Biden helps avert railway strike.
- Thread starter CastletonSnob
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I imagine as well that (generally) salary makes more than a hourly employee. Or at least that's been my experience with hourly v salary so maybe that's not a universal thing.
That can be really variable IME and partly comes down to the nature of the job. My lowest-paid jobs have been salaried office-based roles, but they were also when I was younger so that will have had an impact. I think it's more like at the bottom end of the market hourly makes more money because salaried positions 'sacrifice' a certain amount of the pay cheque for the promise of future reward (which very possibly will never materialise).
Fair. I've been at the same company now for 12ish years and generally salary here makes more than a hourly employee but I wasn't sure if that was kind of the rule or if that just happened to be that way here
Oh Baffle, I judge you for a lot of things, but that ain't one of them.
Interestingly I've also worked under both kinds of pay structures in the same position, in the same organisation. And there, generally it was true that the salaried staff made more.
However there was the occasional circumstance in which it went the other way. The hourly staff in one specific position did make more than their salaried equivalents for about a quarter of the year. But then, they also had to put up without paid holiday/sick leave, and it was only temporary, so I still definitely wouldn't have traded back.
It best not be my dress sense (which is very good).
The sad part is that he doesn't even realize in some countries it's not even a matter of "job type"... As far as I know over here everyone who has a job has paid sick leave. Except if you're self employed off course. And even than, if you have a serious issue and are on sick leave for a prolonged period even as a self employed you will be covered by social security.
Shit, even if it IS the class card, I'm not sure that "We don't get sick time so no one should get sick time" is the way to go.
Maybe instead what people should be saying is "We ALL deserve sick time"...
Last edited:
A.1) You introduced the example with scale, if that's a bad analogy, it's your fault.
A.2) It's a fine example, if someone told you they were almost certainly 6 ft tall, you'd assume they were shorter, I guarantee it.
B.1) Statutory sick pay is not what we're talking about, we're talking about full paid time off, receiving the same compensation as if you had worked.
B.2) But from that list, I'll accept that you have worked the sorts of jobs where you are paid only for the time spent working. As it turns out, you're just a silly person whose beliefs aren't actually based on your real experience. Cause if it was, you'd look at a job like warehouse work, and recognize that warehouse work needs to be budgeted by hours worked rather than number of employees, and paying everyone independent of who actually worked makes that an impossible task.
Trump wasn't gonna lead a coup, Trump is a talker not a doer. Literally the first article from google searching "insurrection act trump" says you can't invoke the act to stay in power. You're as hard into this being a thing as the people that think the election was stolen.
People are horrible at managing money and you should be able to EASILY afford missing a day of pay here and there, you shouldn't need to live paycheck to paycheck even with a rather low paying job. My one friend last month was complaining that her job screwed her over by giving her all these hours one paycheck, then they gave her several days off to compensate for the long string of days she had to work in a row and she was mad because her next paycheck was gonna be less. I was immediately like how'd they screw you over, you're in essence getting the same amount of money over that period as if you worked normal weeks the whole time? She's just bad at managing money.
I have nothing against worker benefits and rights like paid sick time and vacation. I can see one company deciding to offset no paid sick time if they just pay your more per hour and in essence it's the same thing. Some places make you use vacation time for holidays but those places also give you more vacation time than another place that just gives it to you as holiday time, it works out the same. I'd be for a standard of X amount of sick/vacation time required and then companies can go over that if they want.
Last edited:
Being ignorant isn't class specific. If you've worked an hourly labor job, you understand the structure. At a job like that, where the work needs to be done one way or another, when someone calls off for any reason the burden falls on their coworkers. I'm sure most of you immediately would blame the managers for not covering, but if the payroll structure is rigid, they have little control over that. When you fix people's pay into place regardless of circumstance, you lose flexibility. The sick person not getting paid isn't going into the company's bottom line, the missing work is likely being covered by over time, which pays more, which has the company still losing money by someone not being there even while not paying for them.
It's just not at all the same culture as "this is my job and this is my salary, period".
Not all warehouses are run like Amazon. It is entirely possible to pay a warehouse like that; that’s what a payroll officer and system are for.
And you all realise that merely ‘no showing’ to your place of employment, even in the socialist paradise of Australia, gets you nothing. For the absence to be sick leave - paid or otherwise - the employee must first call in to their supervisor and explain themselves or have another so if they’re incapable (but at that point there are probably bigger concerns) and it must be entered into the system as such and deducted from their balances.
You really should have watched the Jan 6th hearings. They had testimony from the aids there that day that Trump tried to steal a car to drive to the capitol to lead the Coup in person.
I mean you're just 100% wrong. Your entire take is mistaken.
So the organisation has implemented a payroll structure so rigid that they're incapable of dealing with even minor weekly divergences, and that's the employees' fault?
"Can't" based on what, exactly? Because remember that in the same post, Trump called for Constitutional rights to be suspended. So he's not actually expecting the law as it is to allow him to do it-- he wants the law and Constitution overruled.
They haven't done that. They have implemented a payroll structure that is capable of dealing with divergences, and one which the majority of the rail unions voted in favor of, and now people expect congress to intervene and actively botch that system up.
I realize that. And in the socialist paradise of the UK like Baffle, they theoretically have to provide doctors notes to get their government mandated barely anything sick pay. I am by no means unaware that when people from outside the US condescend about how we don't have their glorious systems in place, they are nearly always arguing in favor of systems 10x as expansive as what they actually have.
I'm not talking about the railway franchises specifically-- sorry, should probably have been clearer there.
I was referring just to the generic "hourly labour job" you mentioned in #232, in which the rigidity of the payroll structure was used as an excuse for why the organisation couldn't both cover a sick employee and pay them.
Haha, "socialist paradise". I wish. You know we've been ruled by the Conservatives for the last 12 years, who have not increased benefits such as sick pay in line with inflation, right?
Statutory sick pay in the UK is about £99 per week (which is relatively one of the lowest rates for countries that have SSP). Salaried workers will usually just receive their usual salaries, so long as their number of sick days doesn't exceed a certain annual max. Above the max, then you'll need the doctor's note and may not get your regular salary any more. That's how all salaried positions I've had have worked.
I've had positions with paid sick leave for almost a decade now, and have thankfully never had to rely on SSP.
It's called a budget. No budget can do every option at once. That's what a budget is. Payroll has a budget it has to stay within.
Yes, both Gordon_4 and I were being facetious when using that term. The UK and Australia are both more conservative than the US.
If that budget is so rigid it cannot accommodate for cover while paying an existing employee, then its been absurdly hamstrung. I thank my lucky stars I've not had to work for such a Kafkaesque institution in the last ~10 years.
Our statutory sick pay may be pretty dismal, but at least we get it. The truly conservative position would be to go without, and transition to a world where sickness is punished and the weak die out in a