Have I mentioned that I Hate Unions?

[Asher]

Originally posted by snoopy369
I would suggest selling toilet paper is much harder. Not selling as in handing-to-people-who-want-it, but convincing people who DON'T want toilet paper who do.

You are very, very wrong. There is no comparison. It's even absurd to suggest that there is.

By retail, I mean salesmen. I mean the folks who when you walk in, they make you comfortable, help you find what you need, upsell items to you, and generally make you want to come back; as well as handle customers who are angry or upset with courtesy and make THEM want to come back.

This is actually in my job description. But instead of doing this to joe blow from the street, it's with upper management at large, multi-national companies. We fly out, make a pitch, secure a contract, then we deal with any issues that arise through the development process. You really didn't choose your example very well here, because this is an area I've become very familiar with over the past few years on scales far larger than "retail".

Managerial responsibilities aside - which I would be shocked if you could do effectively, given what I know of you, but we have had that discussion fruitlessly in the past - even that requires skill, and most intelligent people can't do it.

Most intelligent people can't manage? Most intelligent people don't make statements like that.

Particularly people who are very intelligent and very self-confident; they nearly always have extreme difficulty handling upset customers, largely because they think the customers are morons (probably true but beside the point). I've managed hundreds of retail employees, and some of my best employees were very far down the IQ scale; very few of my employees who were high performers had university degrees or were high on the 'intellectual' scale.

This has more to do with your management style and situation than anything else. If your best employees are dumbasses, then clearly you gave them menial tasks and busywork. In my situation, 100% of the people under me (which is at 8 now, BTW, up a couple in the past few months) have university undergraduate degrees at the very least. They are fairly autonomous and I basically handle exception cases and customer interaction. This is the difference between micromanaging, which apparently is what you were doing, and exception managing. You are clearly an expert on managerial styles so I won't patronize you by discussing this further.

Again ... that's pretty much the definition of intellectual elitism. You think you're so smart and everyone else is so dumb that you could do their jobs, without having a meaningful understanding of their jobs. Sure you could stock shelves with a few hours' training ... but so could most of them write SQL code with a few hours' training.

Absolutely. Why do you think I call people who just write code "code monkeys"? It's why I loath the term "computer programmer".

This isn't intellectual elitism, it's brutal honesty about the situation. SQL is a bit harder than stocking shelves, but in terms of skills, they're really in the same boat.

Their code wouldn't work WELL, mind you, but your stocking wouldn't either.

It worked just fine when I worked two years at Superstore in high school, thanks.

Waitstaff... Go work a few saturday morning shifts at a busy breakfast joint somewhere. Let me know ahead of time, I'll come scrape you off the floor afterwards.

It's busy (perhaps stressful), but it's not a skill. I've quite a few friends who were waiters in university, I know the gripes and complaints and how it works..

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by snoopy369
I suppose i'm objecting to the common definition of the term

Tough. Everyone but you and Ben has agreed on a definition.

but more accurately I'm objecting to Asher's opinions, terminology aside.

Tough. Asher's personal opinion of these people isn't particularly relevant to the argument about how much bus drivers should be paid.

I certainly think that being a waiter takes a significant degree of talent/skill AND training (to do well, in a busy environment).

It does not require any sort of long, specialized training. It requires a relatively short amount of on-the-job training (compared to e.g. becoming an electrician) to perform at a satisfactory level. Employers do not look for any formal qualifications when hiring wait staff, though they may look for experience.

And Asher's opinion isn't really that there's no "skill" in unskilled labor, but that the skill is demonstrably less valuable than the skill necessary to be e.g. a lawyer - the evidence being the masive wage disparity.

[Ben Kenobi]

First of all, what did you study at university past first year?

Honours physics and astronomy.

Have you actually met any postal workers? You're not doing yourself any favour here by bringing them up as an example of skilled workers.

You might want to read up. I said I applied for the position and scored very well on their examination. They wanted to have me as a driver because of my past work experience and because drivers got paid a considerable amount more.

They didn't bother to inform me of the size of the truck I would be driving. I tried my best and they gave the job to someone else.

You wanna know how to tell if a position is a skilled position? Look at the job postings. If you look up TTC Bus driver ads, or Greyhound ads, they all don't have any minimum requirements or skills posted.

You might want to look at those ads again. I can confirm that they do have minimum requirements, and that they will ask to have you test on the vehicles. If you pass the first screening, and the vehicle test, then you will get to work there.

Of course, you know more then I do so I should probably stop talking.

Frequently, like the Greyhound ones I found here, emphasize emphatically that you get paid while they train you. To me, this indicates it's not a skilled position because virtually anyone can sign up, go through the training in X days, and become a Greyhound driver.

The reason they train you is because they want you to learn how to drive the bus they way they want you to. Also, it is rather difficult to get experience driving those vehicles. So they package the training together.

Contrast this to a plumber, an electrician, and engineer, a doctor, a lawyer, a biologist, or even a social worker. All of these require more skill beyond a requisite "____ for dummies" course.

As does a bus driver. Again, you've not even tried to do the job at all, and here you are postulating that anyone could just walk into the job and do it. No, that's not the case at all.

In fact I challenge you to apply for one of those jobs and see what they say. I sincerely doubt that they will even let you get to the point where you are on the road with their vehicles.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Aeson


How long before you flipped out and started offing people who couldn't find the paper isle though?

I lasted two years. In professional situations, I'm incredibly patient and polite.

My part time job in university was working at a retirement home. If that doesn't teach you patience professionally, nothing will.

I know how to handle customers (and people) in professional situations. In a lot of ways, it's an art.

The fact that I choose not to do it here is because I do it all the time in real life and it's nice to tell people who are being stupid, that they're being stupid.

[Ben Kenobi]

Tough. Everyone but you and Ben has agreed on a definition.

Fine. My definition of skilled labour is any position which lists common credential which require either substantial prior training or experience before one becomes proficient at the job.

This is why I was arguing about the bus drivers, they do have credentials (higher classes of licensing), that are expected among the job and those that work there.

As for snoopy, and the retail manager, yes it takes skill to do those jobs with any proficiency. The problem is that there isn't a generally agreed upon set of credentials that can be cited by retailers to assist them in selecting candidates.

It does not require any sort of long, specialized training. It requires a relatively short amount of on-the-job training (compared to e.g. becoming an electrician) to perform at a satisfactory level. Employers do not look for any formal qualifications when hiring wait staff, though they may look for experience.

I would agree with snoopy here. Experience makes a huge difference. They do have courses you can take in retail management, maybe they might not be as prestigious as yours but they are available.

And Asher's opinion isn't really that there's no "skill" in unskilled labor, but that the skill is demonstrably less valuable than the skill necessary to be e.g. a lawyer - the evidence being the masive wage disparity.

So basketball players are skilled workers now?

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Honours physics and astronomy.

I thought you dropped out of that? What school?

You might want to look at those ads again. I can confirm that they do have minimum requirements, and that they will ask to have you test on the vehicles. If you pass the first screening, and the vehicle test, then you will get to work there.

Of course, you know more then I do so I should probably stop talking.

Much appreciated, thanks. You can click the damn link in the post to see the ad. There are clearly no minimal requirements listed. Please find one that illustrates this.

In fact I challenge you to apply for one of those jobs and see what they say. I sincerely doubt that they will even let you get to the point where you are on the road with their vehicles.

I'm pretty sure the words "overqualified" would come out somewhere in the screening. Ironically enough, I applied for a position at a computer store (RETAIL) for sales, part time, in 3rd year university only to be told I was overqualified.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
So basketball players are skilled workers now?

Exceptionally so...if they get paid to play basketball.

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
And Asher's opinion isn't really that there's no "skill" in unskilled labor, but that the skill is demonstrably less valuable than the skill necessary to be e.g. a lawyer - the evidence being the masive wage disparity.

Leaving aside the rest of your arguments, which are largely meaningless... this one is blatantly false.

Wages do not correlate directly to the value of the skill. They have many factors, including:
1. Training needed
2. Skill needed
3. Supply and Demand
4. Perceived skill level
5. Being a Lawyer

I include 5. there because attorneys are generally paid far above what they're worth for no obvious reason - the training required for being a lawyer (~6 years) is far less than many jobs (ie, nursing), the skill required is certainly less than an RN's skill, and the supply/demand curve is insanely in the Supply side for laywers.

Speaking as to skill required - I could, quite certainly, walk into a courtroom tomorrow and effectively argue a case (assuming I'd gathered the appropriate research materials, as any competent attorney would). I could not walk up to a bus and drive it safely for one entire day. So, does that mean bus driving is more skilled than being a lawyer?

I'd argue that one could write a list of occupations less well compensated than attorney that require more skill by any reasonable definition, and that list would exceed the number of occupations you are personally aware of at the present time.

Thus the 'pay = skill' argument is crap. Also, he's using this argument to suggest that people are better paid than they ought (if he is using the argument that way, as you claim), which is rather a circular argument.

[Ben Kenobi]

I thought you dropped out of that? What school?

You asked what I took beyond my first year of university.

The answer is I took honours physics and astronomy in my second year. I did one co-op work term and then came back afterwards and asked to transfer out of the program.

It was at UBC. My advisor was Jaymie Matthews, who you may know if you know anything of the program. He asked me to stay, but I switched over to history on the advice of the then dean of the History program, who passed away a few years ago.

Yes, I did get my degree at UNBC. I had 60 credits in sciences, plus another 30 in arts at UBC. I only had 30 credits from UNBC, which is why I went there because of the low residency requirements.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by snoopy369
Leaving aside the rest of your arguments, which are largely meaningless... this one is blatantly false.

Wages do not correlate directly to the value of the skill.

I already did this analysis above, snoopy. Supply/demand et. al. define the value of labor! Just as they define the value of a phyical commodity.

BTW, this shows you have no idea what you're talking about:

I include 5. there because attorneys are generally paid far above what they're worth for no obvious reason - the training required for being a lawyer (~6 years) is far less than many jobs (ie, nursing), the skill required is certainly less than an RN's skill, and the supply/demand curve is insanely in the Supply side for laywers.

Speaking as to skill required - I could, quite certainly, walk into a courtroom tomorrow and effectively argue a case (assuming I'd gathered the appropriate research materials, as any competent attorney would).

In the general case, no you couldn't. That "gathered the appropriate research materials" step would easily take you, without legal training, months or years or decades depending on the case. It can months for a lawyer who is paid seven figures.

Leaving aside that lawyers spend the vast majority of their billed time outside the courtroom.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
You asked what I took beyond my first year of university.

The answer is I took honours physics and astronomy in my second year. I did one co-op work term and then came back afterwards and asked to transfer out of the program.

It was at UBC. My advisor was Jaymie Matthews, who you may know if you know anything of the program. He asked me to stay, but I switched over to history on the advice of the then dean of the History program, who passed away a few years ago.

Yes, I did get my degree at UNBC. I had 60 credits in sciences, plus another 30 in arts at UBC. I only had 30 credits from UNBC, which is why I went there because of the low residency requirements.

So, long story short, you got a history degree from a tiny university I've never even heard of before called University of Northern British Columbia. A public university with approximately 3,500 students. That fully opened in 1994.

And you failed to get a job driving a post office truck.

I'm definitely able to see why you find bus driving a difficult task.

Out of curiosity, what do you do now?

[Ben Kenobi]

So, long story short, you got a history degree from a tiny university I've never even heard of before called University of Northern British Columbia.

Yes sir. I don't see why your ignorance should reflect on my credentials.

It speaks volumes about yours.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Yes sir. I don't see why your ignorance should reflect on my credentials.

It speaks volumes about yours.

It's got 3,500 students and was only recently created at all and is virtually situated in frozen tundra.

I'm pretty sure the vast majority of people here have never heard of it...

[Ben Kenobi]

Out of curiosity, what do you do now?

Hmm you want a job?

I could use a bitter computer tech to screen my calls.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Hmm you want a job?

I could use a bitter computer tech to screen my calls.

If I can't drive a bus, how could I ever aspire to be a computer tech?

So what do you do, Ben?

(And no, I can't get you a job )