71–80 of 961 posts
I’m sure it has nothing to do with the government paying people to sit at home - something NPR forgot to mention in their article.
Or did I miss the post where you were complaining about aid to other tax brackets and businesses?
If you’re interested in the topic, I recommend the MIT living wage research [1]. They’ve got probably the most useful calculator, letting you compare multiple scenarios. [1] https://livingwage.mit.edu/
Hmm just ran this for my area (Essex County, MA) and it spat out that NO job pays enough on average to have 3 kids (required 130k, max job average 121k for “management”). This seems a bit pessimistic, as I know plenty of people with 3 kids and pretty typical jobs…
A good friend of mine is a doctor and he has a hair-raising story for me nearly every day, often indistinguishable from fast food customers’ behavior. I’m trying to get him to retire before he gets shot by somebody who was told they’d have to wait 3 days for an appointment.
What’s going on? I have my own theories but I want HN’s take.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A lot of this article is about fast food workers, who don’t get tips. The answer is automation, logistics and supply chain improvements so you can service more customers with fewer, but more specialized employees who can be paid a living wage.
So is it better to give 10 people some wage, but not a living wage, or 5 people a living wage and have 5 people with no wage?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
While this is absolutely true, it would also make the job very stressful (and potentially dangerous) if front-line staff, or any staff really, has to eject people on a regular basis. I definitely wouldn’t want to do it, the people who you’d be refusing service to would be the worst of the worst and likely not take it well.
Maybe if enough businesses did this it would drive a societal shift. I've had the pleasure of firing a small handful of customers from my very small SaaS business when they were outrightly rude or vulgar. I feel terrible whenever I see an employee at any business having to be sanguine with an abusive customer, it shouldn't be tolerated.
I totally agree abusive customers are a huge problem though.
I’m sure it has nothing to do with the government paying people to sit at home - something NPR forgot to mention in their article.
The restaurant industry has known the solution for a long time but everyone wants to pretend it would be too difficult. Stop the tipping guilt trip placed on the public, raise your prices 20%, and pay your employees a livable wage. The public will still show up to eat in your restaurant.
The kinds of people still eating in person at restaurants were often not paragons of conscientiousness in the first place. And I could see a lot of people cutting back on tipping when just patroning a place could feel like an act of charity in itself.
> rude customers, whose abuses restaurant staff are often forced to tolerate Service workers in general, I'd love it if more managers and companies would support front line workers in refusing service. The customer is not always right. People should not have to put up with literal abuse. The Alamo Drafthouse theater is famously known for kicking someone out who was using their cell phone and other customers appreciat…
Starbucks is a recent example of a company that had to do major damage control after asking some non-customers to leave their store.
> That's because for many, leaving food service had a lot to do also with its high-stress culture: exhausting work, unreliable hours, no benefits and so many rude customers. I didn't realize that rude customers was that widespread.
Have you ever worked restaurant or food service? I worked at McDonalds a few years after high school and it was the most demoralizing, depressing, and abusive job I've worked. Bussing tables wasn't much better in comparison either. But at least when bussing tables people didn't talk to you like you were human waste. I had people actually tell me that I was stupid, I had someone throw an ice cream at me because they w…