rockSlayerThere is no such thing as "unskilled labor"
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.
EldritchYou’ve literally just described every job that exists everywhere. It’s a bullshit term to other and denigrate certain groups.
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.
An apprenticeship is enough to be a biochemist? Lmao go touch some grass.
oddsbodkinsTraining 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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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…11
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.
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 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 could 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.
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.