[Feuer Frei!]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Actually - a person's appearance actually is part of the standard by which they are judged - and such judgment is perfectly legal.

Define judging. Actually don't. I know what judging is. In what context. Who is doing the judging? You? Me? The employer? The customer?
Once we've figured that out, then we can proceed whether or not discrimination comes into it. But to make a 'throw-away' remark at the end of a post, totally out of context, to me at least, is why the word discrimination was mentioned. Because this:

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

I still do not see a issue. How is asking for a raise a just and reasonable request? Hair and metal hanging out of employees noses, eyebrows and lips mean very little these day. I see it all the time.

An employee is expected to represent the company - and while the company may not choose to restrict the right to wear things like nose rings or ear gauges that you could drive a Buick through, the individual manager has every right to determine whether or not such accoutrements present the desired presentation appropriately.

Of course, and? Now you are talking about grooming standards.We are getting away from your first point that you alluded me to, which was the question of when judging becomes discrimination.

Its just like the whole uniform issue - most restaurants mandate that one be worn. Some however (apparently) do not mandate that the shirt be tucked in.

No, some don't, we are still talking about grooming standards, which is pointless because every establishment has different standards. And also fruitless since that is not what you originally pulled me up on.

If that is the case - then it is up to the discretion of the management come review time to determine who better "represents", and reward accordingly.

Really? Well, you're talking to a Restaurant Manager with 10 years' experience now. Staff under me were required to wear the company uniform, including name badge and their 'tools' of the trade, ie waiter's friend, pen, notepad, apron (in most cases). That were the basics. Without talking about nail polish, make-up, shoes, ear-rings, piercings, colour in hair, etc etc. But, again we aren't talking about grooming standards, since that isn't what you pulled me up on. In all my time as Restaurant Manager i have never ever paid someone more than what they are entitled to, which is to say, more than the base rate, if they have excelled at their job during a busy service period. Or have i paid them more than they are entitled to if they wore their uniform to work for that shift.Why? Because here we have a minimum award rate, governed by the state that you work in, which is in turn governed by the Federal Government.
Now i don't know what the restaurant staff in the US get paid extra for wearing their uniform correctly. Which should be part of the job requirement anyhow. I'm scratching my head here.
If you said to me what has all this to do with grooming and not discrimination, and why am i talking about grooming, even though i know that will not address your initial pulling-up post, then it is because you use the words "standards" and "represents", "presentation", "wear" and "appearance". I've probably missed a few.
Actually, after re-reading your first part of this, i think you mean a person is judged on how they dress, as in uniform at the establishment from customers or other staff or management. Ie, the customer may say: gee what a shabby employee that is, look how he is dressed, what sort of a place is this? Or other staff may say: wow, look at John, how come he gets away with piercings and ear-rings and his shirt out when we have to have our shirt tucked in?
Or management might say: gee, i'm going to have to talk to John about his dress code, he's really slipping.
Now in a perfect world, those comments by the customer, the other staff and management is acceptable, as in, no immediate appearance of discrimination made.
Just some remarks about someone's appearance. But, we don't live in a perfect world, and all too often i have seen the above comments i gave from the 3 parties turn into these:
Customer: Crap, look at this guy, he has metal in his face, i'm not getting served by him, no f'in way! Other staff: Hey John, you're a freak! Management: (At the job interview, providing the staff handbook does not mention the prohibition of piercings, hair colouring, tattoos, and let me tell you, jobs exist where you are more than entitled to wear such art) No way i'm hiring this guy, look at him, he looks like crap, he looks like scum and i bet he wouldn't be able to perform his tasks as well as my 'clean, unpierced, un-tattooed and non-alternative staff members.
So there we have it, judging. Any way you slice and dice that, it's judging. And discrimination.
Fyi, since you now know what i do career-wise, yes, i've hired plenty of alternative people, that could do the job better than a staff member that i had on my books, who was non-alternative. Yes, i've had numerous occasions with mu superiors that that person who has tattoos and a piercing which i hired the week before can do an awesome job. And yes, i've re-written many staff handbooks, moreso the grooming standards, to incorporate just such people. All too many times i see judgemnts meted out against people like this and it irritates me to no end.
Don't judge a book by its cover. It's an oldie but a dam goody.

I didn't call anyone a "low life" - you did.

I did, no disputing that

Why insult them?

Admittedly, i should have known better to use a throw-away term like that, because it can be misconstrued online. I used the term in frustration because i took this comment of yours

I work in IT. I have been in the field for a little over 20 years now in one way or the other. I don't have a degree at all. I took a training and skill that was somewhat related, rolled it into a helpdesk job. Today, am the primary IT guy for half a state with a major financial institution - without a degree. You want something, you work for it and get it. You use the skills you have to the best of your ability.

which i saw as a little condescending. As if to say, well, look at me, look at what i've done aren't i wonderful and everyone else should follow my lead. The term was used, not because i believe they are, far from it, but i used it in a sarcastic way. I admit it was a error on my behalf.

No we aren't - these people never left square one because they haven't chosen to actually invest in themselves enough to make their life better. Instead of whining about how they can't make ends meet on a part time job

.
Well we are at square 1 with this quote because firstly, they aren't whining, and secondly, protesting has benefits.
You perceive them as whiners, that's harsh. You've never wanted to be heard about anything in life? Never had grievances? Everything's always been rosy and dandy for you? In the work place i mean, since this is a protest about wages.
Sure, you may not perceive protesting to be the outlet for your work frustrations, or if you wanted to be heard about concerns you have about working conditions, pay rates or some such, you wouldn't protest. Or whine, as you put it.
Seriously, i apologized above about maybe perceiving you post about your work history wrongly, but then you come out with the word 'whining'.
Yep, protesting about fairer wage rates is whining.
Yep, get a education and get a better paying job. Sure, that's what you did, so it will all be fine.

No - its because the job they are tasked to do is not worth getting done at $15 an hour to the company that provides said job.

Maybe not $15 p/hr but certainly a wage rate review needs to take place to bring the US in line with western european and also Japanese rates of pay for working at Maccas.
Hence the whining, errr, protesting by these people

They were wanting to unionize if my memory serves what the article says - so they wouldn't have a contract.

Forming or joining a union in the workplace does not mean you don't have to sign a contract. Depending on the type of union and the establishment you would work for.
Unions do not exempt you from having to sign bargaining agreements or contracts.

why the people are whistling in a tornado trying to double their wages.

Well, let's hope they get a fair go. Goes back to waht i said before about bringing this inline with western europe and japan rates of pay.



Ok, so lets get this straight... but your ok with them just saying "screw it, it shouldn't be a low ceiling job - give us more because we want it"?[/QUOTE]I wouldn't be ok with it. If i in fact said that, which i didn't. And it's not what they are protesting about. It will still be a low ceiling job, even if they get a pay rise. Whatever that amount will be. Give us more because we want it? Where did that come from? Is that your summation from the article? Are you assuming that that is what they are saying?
No where in that article do i see one of them saying give me more because i want it.
What infact is there, is "a request for an increase in the minimum wage" via a national protest.
I think your perception of the article is not realisitic.

So why don't you go in tomorrow and tell your boss that your job sucks and you should get a 100% raise?

I've done that. I've had battles with HR and superiors in the past, remonstrating that my job sucks, as in unsafe and unhygienic work areas, trouble-some staff, drugs on the premises, out of date food, fighting by staff on the premises, physical and sexual violence towards female staff members....yea, i've certainly done that before. I put my foot down and we worked things out quickly.
Oh and i forgot to mention, yes, i've approached bosses before about pay increases. Not increase to base rate, because the boss isn't responsible for setting that, but, bonuses, extra allowances. Absolutely.
And your point is?

Again - work hard and make it happen - instead of crossing the counter and holding a picket sign....

Seems to me you have something against people who protest? Or is it just people that aren't as hard-working or as educated as you?
That's the impression i'm getting, because it comes up a lot the hard work and whatnot. Judging people who are in the service industry. I've had plenty of that sort of croud in my establishments before, over the years. People who don't have the abilities, whether mental or physical or financial to obtain an education and to further their prospects of career ladder ascension.
Why is it such a bother to you that they are protesting? Does it irritate you that you had to work for something in your life and they don't?
Gee i hope not.

No, what excludes them from a wage increase is simple market realities - they are doing a job that is not worth more than minimum wage to get done....

Aha. So exclusion even when indexing, inflation and annual award reviews occur?
Right.
When reviews of minimum wage rates are done annually and bringing minimum wages inline with the cpi increases and the western european countries and japan as an example in relation to McDonald's wages for that type of job.
Thank god for minimum wage rate reviews, thank god for cpi increases, otherwise stealth pay declines would be a reality. Which in some cases occur.

Funny that - I heard none of them say that the job that they do is actually WORTH more than what they get paid to do it.

What has that got to do with me saying: Funny that i don't get the " give me attitude" from the article?

Instead we get a lot of complaining that it isn't enough.

It isn't. As i outlined in post number 43.

The reason its a "Give Me" attitude is

So there is a give me attitude?

because we don't hear them say the deserve it for the performance or the "long" 8 hr shifts they work (all of three days a week).

No. We hear it because of your next quote:

We hear it because its not enough to support a woman and her "extended" family of seven...

Just just 1 reason.

Maybe some of them should start workin at Mickey D's too then....

Is their minimum wage rate better?

even have someone take a managers job so they will quit makin babies? Wow - once again - personal responsibility - dang that is so outta style.

Yes of course, now we are getting judgmental again.

As for ole Alterique Hall - you know - the guy who "has to rely on his grandmother for meals"? - well - not only does he want a raise, but he seems to not be needing so much really since his facebook account talks about how he "got his food stamps" and he gets a paycheck too?

He can get both? Blame the government for that.




Seriously - these morons[/QUOTE] And there we have it. Morons.

calling for some gift of more money for doing a job that isn't worth what they want - can cry me a river.

They irritate you don't they? No idea why.

The ones that choose to support deadbeats who won't work themselves,

Deadbeats. Maybe the term low-life should have been used by you? Would you rather they not support the deadbeats, as you put it, and that you, the tax payer supports them?

or people who cry about a lack of food and get food stamps, a paycheck

Is that in that guy's facebook? I didn't check it.

and want a huge payday from a lawsuit to boot

The hell? Lawsuit? Where did that come from?

make me sick.

I know they do. You've certainly demonstrated that already.

The reality?

Sometimes isn't as easy as that.

You gotta be on crack or something to think that would work.

Maybe they are? Since they support deadbeats and are crying a river of tears and whine and make one sick.