Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A dishwasher can make or break a restaurant (2017)

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 496 posts

Re: A dishwasher can make or break a restaurant (2017)

#301

Post by atoav »

astrange wrote: post #276
bumby wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a slightly different take: if your business is only profitable by the taxpayer subsidizing a relatively large number of employees wages with welfare benefits, you should be capped on how profitable your business is. In other words, you can be as profitable as you want but as soon as your business model relies on taxpayers to be viable, those taxpayers have a say in just how much profit is considered reasonable…

> if your business is only profitable by the taxpayer subsidizing a relatively large number of employees wages with welfare benefits Welfare does not subsidize employers, it is a subsidy /against/ employers. Giving employees welfare increases their wages because it increases their negotiating power.

Or phrased differently: If people don't starve when they won't let others exploit themselves they won't be likely to let others exploit themselves.

If we apply market logic to that this would just mean that employers have to offer better deals.

Re: A dishwasher can make or break a restaurant (2017)

#302

Post by eat_the_rich »

Starting at the bottom and working your way up to the top definitely produces a different quality of leader. I used to work in research labs where everyone had to do a bit of everything. I'm currently in a silicon valley startup where leadership is quite proud and will enthusiastically tell anyone who will listen that they were born rich, their parents got them into Stanford, and they've only ever been c-suite. And they're incompetent as hell and I'm job hunting.

Re: A dishwasher can make or break a restaurant (2017)

#303

Post by aj7 »

QuantumGood wrote: post #266
nehal3m wrote: post #66

I was a dishy for years in a few different restaurants and hotels. It's hard work but if you do your best to help out the kitchen and wait staff wherever you can (picking up ingredients, helping mise en place, fetching dish carts yourself, stocking bar) then you can really make a difference in the day to day. Sometimes I miss the camaraderie. It's an easy industry to get stuck in though, and there's usually a lot of…

I washed dishes in a downtown tower with four restaurants, all sharing one kitchen. The output of the dishwasher took four people, mostly because delivering the dishes across the huge kitchen distances was time consuming. I had a lot of generalized anxiety, and so I liked complex physical challenges. I eventually replaced all four dishwashers. Took a lot of intense speed and strategic dish delivery. I came very close…

Very cool comment.

Re: A dishwasher can make or break a restaurant (2017)

#304

Post by atoav »

bumby wrote: post #227
atoav wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't matter if you require the living wage or not — there will always be people who don't strictly need it in any society. Just like there will be people on the beach who won't ever need a life guard. Everybody needing a thing is not a precondition for it making sense to exist. If we want a society without exploitation the simple fix is to lift the minimum wage beyond any value that could be considered exploita…

To the GP point, though, if it's unilaterally applied there may be unintentional consequences. Their example was working as a teenager; relatively high minimum wages may end up cutting most teenagers out of the workforce. If an employer has the choice between a 35 year old and a 15 year old for the same pay, they are generally going to hire the 35 y.o. That isn't to say minimum wage can't be raised for heads-of-house…

> a one-size-fits-all approach may cause a bunch of other issues.

It may. Buy are those issues worse than the current issues?

I don't think so — especially if you are inclined to look at countries where the minimum wage is close to (or above) the living wage.

Re: A dishwasher can make or break a restaurant (2017)

#305

Post by bumby »

akira2501 wrote: post #295
BrandoElFollito wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If it was optional, they would whither away over time. In France unions are optional (in the sense of adhering to one, their presence is highly regulated and a company cannot do anything against that). They are quite strong (depending on the industry), and representatives are elected. If a union does not do anything then it indeed whither away. Now - in our case, some situations are a parody (especially in some pla…

Unions encode the rather insane idea that if you're stuck negotiating against a monopoly then you should become a labor monopoly yourself. It's stepping backwards for short term comfort.

>It's stepping backwards for short term comfort.

Hmmm...can you elaborate? Because I've always thought the "right to work" (ie, not be forced to join a union in a unionized industry) is an example of sacrificing short term comfort. In that case, weakening the union provides a short-term benefit (no paying dues) at the cost of long-term benefit (higher wages, better benefits, improved safety etc.).

I'm trying to find a generous interpretation of your comment, but it comes across as one of those overly libertarian theoretical perspectives that tends to break down in practice.

Re: A dishwasher can make or break a restaurant (2017)

#306

Post by sitkack »

eat_the_rich wrote: post #302

Starting at the bottom and working your way up to the top definitely produces a different quality of leader. I used to work in research labs where everyone had to do a bit of everything. I'm currently in a silicon valley startup where leadership is quite proud and will enthusiastically tell anyone who will listen that they were born rich, their parents got them into Stanford, and they've only ever been c-suite. And t…

I have had the same experience working in Big Tech. Lots of people who have only had an internship (in their field) and no real life experience doing any sort of hard work. Of the friends that I gravitated towards in those big companies, only the folks that actually had real jobs, did we form any sort of long term connection.

Not only do they have a tendency to incompetent, they can very unsympathetic and dismissive towards people viewed as below them.

Re: A dishwasher can make or break a restaurant (2017)

#307

Post by hobs »

akira2501 wrote: post #295
BrandoElFollito wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If it was optional, they would whither away over time. In France unions are optional (in the sense of adhering to one, their presence is highly regulated and a company cannot do anything against that). They are quite strong (depending on the industry), and representatives are elected. If a union does not do anything then it indeed whither away. Now - in our case, some situations are a parody (especially in some pla…

Unions encode the rather insane idea that if you're stuck negotiating against a monopoly then you should become a labor monopoly yourself. It's stepping backwards for short term comfort.

The other option is trying to fight a bigger opponent as an individual - what do you recommend, changing all the laws by yourself?

Re: A dishwasher can make or break a restaurant (2017)

#308

Post by akira2501 »

bumby wrote: post #305
akira2501 wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unions encode the rather insane idea that if you're stuck negotiating against a monopoly then you should become a labor monopoly yourself. It's stepping backwards for short term comfort.

> It's stepping backwards for short term comfort. Hmmm...can you elaborate? Because I've always thought the "right to work" (ie, not be forced to join a union in a unionized industry) is an example of sacrificing short term comfort. In that case, weakening the union provides a short-term benefit (no paying dues) at the cost of long-term benefit (higher wages, better benefits, improved safety etc.). I'm trying to find…

> of long-term benefit (higher wages, better benefits, improved safety etc.).

If the labor market functioned correctly you wouldn't need unions to enforce any of this, which is obvious, because these benefits exist in almost every non-unionized industry as well.

The only reason to engage with a union is because the employer is so large they not only monopolize the consumer market but the labor market as well. The correct solution is to break up the monopoly.

Re: A dishwasher can make or break a restaurant (2017)

#309

Post by akira2501 »

hobs wrote: post #307
akira2501 wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unions encode the rather insane idea that if you're stuck negotiating against a monopoly then you should become a labor monopoly yourself. It's stepping backwards for short term comfort.

The other option is trying to fight a bigger opponent as an individual - what do you recommend, changing all the laws by yourself?

> changing all the laws by yourself?

Laws change every day. There must be a working process for that.

Re: A dishwasher can make or break a restaurant (2017)

#310

Post by meiraleal »

viccis wrote: post #242
bko wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that the give-away that the union wasn't beneficial is that you were forced to join. If there is value add to parties, it would have to be voluntary. For instance, in financial industry, there is a certified financial analyst (CFA) designation that some choose to get. Employers normally pay those with a CFA higher wages and people sign up to get this certification and pay dues, all without anyone being forced…

All effective unions are mandatory. They represent the interests of the mass of workers there, and they wield that collective power against two groups who would be happy to take food out of their mouths if they could get away with it: their employer and new employees who need a job enough that they are willing to work for less money or worse conditions. So if you want to join a company and enjoy the benefits that a u…

> So if you want to join a company and enjoy the benefits that a union has fought for without contributing to their continued push for better conditions, you are a parasite and their enemy, and they are justified in locking you out of that job via collective action.

When this becomes the norm, the union stops working for the workers and work only for itself, its usefulness is gone and can be disbanded.

Post reply on HN