Comments

1
Goldy.
You fucking retard.
Pay, benefits, and job protections are not "working conditions".
They are "compensation".

It is something a literate person who had ever been gainfully employed would know.
Or a journalist.
So, sorry, you're off the hook.....
2
If they have buttons, I would wear one, especially when I'm at the airport, and especially if it said something about working at SeaTac. (Though I wonder if TSA would confiscate it for the pin.)
3
What I don't understand is why these folks continue to work at the companies with the low-paying jobs when there are plenty of other better paying jobs available?

I would for one of the merchants that has an outlet at SeaTac, and I know that we (along with many other merchants and the restaurants) are always looking for good employees and we routinely pay above minimum wage to start. We have flyers up in the Airport Jobs office and postings on the Airport Jobs online site letting everyone know about these positions, but still we rarely get applicants from the other non-retail employers.

So what keeps them there? What benefits are they seeing to their current positions that motivate them to stay instead of coming aboard a place where they could earn much more money?
4
@3

Go walk around and recruit them. And I assume you're going to hire everyone full time?
5
Glad I dropped Alaska.

What's amazing (to me) is that LAX isn't the worst. They're certainly the worst from the service/consumer end.
6
Dumbasses.

Quit the fucking job and get another one. The market actually works when you give it a chance.

Oh wait, these are some of those low-skilled jobs that ex-cons and fuckups can do. And there is an opportunity to soak the (flying) rich? Yeah, on second thought, they will fit right into a union.
7
Wow, the knuckle-draggers are out in force here this morning. @3, "why don't they just get a different job" is completely non-sensical. Many of these Menzies and DAL Global workers do move on to other jobs, but then the positions they vacate are filled by others, and the problem of underpay at that position remains.
8
We are interested in anyone who has already passed the background check (since our store is behind security) and understands the rigors of commuting to the airport for a job, so yes we have tried recruiting them. But we always get turned down, even with almost full-time hours available (35-37), starting wages usually above $10.00 per hour, and health insurance, from those who don't already work in retail/restaurants.

The reasons are generally varied and vague, but we have always assumed some folks don't want to work in one set location or have a stigma about working in retail (and yes, there is one; like restaurants, it's often seen as a last resort for people who are not serious about their careers).

9
Yep, and that is how the market works. Way to go, ya figured it out...

Low-skilled jobs deserve low-skill pay. When a person acquires more skills, they should get paid more. and getting another job is a way to do that. They shouldn't get more money "just because."

People rarely stay at minimum wage, unless they are a complete fuckup. But fuckups need jobs too.
10
Why don't the airlines pay them $200,000 a year?

Then the employees could afford to fly all over and make more business for the airlines.
11
@9: The pay for a job should not depend solely on the skill required, but also on the unpleasantness of it. Someone doesn't know jack about economics; color me shocked and surprised.
12
11

which is why toilet cleaners are the highest paid members of the workforce, right?

13
Hey guys, it isn't easy to find well-paying jobs, especially when you likely don't have much of a skill set. It really isn't easy to "pull yourself up from your bootstraps" and just automatically find a well-paying job, especially if you only have a background in jobs of that nature. I would imagine a lot of these workers came from families that had similar socioeconomic backgrounds and thus the odds are stacked against them.

The lack of empathy many of you harbor is frightful. Have you ever worked a job like that? Have you ever experienced being stuck in a cycle of low-paying jobs? Then maybe you can at least understand why it is important for folks who have to work these jobs that they unionize!
14
But we do have well-paying jobs available, in the same location as their current jobs, and we offer health benefits, and very little skill is required other than showing up. Yet we cannot get them to leave their current jobs and come work for us.

Something positive is obviously keeping them there...we just don't understand what.

15
Good on them for fighting for better jobs for everyone.
16
Its tough-love honey.

Unions are pernicious. It is in the interest of firms to keep their employees. If they fail to do so, they incur costs and inefficiencies to their programs which hurts their bottom line. Compensation for work (and working conditions) is on the firms. And NOBODY is being forced to work at those firms here in the US.

Damn right I've worked in those jobs before, so I know whereof I speak. And I did everything I could to get the hell up, and out of jobs like slinging luggage. I knew that if I ever wanted to work with SOOOOper smart people like Venomlast, I had to get education and skills. Otherwise, I'd be stuck working with bike couriers like fBarf or C'thulu here on the S-web log.

The-market-works. Use it.
17
it's also a safety issue. the shitty "compensation" and resulting high turnover, means very low-skilled workers are doing the safety checks, re-fueling planes, making sure the baggage hold is properly loaded and secured. if the jobs paid more, they would attract better, more dedicated workers.
but as with all public companies, the responsibility is solely to the shareholders. cutting costs is mandatory for execs, as doing otherwise would not maximize profits. so the airlines don't need to make any changes until their cost cutting results in a pr disaster large enough to affect revenues, for instance a preventable malfunction during flight.
this isn't about corporate solvency, or the ability to remain profitable. this is about maximizing profits at the expense of everything else, which the ayn rand fanatics view as a moral pursuit.
18
OK, I just went out and asked one woman why she didn't apply with us. She works as a wheelchair assistant and hates it, but she wouldn't apply for an opening we had earlier this year for a position working about 35 hours per week at $10.00 per hour (and with benefits).

Her response: she can't get smoke breaks if she worked for us (which is true). There's not enough time on 10-minute breaks to go outside security and get back in, so none of our employees smoke.

So that's why she stayed at her old job.

19
Mr. Tipton, you are a troll and a liar.
20
@16: Ironically, my chosen profession has exactly one market application, and is otherwise just scientific research. And I'm afraid it's a bit too late for you to learn...you seem dedicated to actively avoiding any new information.
21
Smoke breaks, not being a morning person/being a night person, not wanting to interact with the general public in person (or doing that as little as possible), disliking desk/office work . . .

I know these are all minor, marginal decisions. But sometimes they do all add up to quality of life decisions, dependent on one's personality and preferences. If they have their other needs met by other sources, then low pay might not be as much of a problem. But one would think offering something as basic as a subsidized transportation pass or a holiday bonus would increase worker retention.

It's a tough problem for everyone.

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


Add a comment
Preview

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.