February 3, 20214 yr Just now, ToastJenkins said: Yall are projecting again Sure, sure, Captain Sourpuss
February 12, 20214 yr 2 hours ago, NOTW said: Fine by me, can use the labor elsewhere in the store instead of wasting it on kids that don't want to be there or people on welfare doing just enough to stay in the system.
February 12, 20214 yr 6 hours ago, Bwestbrook36 said: Fine by me, can use the labor elsewhere in the store instead of wasting it on kids that don't want to be there or people on welfare doing just enough to stay in the system. They won't use it "elsewhere in the store". That's the point, they will cut jobs and replace it with kiosks.
February 12, 20214 yr 9 hours ago, NOTW said: I mean, we were pretty much already at this point anyway. If they literally don't have a single cashier, though, they are basically discriminating against the disabled.
February 12, 20214 yr 5 minutes ago, EaglesRocker97 said: I mean, we were pretty much already at this point anyway. If they literally don't have a single cashier, though, they are basically discriminating against the disabled. How's that?
February 12, 20214 yr Just now, NOTW said: How's that? Yeah not sure about that. It's not discrimination if the store simply just doesn't have a position for someone with disability.
February 12, 20214 yr 4 minutes ago, NOTW said: How's that? 2 minutes ago, Bwestbrook36 said: Yeah not sure about that. It's not discrimination if the store simply just doesn't have a position for someone with disability. I'm talking about customers. Some disabled people need assistance to check out, so they are best served by a regular cashier. It wouldn't be legal discrimination, per se, but it would be failing to accommodate them.
February 12, 20214 yr 1 minute ago, EaglesRocker97 said: I'm talking about customers. Some disabled people need assistance to check out, so they are best served by a regular cashier. It wouldn't be legal discrimination, per se, but it would be failing to accommodate them. There is 1 employee at the self checkouts for assistance though
February 12, 20214 yr 7 minutes ago, Bwestbrook36 said: There is 1 employee at the self checkouts for assistance though Yeah, but, depending on the disability, the design and orientation of self-checkouts are not always easy for the disabled to navigate or easily operate in. It also requires that they draw attention to their disability as someone requiring help in those circumstances, rather than inconspicuously waiting in a line of people all requiring the same service. It might seem trivial, but believe me, I know some disabled people who find the switch to entirely automated checkout to be anxiety-inducing if not merely inconvenient or troublesome.
February 12, 20214 yr 29 minutes ago, EaglesRocker97 said: I'm talking about customers. Some disabled people need assistance to check out, so they are best served by a regular cashier. It wouldn't be legal discrimination, per se, but it would be failing to accommodate them. Oh I see, I thought you meant discrimination against not hiring disabled employees. They have this now with human floaters who assist with machine errors. You would just need a lot less staff and save money by having 1 or 2 people instead of a whole staff.
February 12, 20214 yr 3 hours ago, mr_hunt said: be a patriot and only shop at stores that have actual human cashiers! I work for a grocery chain that has only human cashier's and I absolutely hate it. I have no desire to stand in line and make small talk with snotty ass cashiers. I actually leave work and stop at another grocery chain that has self checkout lol
February 12, 20214 yr 5 hours ago, mr_hunt said: be a patriot and only shop at stores that have actual human cashiers! That'll work for a while.
February 12, 20214 yr 27 minutes ago, NOTW said: Boycott products manufactured by machines. Hand-made only. Sheep skin condoms!!
February 12, 20214 yr 23 minutes ago, Bwestbrook36 said: Sheep skin condoms!! @BFit uses something similar. Just without the condoms.
March 6, 20214 yr Automation displaces workers and also makes that that do still work exponentially more productive. Yes, $15 is representative of the what these workers actually produce compared to what they used to. The jobs that are disappearing are going away anyways, if it's 5 years or 15 makes very little difference. Inflation is coming anyways, it's been artificially subdued for years. Should it actually be something like $12-13? Yes, probably, but since we know they only raise it every 2 decades $15 is the target. And lastly, it's a misnomer that workers get "replaced' by robots. What actually happens is that one worker uses robots to do the work of 3, 10 or 50. That increased productivity of the 1 worker, even at the fast food level needs to be compensated accordingly or the dynamics that make our economy work will tear at the sutures.
March 8, 20214 yr The problem is that we have been doing everything to raise the value of assets while purchasing power has diminished. Obviously $15/hr isn’t the solution to the problem, but with how tilted things are towards assets what the F did the powers that be think the poors would start demanding?
March 8, 20214 yr 6 hours ago, Bill said: The problem is that we have been doing everything to raise the value of assets while purchasing power has diminished. Obviously $15/hr isn’t the solution to the problem, but with how tilted things are towards assets what the F did the powers that be think the poors would start demanding? That's why I say we just bump it to $10 for now and tether it to the rate of inflation. States still have the power to impose higher minimums.
Create an account or sign in to comment