this post was submitted on 21 Jan 2024
633 points (88.1% liked)

unions

1398 readers
48 users here now

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 76 points 10 months ago (11 children)

Every fucking time:

It's a distinction between "on-the-job training will suffice" and "no chance without years of prep."

No shit anything worth paying a human for involves human skills. But some jobs are open to just about anyone who can put up with it, and some jobs kill people when you try to muscle through on sticktoitiveness. A fast food restaurant can bring some rando up-to-speed in a couple weeks. An ER cannot. The distinction is necessary.

Nitpicking the label misses the point:

All labor deserves a living wage.

It doesn't fucking matter how difficult or complex a job is. If your business wants people's time - you had better fucking pay them enough to be there next month. Otherwise, you don't get to be a business.

[–] [email protected] 44 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (2 children)

Absolutely. I'm SUPER pro-worker, pro-union, etc., but unskilled labor isn't a myth. There are some jobs that can be done with essentially no training or skills at all. These jobs should pay a living wage, because all jobs should. But that doesn't change the fact that some jobs require little-to-no skill. I think that repeating this false claim actually HURTS the movement for fair wages, because it's not a supportable argument.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I feel that the distinction is made wrong. All these labors shown may not require much of a formal education towards the job, but they all require skill that will be refined significantly over time.

  • Somebody who works as a harvester for years is much faster at picking crops and much more efficient at seeing which are ready to harvest and which arent.
  • Anybody who has kids knows that it takes years to traing them, how a properly cleaned house looks like.
  • Cashiers who are familiar with the workings of the companys systems, who know the numbers of bread, produce and other non-barcoded goods by heart are much faster and have less situations requiring looking something up. This in particular are skills that simply require on the job time and experience. The same issue exists for engineering project managers who cannot learn all the PCA codes of their company in the first week.
  • Everyone knows the difference between bar-staff that knows how to properly draw a beer and those who don't.
  • Fast food workers need to perform consistently in a high stress environment, and keeping taps on the fries, the burgers, three customers orders and dealing with the half-broken coffe machine is a skill many CEOs would lack. Same goes for waiters in restaurants
  • Being a good brick-layer takes years of practice. A well built brick wall with consistent gaps and a smooth surface is difficult to achieve, and both aesthetically and structurally important.
  • ...

Finally many of these jobs also require social skills and provide socialisation as part of the experience. My favorite barkeeper manages not only to get everyone their drinks in a packed bar, but also chat with the regulars and newcomers while at it. People could just order take-away instead of going to a restaurant. But having a nice restaurant atmosphere is part of the experience and the result of good waiters and so on.

We accept experience as a relevant salary and position argument for "high skilled", which should be called "high educated" labor. It is equally relevant in supposedly "low skilled" or "unskilled" labor.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 10 months ago (6 children)

Getting better at something you picked up in a month is not the same as needing years of training to even begin.

Experience is the opposite of the problem. The concept distinguishes jobs where people are fundamentally incapable of performing the task to bare-minimum standards, until they've been thoroughly educated, tested, and prepared. A doctor doing their first surgery has zero prior experience. It's their first. But they are already an expert, in some capacity, thanks to abundant theory and practice.

Again: no kidding all jobs take skill. No kidding you can get better at things. But an experienced bartender does not make tending bar "skilled labor" so long as any line cook could be pressganged into it while that guy takes a dump.

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (10 replies)
[–] [email protected] 57 points 10 months ago (18 children)

It just means "no prior knowledge required". It's not a myth lol

[–] [email protected] 6 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Even McDonalds trains you to use the equipment before they let you use it.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 10 months ago (1 children)

... which is usually a matter of hours, not several years of academic studies

See the difference ?

Want someone to sweep the floor ? You can quite literally grab some one off the street and tell them to do it, with some amount of success.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (17 replies)
[–] [email protected] 51 points 10 months ago (18 children)

I think unskilled there just implies no prerequisite knowledge required

load more comments (18 replies)
[–] [email protected] 40 points 10 months ago (3 children)

The term being changed to mean something else by whoever is writing these articles is the real crime; how do you not understand what unskilled labor means? Changing the term isn't going to earn you better compensation for something that doesn't require formal or specialized education. Get over it.

[–] [email protected] 22 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Thank heavens we stopped hiring unskilled labor.

Anyway, back to hiring from a talent pool that is as wide as possible due to a lack of barriers to entry because no particular requirements are necessary for employment and thus we can get away with paying the bare minimum and still getting enough job applicants. If only there was a word for that scheme...

[–] [email protected] 9 points 10 months ago

Maybe if they were called "jobs that don't require years of training" instead.

Though I agree in principle. Just because a full-time job doesn't require years of training, doesn't mean it shouldn't pay at least a living wage.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 32 points 10 months ago (14 children)

Does the label even matter?

When lots of people would do the job, and many even for less than you, why not hire someone else for less?

When you're the only one who qualifies, the situation reverses. Why bless that company with your work, when you can go to someone else who pays more?

Maybe it's all just supply and demand within the limits of regulation.

load more comments (14 replies)
[–] [email protected] 29 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Poverty wages are paid to workers that are highly fungible.

The concept of unskilled labor refers to tasks that require little or no specialized training or knowledge to perform. This can include manual labor or work that requires very basic skills. In reality, this type of work has existed for centuries, long before capitalism emerged as an economic system. For instance, agricultural work during the feudal era falls under the category of unskilled labor. Even today, there are numerous industries with high demand for such workers, from construction sites to warehouses.

Regarding the claim that unskilled labor is a "capitalist myth," it's important to note that while capitalism does promote a competitive market where businesses strive to minimize their costs (including labor), this concept has existed since the beginning of human civilization. It is not exclusive to capitalism. However, the extent of exploitation and the justification behind poverty wages might have intensified under a capitalist system due to private property rights and the profit motive.

When a business owner hires unskilled labor, they expect these employees to be less productive than those who possess specialized expertise or training. Consequently, businesses tend to pay lower wages to workers who do not contribute significantly to their profits. This notion may seem unfair to some, but it stems from the law of supply and demand. If there's an oversupply of unskilled labor, employers have the upper hand in setting wages at levels that meet their needs. As a result, many workers accept lower wages because they lack alternative employment opportunities.

In summary, the existence of unskilled labor predates capitalism, and its association with poverty wages is not solely due to this economic system. The concept of unskilled labor reflects tasks that require little training or knowledge, which can be found across various historical periods and societies. Furthermore, the link between low-paid unskilled labor and capitalism arises from market forces that determine wages based on supply and demand. Thus, calling unskilled labor a "capitalist myth" used to justify poverty wages oversimplifies a complex issue that involves factors beyond the scope of any one economic system.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (3 children)

It's crazy that you needed to write this essay to explain to Lemmy folks that:

  • unskilled/low skill labor does in fact exist
  • it was not invented by the cApITaLiSm boogeyman
  • gets paid lower relative to other positions in the industry because they're both easily replaceable and on an individual level do not generate as much value to the business as skilled/trained/professional labor

The above things can be true while also saying that ALL labor (unskilled or not) should be treated with respect and basic human decency.

I'm not stanning capitalism here, I'm just tired of Lemmings who've either missed all of their basic econ classes or have never tried to run their own business telling me how to allocate wages relative to value.

Executive pay relative to everyone else is out of control, no arguments there. But skilled and professional labor is highly productive relative to unskilled, and should be compensated accordingly.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 10 months ago

Exactly. If all labor was valued equally, why would people bother becoming surgeons or air traffic control people? Those can be very high stress jobs and require specialized training to do properly. Higher wages are a huge part of why people choose those professions.

I agree about executive pay, but dismissing unequal pay is like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 6 points 10 months ago

When a business owner hires unskilled labor, they expect these employees to be less productive than those who possess specialized expertise or training.

It may not even be that they are productive on their own, but that they have essential skills or knowledge that allows the business to function. For example: they may be one of few people who know the ins and outs of a specific mission-critical system, and that knowledge may not be easily transferrable.

It’s not just how much you contribute to profits, it’s also how easily you can be replaced. If you contribute a lot to profits, but you can easily find 100 others who can replace you, you’re still not getting a big paycheck.

[–] [email protected] 25 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (10 children)

I have to ask, why are we even working so fucking hard??

What has all of this hard work we've been doing accomplished? Our infrastructure is failing. We're throwing food away. We are wasteful and killing the environment. What has 'hard work as a virtue' gotten us?

Can't we just live our lives??

[–] [email protected] 12 points 10 months ago

It's not about us. It's all for our glorious owner class and keeping the dream/lie going🙃

[–] [email protected] 11 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Check the distribution of wealth in your country and around the world, that's where the fruits of our work end up. Also just throw-away or downright destructive labor, like making shirts that turn into garbage after one month, or drugs and entertainment products that make people addicted instead of healthy and happy.

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] [email protected] 24 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (2 children)

Farming is "unskilled" labor?

Holy fuck, come to a farm one day. A single day could encompass anything from forensic accounting, roboticist, veterinarian, or heavy duty mechanic.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 10 months ago

that's uh, that's part of the point of the meme. a lot of "unskilled" jobs are like that.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 20 points 10 months ago (3 children)

Idk man my labour is pretty unskilled, I think anyone could do it really (I'm a middle manager)

[–] [email protected] 11 points 10 months ago

But it is still labo--AH AMANAGER! GET IM!

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 16 points 10 months ago

Yes and no. It’s all about how replaceable you are. If you have a super limited skil and I demand l set like lots of types of engineering, software development, or any other discipline that requires many years of study- I would consider you “skilled”

“Unskilled” roughly translates to “we could teach anyone to do it”. There isn’t a big learning curve to flipping burgers- I’ve flipped plenty myself and it was not a vibe.

They should still be paid a little bong wage either way

[–] Zink 12 points 10 months ago (1 children)

One of these things is not like the others.

I respect anybody working a job, especially since ther work environments are almost always worse than mine. However, their qualifications don’t concern me too much. I assume they get the necessary training.

But a bricklayer building my house or office? I think that’s a skilled trade where I want to know more about their experience.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 11 points 10 months ago

Amazon worker has his dick out. I think he needs more skill first

[–] [email protected] 7 points 10 months ago

On the weekends I've been working on a concrete foundation for my new fence...talk about unskilled work. I'm having to scrape every ounce of shit I've ever learned from my dad to skill this wall into existence. It's 90% labor, 10% skill. So that tells you how much this should be paid in comparison to my actual desk job.... okay fine engineering is way more difficult in skill but like 10% labor so we can still equate stuff to stuff.

It boggles the mind that a CEO could earn much more than several to hundreds to thousands of workers do. That's just not right. That's robbery.

[–] Zink 6 points 10 months ago (1 children)

It’s also a great tool to keep the slightly less poor turned against the not poor. Oh they don’t have skills, so they don’t DESERVE to get off of welfare when working full time hours.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 4 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

"Skill" in this sense can be boiled down to "replaceability due to automation." The Industrial Revolution was as much about displacing highly trained, highly skilled craft laborers as it was about increasing raw production numbers. Highly trained craft workers up to that point handled most production of most things that weren't food. To get around paying these folks for their training and skill, industrialists invested in automation so they could replace people who had literally trained for years in that craft with someone who just walked in off the street. Instead of having a team of carpenters who'd trained for years working in concert on every step of a process, you had a series of individual stations on a production line and only needed to train a new hire against their single specific role in the production line, not the whole process. The breaking-up of labor into small steps shared out across teams, in roles that could be trained in weeks or days instead of years, is kind of one of the core techniques of industrial production.

Because of the relatively less training needed to get started on the production line, factory owners were able to drive down wages substantially across the board and displace craft labor. The industrial revolution boosted profits as much by driving wages down as it did by increasing production, and using a hierarchy of "skill" (where the factory owners are constantly trying to replace workers with leverage) to pay workers less was one of the ways it did that.

Anyways, so yeah. There's always been work that's more skilled and less skilled, but the term "skilled labor" sort of derives from this phenomenon during the Industrial Revolution. In that sense, it is totally bullshit meant to drive down wages.

EDIT: Found some snippets on general history sites regarding this process: https://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtID=2&psid=3517

https://www.loc.gov/classroom-materials/united-states-history-primary-source-timeline/rise-of-industrial-america-1876-1900/work-in-late-19th-century/

https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/industrialization-labor-and-life/

A related art movement, the Arts and Crafts movement, which arose as a response to the impact of industrialization on craft labor: https://www.thecollector.com/industrial-revolution-arts-and-crafts/\

EDIT: A word

load more comments
view more: next ›