get out your rent can go up %150 pretty much immediately. Often that’s more than rent on an equivalent apartment that is not public housing. And you can’t really move because you don’t have the funds for 1st months rent & security deposit. You have to report interim income changes by the end of the first week of the following month. The last subsidized housing I was in was an unmaintained mess. The system is not set up to help you then support you while you move on, it’s set up to retain you and punish you for having been poor. If you want people to use a safety net then move on you need to provide transition periods between stages. And no a month is NOT a transition period. There should be 6 months to a year to support a family to move to unsubsidized/not public housing. Remember to get in there you pretty much have to have no assets. Your not going to have savings right away when getting a job. The system is not set up to be a helping hand on the way to self sufficiency, it’s set up to keep you there. I think it would be okay to do rent increases based on income as residents move up to better jobs. This allows them to get used to budgeting around the higher amount they will need outside of public housing. BUT…that rent increase should be placed in a fund and held until there is enough to cover first month rent and deposit on a new apartment. This would encourage upward mobility and open up space in public housing units for those who need it. Yeah, there an idea! Seriously I’m so dumbfounded by the rules for the system it’s crazy. |
|
|
|
Post by iamkristinl16 on Aug 12, 2021 2:28:19 GMT
I understand that there are intricacies of the situation. However, I do believe that there are ways that we could ensure that there are fewer that are taking advantage of the situation right now. Clearly the people interviewed for the Daily podcast are just a few people, but none of them gave any of the reasons listed above as reasons why they aren't going back to work. And it doesn't sound like they are alone in that. THAT makes me really irritated. I also find it irritating that we subsidize huge corporations like you mentioned. I can be irritated by both. I am also curious if the government is subsidizing the state unemployment as well as the extra $300? No. State employment is paid by the companies who employ people in that state. Taxpayer money doesn't go into it. I really don't think some anecdotal stories here and on a podcast are evidence of widespread fraud. There have been numerous stories about the people who haven't been able to go back to work for all the reasons I brought up and then some - why are these discounted? I get that you can be annoyed by both, but if we're concerned about waste of taxpayer dollars, we should all be way, way more annoyed about corporations and billionaires than about poor people. In the grand scheme of annoying things our money is spent on, this is a drop in the bucket. Poor people overcollecting on unemployment are not the enemy of the middle class taxpayer. The billionaire class wants you to think they are, so you won't pay so much attention to them. And as I mentioned before, it would cost more to research each situation than it does to just keep some people on the payroll who might be scamming it. Do you feel that justice demands we waste that additional money? I guess it would give some people a job, right? This thread is about unemployed people, which is why I am talking about unemployed people and not billionaires who are taking advantage of tax loopholes. |
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Aug 12, 2021 3:15:32 GMT
Unfortunately the rules are set up to keep them there not to move up & on. For example, once you get into public housing, it is difficult to get out. The rules made made to keep you there. If you do get a job to try to get out your rent can go up %150 pretty much immediately. Often that’s more than rent on an equivalent apartment that is not public housing. And you can’t really move because you don’t have the funds for 1st months rent & security deposit. You have to report interim income changes by the end of the first week of the following month. The last subsidized housing I was in was an unmaintained mess. The system is not set up to help you then support you while you move on, it’s set up to retain you and punish you for having been poor. If you want people to use a safety net then move on you need to provide transition periods between stages. And no a month is NOT a transition period. There should be 6 months to a year to support a family to move to unsubsidized/not public housing. Remember to get in there you pretty much have to have no assets. Your not going to have savings right away when getting a job. The system is not set up to be a helping hand on the way to self sufficiency, it’s set up to keep you there. I think it would be okay to do rent increases based on income as residents move up to better jobs. This allows them to get used to budgeting around the higher amount they will need outside of public housing. BUT…that rent increase should be placed in a fund and held until there is enough to cover first month rent and deposit on a new apartment. This would encourage upward mobility and open up space in public housing units for those who need it.bold mine... That is an actual program, but to get people into home ownership. |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 23, 2024 19:37:29 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 12, 2021 14:23:31 GMT
I can't remember where I saw this quote, but it struck a chord with me. Only Republicans will incentivize people to work by punishing them and removing benefits or a safety net.This concerns me, too. www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2021/05/13/unemployment-benefits-worker-shortage/For some Democrats, the Republican governors’ actions illustrated anew the deficiencies in an unemployment system that allows the states great latitude — sometimes resulting in unsustainable benefits, significant application hiccups and other obstacles to aid. With the economy improving, some party leaders fear that GOP-led states are only just beginning, opening the door for the same sort of massive reductions nationwide that followed the last recession, in 2009. “This is more of the same in terms of what we saw after the 2009 recession, when you saw states like Florida hollow out [unemployment] benefits, cutting them to the bone,” Wyden said. “This is a far-right Republican governor-led strategy to rip new holes in the safety net.” This is their mantra: That most people are just shitty so treat them like shit. |
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Aug 12, 2021 14:55:08 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Aug 12, 2021 15:59:44 GMT
Billionaires pitting the middle class against the working poor for the billionaires' gain. |
|
tincin
Drama Llama
Posts: 5,382
Jul 25, 2014 4:55:32 GMT
|
Post by tincin on Aug 12, 2021 16:15:46 GMT
|
|
snickle
Junior Member
Posts: 65
|
Post by snickle on Aug 13, 2021 0:38:29 GMT
I think there are multiple prongs to this. And, the employment situation in America has been changing over the decades. A job used to be a 40+ hr occupation. Employers wanted FT employees. Over time, employers realized they can hire part time employees and not pay them benefits, health care, etc which is a huge savings for them. However, as employees became more and more disposable, we can hardly dog on employees who now view a low wage job as disposable. The employer doesn't care so why should the employee care? Loyalty has to be a two way street. In times past , whether true or not, there was at least some notion that long employees were valued. Now, not so much.
|
|
|
|
Post by delila on Aug 13, 2021 2:37:47 GMT
Hopefully I can articulate this enough for y’all to understand me! My DH has body shops & has had them for 35+ years. Originally only in Texas but now all over the States. When he first got into this business he always had plenty of workers. A lot were from Mexico. They have the best ethics & hard workers. They bring their brothers, cousins, uncles etc into the business & teach them the trade so they also can make a good living too. His average worker stays with him 20 years. A few of his really good painters have made well over $100,000 a year! It’s very very hard work but worth the pay. His body men can easily make that much too but again it’s very hard work. These guys are aging out, the work is hard. The young guys DONT want to work this hard so they don’t. He can’t get people to work, much less work hard!!! When you, general you, wrecks your car now it could take so much longer than usual because he doesn’t have the workers to fix the product! If people don’t work then nothing gets done…..& right now nothing is getting done at some of his shops. When you say "very hard work" do you mean the kind that destroys your body over time so that people are often functionally disabled by middle age? Do you mean the kind that requires you to work 7 days a week and have no life at all? I'm curious what it is about the work that people are finding unappealing. Another question: the workers from Mexico - were they citizens? If not, how are they collecting unemployment rather than working hard? Thanks for indulging my curiosity. Physically the men have to be able to lift a lot of weight all day long, move parts, the metals are difficult to work with & they are typically in the heat here in Texas. DH has a shops that are heated & A/C but not many at all. All his men are here legally. They have to be in order for them to get a pay check. Some came here illegally years ago & we helped them gain citizenship. |
|
|
|
Post by chlerbie on Aug 13, 2021 4:01:09 GMT
We tried going to a restaurant that was must open last week and it was closed, so we went elsewhere in town. Our waitress told us that the other place closed because they were short of staff and were too busy to keep up with demand. She then told us how hard it has been for all restaurants to keep employees. She said she is vaxxed but never knows who she's going to be dealing with and is scared all day every day. Because they're short staffed, everyone feels overworked and then someone can't take it and leaves and they're even more short staffed. Kind of a vicious cycle.
|
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Aug 13, 2021 12:16:19 GMT
When you say "very hard work" do you mean the kind that destroys your body over time so that people are often functionally disabled by middle age? Do you mean the kind that requires you to work 7 days a week and have no life at all? I'm curious what it is about the work that people are finding unappealing. Another question: the workers from Mexico - were they citizens? If not, how are they collecting unemployment rather than working hard? Thanks for indulging my curiosity. Physically the men have to be able to lift a lot of weight all day long, move parts, the metals are difficult to work with & they are typically in the heat here in Texas. DH has a shops that are heated & A/C but not many at all. All his men are here legally. They have to be in order for them to get a pay check. Some came here illegally years ago & we helped them gain citizenship. Thanks so much for replying. It does sound like the work might be causing people to have to leave due to long term wear and tear on the body, which would be off putting for most people. And working in an un-air conditioned shop in Texas? With all due respect, I’m not sure they’re unwilling to work hard so much as unwilling to die of heat stroke. My DH works for a large recycling company that is having a heck of a time getting people to work in their plants with minimal AC, also difficult and backbreaking work. They’re looking at process improvements and installing cooling units to improve working conditions. With all due respect, sometimes it isn’t that people don’t want to work hard. It’s that they had no options before and had to work in those unacceptable conditions, and now they have a choice. So they’ve found a job that has better working conditions instead. |
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Aug 13, 2021 12:47:35 GMT
Our school district frequently has openings for bus drivers. They’re really short right now and trying to hire 10 more before the start of school in 2-3 weeks. If they can’t find drivers, they might not be able to provide transportation for sports or might need to shift school schedules. Just another job that might be short staffed due to covid, labor shortages etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by stormsts on Aug 13, 2021 12:53:57 GMT
Our school district frequently has openings for bus drivers. They’re really short right now and trying to hire 10 more before the start of school in 2-3 weeks. If they can’t find drivers, they might not be able to provide transportation for sports or might need to shift school schedules. Just another job that might be short staffed due to covid, labor shortages etc. Our school district just posted on their fb page last night that two buses will be running ONE HOUR late to pick up and drop off students. The bus driver is running two routes and they can't hire anyone. They pay $19/hour. But again it is a position that you need to be available a couple of hours in the early morning then again late afternoon. Not a lot of people want or can do those type of hours. |
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Aug 13, 2021 12:54:55 GMT
Our school district frequently has openings for bus drivers. They’re really short right now and trying to hire 10 more before the start of school in 2-3 weeks. If they can’t find drivers, they might not be able to provide transportation for sports or might need to shift school schedules. Just another job that might be short staffed due to covid, labor shortages etc. Pittsburgh public schools are delaying the start of school by at least two weeks because they are waaaayyyy short on bus drivers. www.post-gazette.com/news/education/2021/08/10/Pittsburgh-public-schools-pps-officials-may-push-back-first-day-classes-transportation-busing-issues/stories/202108100108It's a crappy job. Kids' bus behavior is often terrible, even if they are generally well-behaved at school. No matter what, you're working at least a split shift every day (morning/afternoon), often with an additional evening shift. Makes family life really hard. |
|
snickle
Junior Member
Posts: 65
|
Post by snickle on Aug 13, 2021 13:10:03 GMT
Yes, driving a bus starts very early, then down time, then the late run. Takes up your WHOLE day. And in times past, drivers were only paid a couple of hours of their actual driving time. I don't know how they are paid now. Our local school contracts a Bus service and they hire the drivers. But, I doubt they are paid much. WHo would actually want to do that? Too much liability nowadays. I wouldn't want to be responsible for all of those kids.
|
|
The Great Carpezio
Pearl Clutcher
Something profound goes here.
Posts: 3,019
|
Post by The Great Carpezio on Aug 13, 2021 14:34:59 GMT
I think the cracks in the systems have been there and slowly growing for years. In our area, before covid, you couldn’t find people to work many jobs. Covid caused seismic shifts, and we finally seeing the true failing of capitalism. There was a facade and it’s been lowered and there is a hot mess behind it.
One more thing I think has only been touched on is the aging population. The baby boom is retiring. The oldest boomers have retired, the middle group is retiring now and the youngest ones are still out there, but they are also some of the ones who are saying they don’t want to go back and some of them just don’t need too. They are staying out and working under the table, babysitting grandkids, taking.care of parents, etc…
We are actively seeing the boomers leave the workforce. That can’t have a small effect on the situation.
|
|
Just T
Drama Llama
Posts: 5,884
|
Post by Just T on Aug 13, 2021 14:44:30 GMT
I am pretty sick of seeing posts on FB about how no one wants to work. I know several younger people who have been looking for jobs. One applied at grocery stores, who were advertising they needed help, and he never even got called for an interview, even though he had grocery store experience. I know another one who took a job in an industry that was literally begging for employees, and he quit after a few weeks because the employer treated employees like shit. Apparently, no one stuck around long. That guy whined on FB about how he can't keep good help and how young people are lazy today, no one wants to work, blah blah blah. One of his past employees said something to the effect of "if you treated people better, maybe they would stay and work for you." A bunch of people liked that post, but the guy never replied, of course.
People in my state aren't sitting on their butts collecting their extra unemployment--that has ended. So there must be other reasons why employers can't find help.
|
|
|
|
Post by heather on Aug 13, 2021 14:53:33 GMT
I applied for a part time job at a place that was 'desperate' for help. Pay was shit. I didn't take the offer.
Pay more.
|
|
snickle
Junior Member
Posts: 65
|
Post by snickle on Aug 13, 2021 15:19:33 GMT
DD is working at a convenience store and making $13/hr summer pay. i think it is supposed to go back to $12 something in the fall. Anyway, Starbucks called her for an interview and they only offered $7.25. She was like NOPE!
|
|
|
|
Post by Megan on Aug 13, 2021 15:31:23 GMT
DD is working at a convenience store and making $13/hr summer pay. i think it is supposed to go back to $12 something in the fall. Anyway, Starbucks called her for an interview and they only offered $7.25. She was like NOPE! Not that it makes it "better" but years ago tips were split between batistas and it was a decent bit. I'm not sure if it would be more or less now. |
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Aug 13, 2021 15:56:48 GMT
DD is working at a convenience store and making $13/hr summer pay. i think it is supposed to go back to $12 something in the fall. Anyway, Starbucks called her for an interview and they only offered $7.25. She was like NOPE! They do also pay 100% of your college tuition, which is a substantial bump in salary if you’re in college. Those are difficult jobs to get here. |
|
|
|
Post by delila on Aug 13, 2021 16:12:24 GMT
Hopefully I can articulate this enough for y’all to understand me! My DH has body shops & has had them for 35+ years. Originally only in Texas but now all over the States. When he first got into this business he always had plenty of workers. A lot were from Mexico. They have the best ethics & hard workers. They bring their brothers, cousins, uncles etc into the business & teach them the trade so they also can make a good living too. His average worker stays with him 20 years. A few of his really good painters have made well over $100,000 a year! It’s very very hard work but worth the pay. His body men can easily make that much too but again it’s very hard work. These guys are aging out, the work is hard. The young guys DONT want to work this hard so they don’t. He can’t get people to work, much less work hard!!! When you, general you, wrecks your car now it could take so much longer than usual because he doesn’t have the workers to fix the product! If people don’t work then nothing gets done…..& right now nothing is getting done at some of his shops. Hubby is in same boat... Collision Repair shop, but small scale. We are down to a single bodyman who's in his 60's and my Husband that does everything else (paints, repairs, bookkeeper, estimates) ect. The other thing crushing us right now is all the cheapo insurance compaines or those insurance companies that tell customer you MUST go to their preferred shop or you won't get an estimate or a rental... or whatever else they tell them. Labor rates for auto repair (In Texas) have not been raised in years and years. We are set to get out of this business soon. It's all my husband and his family has ever done. His parents and brother have passed and now we just want to sell the property and be done. This is exactly what my DH is experiencing. If the insurance companies didn’t tell customers where they have to take their cars for repairs then a lot of these problems would never exist. If the insurance company gets pissy with one shop they cut them off & tell customers not to take their cars there. That is how much control insurance companies have over the collision business now. |
|
java
Junior Member
Posts: 81
|
Post by java on Aug 13, 2021 18:37:51 GMT
This is simply not the case. Insurance companies can only suggest which shop to take a car to and often they have preferred shops which is usually where the insurance company gets better pricing. An individual can take their car to any repair shop of their choice.
|
|
