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

American companies are suppressing wages for many workers

mobile.nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 99 posts

Re: American companies are suppressing wages for many workers

#81

Post by notheguyouthink »

humanrebar wrote: post #71
edraferi wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hate this. I REALLY hate this. Creating a full-time workforce by cobbling together contractors is disgraceful. Sure, sometimes contracting makes sense, but replacing your core workforce with contractors just sucks. Here are some reasons why: 1) loss of corporate identity / camaraderie 2) reduced working training & quality... and loss of control over how work it performed. If you retain control over work methods, th…

> Creating a full-time workforce by cobbling together contractors is disgraceful. Not paying people but still requiring them to do things (like show up to work or keep their schedule free) is disgraceful. Hiring part-time workers is not disgraceful. If we want more full-time workers for stable employment, we need to a better job disentangling our social justice policy goals (retirement savings, health care, maternity…

That's actually a really good point. I argue for full time employment frequently, especially in retail. It's, imo, a terrible place to work with a lot of scummy tactics against employees.

I'd still say employers need to be held accountable for how they treat part time workers though. For example, they can drop your hours to next to nothing, forcing you to leave the job rather than firing you. They can juggle your part-time days around at random making it insanely difficult to hold two part-time jobs.

You make valid points about the employer/employee relationship, but even if things like benefits were fixed, holding two or three part time jobs can be extremely difficult.

My wife works in pharmacy, retail - and the things she sees from retails stores regarding employees is disgusting. The store seems straight up hostile towards it's employees. It really puts it into perspective how much better I have it, as I've worked salary for ~15 years now.

Re: American companies are suppressing wages for many workers

#82

Post by qbrass »

OscarCunningham wrote: post #25
michaelbuckbee wrote: post #18

The linked article mentions outsourcing, but it was this other _fantastic_ article [1] on the structural issues of the current wage economy that really helped me understand just how different things are: "Thirty years ago, she says, you could walk into any hotel in America and everyone in the building, from the cleaners to the security guards to the bartenders, was a direct hire, each worker on the same pay scale and…

What is it, in particular, about contracting that allows businesses to pay the same people less? What can they do with the contracting that they couldn't do without it? I think this: >“By shifting tasks to contractors, companies pay a price for a service rather than wages for work. That means they don’t have to think about training, career advancement or benefit provision.” was an attempt at explanation. But I don't…

Contractors can better utilize workers and equipment by spreading their usage to multiple sites. Since they can have a larger pool of employees, they can take risks on people willing to work for less money.

Basically, a contractor can turn part-time work into a full-time job.

Re: American companies are suppressing wages for many workers

#83

Post by astura »

OscarCunningham wrote: post #25
michaelbuckbee wrote: post #18

The linked article mentions outsourcing, but it was this other _fantastic_ article [1] on the structural issues of the current wage economy that really helped me understand just how different things are: "Thirty years ago, she says, you could walk into any hotel in America and everyone in the building, from the cleaners to the security guards to the bartenders, was a direct hire, each worker on the same pay scale and…

What is it, in particular, about contracting that allows businesses to pay the same people less? What can they do with the contracting that they couldn't do without it? I think this: >“By shifting tasks to contractors, companies pay a price for a service rather than wages for work. That means they don’t have to think about training, career advancement or benefit provision.” was an attempt at explanation. But I don't…

Lets say you own a business. You need someone to clean at night.

If you hire a cleaner directly you don't want to have to go through the hassle of hiring a new cleaner every few months so you pay them well so they will stay. Since they are your employee you probably include them in other items you give to other full time employees, such as profit sharing and vacation.

If, instead of hiring directly, you pay "Acme Cleaning Services" you know someone will show up every night to clean, even if it isn't the same person. The cleaner is no longer "part of the team." Acme Cleaning Services treats their employees like replaceable cogs in a machine, all they do is hire lots of low skilled labor and keeping pay low lets the company get more business.

Re: American companies are suppressing wages for many workers

#84

Post by humanrebar »

notheguyouthink wrote: post #81
humanrebar wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Creating a full-time workforce by cobbling together contractors is disgraceful. Not paying people but still requiring them to do things (like show up to work or keep their schedule free) is disgraceful. Hiring part-time workers is not disgraceful. If we want more full-time workers for stable employment, we need to a better job disentangling our social justice policy goals (retirement savings, health care, maternity…

That's actually a really good point. I argue for full time employment frequently, especially in retail. It's, imo, a terrible place to work with a lot of scummy tactics against employees. I'd still say employers need to be held accountable for how they treat part time workers though. For example, they can drop your hours to next to nothing, forcing you to leave the job rather than firing you. They can juggle your par…

> I'd still say employers need to be held accountable for how they treat part time workers though.

Sure. I just think the best people for that job are the workers themselves. Making less of life dependent on full time employment will give employers less leverage over employees.

> ...even if things like benefits were fixed, holding two or three part time jobs can be extremely difficult.

It can be. But it can also be simple. You could work Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays for one boss and Saturdays for another. Or you could work on a mostly commission basis for two different bosses. The challenges are typically where bosses are getting away with getting something for nothing. There is no minimum wage for "be available these hours" or "get approval before taking on another job".

Re: American companies are suppressing wages for many workers

#85

Post by TheCoelacanth »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #17
mindvirus wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For non competes, I wish the law was that companies could bench you, but they'd have to pay you 200% of your best comp of the past 5 years. I think it'd solve a ton of problems.

> I wish the law was that companies could bench you, but they'd have to pay you 200% of your best comp of the past 5 years Legally-mandated golden parachutes?

It's not a payment for if they get rid of you like a golden parachute. It's a payment for if they want to use the legal system to prevent you from earning a living by working for another company.

Re: American companies are suppressing wages for many workers

#86

Post by softawre »

maxxxxx wrote: post #63
hiram112 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The SV wages I'm seeing seem to be concentrated in a few really wealthy companies who basically enjoy monopoly status in their domains. It doesn't seem like smaller startups pay that well - though maybe that is fair due to the chance to hit it big. What I will tell you is that software engineers in the rest of the country, especially in industries that have been decimated by offshoring and H1Bs (banking, insurance, a…

"I made way better money than most of my peers at 25 - they were still in grad school and paying off loans. By 30, I was still making more, but they were quickly catching up. I'm imagining by 40, I won't be much ahead of anyone with a professional degree or even those who went into government and now have seniority, pensions, etc" I have seen that myself. I used to make more than people my age but over the years non…

what sort of government work pays 150k?

Re: American companies are suppressing wages for many workers

#87

Post by pixl97 »

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #68
michaelbuckbee wrote: post #18

The linked article mentions outsourcing, but it was this other _fantastic_ article [1] on the structural issues of the current wage economy that really helped me understand just how different things are: "Thirty years ago, she says, you could walk into any hotel in America and everyone in the building, from the cleaners to the security guards to the bartenders, was a direct hire, each worker on the same pay scale and…

The other crooked part about temps / contractors is that they're more expensive for the party hiring their services, but the employees earn less and have worse secondary terms; that extra money? Goes to the higher-ups. Companies need to be incentivised to hire their own people again.

> is that they're more expensive for the party hiring their services

Eh, your explanation doesn't make much sense.

You are saying they're more expensive but you are probably just looking at the employee vs contractor take per hour.

Employees need unemployment insurance paid to the state, contractor does not.

Employees need health care, contractor does not.

Employees expect raises, contractors?

Hard to lower employee wages, with contractors it's just a negotiation at end of contract terms.

Re: American companies are suppressing wages for many workers

#88

Post by pixl97 »

emodendroket wrote: post #39

> For a long time, economists believed that labor-market monopsony rarely existed, at least outside old-fashioned company towns where a single factory employs most of the residents. But in recent decades, several compelling studies have revealed that monopsony is omnipresent. Professionals like doctors and nurses, workers in factories and meat processing plants, and sandwich makers and other low-skill workers earn fa…

> How could economists for years have denied something so plainly obvious?

And this is why we are surprised every time the economy crashes, yet again.

Re: American companies are suppressing wages for many workers

#89

Post by maxxxxx »

softawre wrote: post #86
maxxxxx wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I made way better money than most of my peers at 25 - they were still in grad school and paying off loans. By 30, I was still making more, but they were quickly catching up. I'm imagining by 40, I won't be much ahead of anyone with a professional degree or even those who went into government and now have seniority, pensions, etc" I have seen that myself. I used to make more than people my age but over the years non…

what sort of government work pays 150k?

The people I know work in DC at GAO, FBI and NSA make around that amount if you include paid overtime and bonus.

Re: American companies are suppressing wages for many workers

#90

Post by RightMillennial »

0xcde4c3db wrote: post #33
baq wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yeah that's what unions are really about - to think about the employees for the employees good, where HR thinks about them for the good of the company. implementations of that idea are of varying quality which unfortunately gives them a bad rep.

> implementations of that idea are of varying quality which unfortunately gives them a bad rep. Also giving them a bad rep: propaganda efforts by big employers. Back when I worked for them, Walmart showed new hires a training video that could be summed up as "just say no to card checks; union organizers are trying to trick you into giving up your rights, and you don't need a union anyway because we value our associat…

Some of the reputation is deserved though. When I worked at UPS you were forced to join the Teamsters union and pay union dues. I don't have a problem with the unions in general, but I'm against forced membership.
Post reply on HN