Sign on bonus for fast food?

[tzolkin]

Regarding the "skilled" vs "unskilled"-- no one is saying people in those types of jobs don't have any skills or talents. These are recognized terms for certain types of jobs, like "trade", "profession", "blue/white collar", etc. Not a reflection of the value of the people working those positions.

If you can't get to the grocery store easily it doesn't matter if you can buy the supplies to make a cheaper, healthier meal.

Transportation is a major factor for the poor. Since it's expensive and inconvenient to get a taxi or ask someone to drive you to the grocery store, some may only shop once a month or less so the easiest items to buy are cheap processed foods that will last a long time. It's also challenging and time consuming to meal plan out that far, so midway through the month you may find yourself with just random cans and items that you can't pull together a healthy complete meal from.

 

[GreatLakes]

I suppose this is one way of changing your business model. But it's not going to work nearly as well in a full service restaurant. And I'm not sure when we switched to the view that it was a positive that machines could take over jobs that humans used to do. Seems like up until just this year everyone was complaining there weren't enough jobs and that we were taking money away from humans and replacing them with computers. I see it every day on fb and other social media platforms where people complain about using self checkout "stop making more of these lanes and hire more people!!!" So now we don't want the jobs for humans, we want to replace them with machines? And then in a year or 2 when the dust settles and people are looking for jobs again, any kind of job, we'll be back to being mad they were replaced with computers. I mean, at this rate, more and more places will figure out how to automate things and once they do, they won't go back. And maybe that will be ok. I just think it's a slippery slope. Right now, its ok bc obviously people aren't hurting too badly for money. But what happens when it rights itself?

You are right, it won't work for all business models. Very few things work for every business model. Places like fast food, which have a low-cost assembly line business model, will use automation. The local restaurant that you go to for the quality food and service won't. Jobs come and go all the time and have for all of history.

I worked fast food as a teen, worked in other restaurants for years. Did I learn some skills along the way, sure. How to drop fries in a basket and set a timer, how to use a cash register. But I don't consider those "skilled labor positions". If one teenager can train another teenager how to do something in 2 days, it's not a skilled position. Skilled labor is things like welding, mechanics, emt, police, etc. Where you actually had to get real training and pass tests, or things that it took a really long time to learn how to do from the bottom up. Sure being a manager at a fast food place takes skill, and you learn those things along the way over time, but they also send you to training specifically to gain those skills.

This is how I look at it. Some jobs takes years to learn and even more to master and they span the white-collar/blue-collar divide. It takes a long time to become a surgeon or welder, especially to be viewed as an expert at it.

"skilled" and "unskilled" labor is more of an industry term (and probably not the best choice of words):

I think skilled vs unskilled gets misinterpreted but the underlying premise holds. While "skill" can be defined as being able to do just about anything from balancing a pencil on your nose to being able to whistle I think the definition is about "hard" skills. Fast food jobs can very well train you soft skills like time management, just in time production, and talking to customers the job itself isn't hard. As a PP mentioned if I can be taught to do your job in a few hours and master it in a few weeks it isn't hard skill based.

Some business owners may have to accept the fact that they no longer have a viable business, if they can't adjust to the times. That would be devasting, but it may be their reality.

Calligraphers lost their jobs with the invention of the movable press, buggy whip makers with the invention of the automobile, blacksmiths with the invention of mechanized manufacturing. This is a cycle that has been going on since the beginning of society and will continue to happen. We always look at it as something new when it is happening to us in real time but it really isn't. Each evolution generally increases the skill necessary to do a job, not decreases it.

All workers deserve to be treated with respect, regardless of their skill level. However, there is still a skill level no matter how much you want to pretend that there isn’t. If a job can be done by the 16 year old after 4 hours of training then that’s why the job doesn’t pay well. All jobs are replaceable, some require more time than others.

Absolutely. Just because you are doing a low-skill job (maybe a better description than unskilled" doesn't make you any less deserving of respect.

 

[dvcgirl67]

There's a good piece dedicated to this entire topic in the WSJ today. I'll link it below, but they have a tough paywall to bypass. Anyway, some interesting tidbits...

** A ZipRecruiter survey found that 70% of job seekers worked in the leisure and hospitality industry, and they don't want to go back to those jobs. Some may need to eventually go back to those jobs, but I kind of doubt that we're going to see a flood of workers march back into McDonalds post Labor Day.

** Economists are calling this job/unemployment situation a "mismatch", both in the types of jobs available vs. the types of jobs that people are looking for, and the types of jobs available in certain areas not matching the people who now live there. That's the geographical issue we've talked about.....people have been moving around and so there are abundant jobs in some areas that people don't want. They cited a restaurant owner in a small town in Idaho. Lots of people moved there during the pandemic and now she can't adequately staff her restaurant. She said there isn't enough housing in her town for the number of workers the town needs. This seems like a tech/remote worker flood moving there....they moved in, displaced some service workers and now they have nobody to flip their burgers.

** They cited the extended unemployment benefits saying that in the 24 states that have dropped the extra $300 in enhanced benefits, the unemployment rate has dropped to 4.4%. In the states that haven't....the rate is 5.9%. However, and I found this interesting, the rate has fallen *faster* in the states with the enhanced unemployment benefits vs. those who have dropped it since January. This would seem to also be that many of the states that have cut those benefits are in the south and mid/upper west....and those states are less populous than the states that still have those benefits in place.

** They also cited that the extended UI benefits are allowing job seekers to be a bit more picky when it comes to taking a job.

** They cited a man from Phoenix who had worked as a corporate events planner for pharmaceutical company events for the last 35 years. His job still has not come back. He said he could get a job as a driver for Amazon, but that's not his skill set. He says he's sending out four to ten resumes a week with no luck yet. He said that the $400 per week in UI benefits he's getting is helping him pay his bills. But....again, the photo of this man shows he's in his 60s. And for sure, he's likely not just getting by on that $400 a week. It might be helping, but there's a chance he has a pretty nice nest egg after such a long career. He strikes me as the type who may or may not ever go back to work.

Anyway, those are some of the points....link below.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/job-op...ans-filling-them-11625823021?mod=hp_lead_pos5

 

[neverlandsky]

99% of jobs are customer service based and that takes skill. “Unskilled labor” is just another way to separate, to bring others down, and to devalue. It takes skills to deal with entitlement from customers or to calm them down, adaptability to put up with all sorts of management along with dealing with logistics of just trying to survive in today’s world. A simple thank you or take care goes a long way, yet it’s hardly ever granted or bestowed upon others when they give customer service in general. It’s majority what you’ve done wrong and hardly ever recognized what was done right. Factor in greed from corporations taking away benefits and perks, just makes matters worse off.
Especially when there’s no appreciation from them and customers to begin with.

The finger is being pointed at unemployment benefits as the scapegoat. It’s not true. People are tired of being treated lower than low. Dealing with “new management” that forces others out of decades of service due to ageism, corporation greed, and less than humane treatment that happens daily. It has opened a lot of eyes of what people truly want out of life and this shift started in 2017 with “ghosting” employers. The cancel culture and pandemic pushed it over the edge. Made a lot realize the can get on with less and be there for what’s truly important to them and their families.

 

[RedAngie]

I would hope any employer would require at least 90 days or more before the "bonus" payout.

I’ll have to check my company’s policy. I said after 90 days of employment, which for some part-timers may mean almost 9 months at 2 or 3 shifts per week.

It’s probably 90 days after hiring date.

 

[RedAngie]

Transportation is a major factor for the poor. Since it's expensive and inconvenient to get a taxi or ask someone to drive you to the grocery store, some may only shop once a month or less so the easiest items to buy are cheap processed foods that will last a long time. It's also challenging and time consuming to meal plan out that far, so midway through the month you may find yourself with just random cans and items that you can't pull together a healthy complete meal from.

Unfortunately I’ve read a few “let them eat cake” responses to the transportation problem.

“Why can’t they just Uber?”

And sometimes cheap packaged snack cakes are the best available option.

 

[dvcgirl67]

99% of jobs are customer service based and that takes skill. “Unskilled labor” is just another way to separate, to bring others down, and to devalue. It takes skills to deal with entitlement from customers or to calm them down, adaptability to put up with all sorts of management along with dealing with logistics of just trying to survive in today’s world. A simple thank you or take care goes a long way, yet it’s hardly ever granted or bestowed upon others when they give customer service in general. It’s majority what you’ve done wrong and hardly ever recognized what was done right. Factor in greed from corporations taking away benefits and perks, just makes matters worse off.
Especially when there’s no appreciation from them and customers to begin with.

The finger is being pointed at unemployment benefits as the scapegoat. It’s not true. People are tired of being treated lower than low. Dealing with “new management” that forces others out of decades of service due to ageism, corporation greed, and less than humane treatment that happens daily. It has opened a lot of eyes of what people truly want out of life and this shift started in 2017 with “ghosting” employers. The cancel culture and pandemic pushed it over the edge. Made a lot realize the can get on with less and be there for what’s truly important to them and their families.

This is 100% true....especially for anyone who has to deal directly with customers. And that's during normal times. Right now, there's a much higher percentage of people who are just incredibly rude. I am getting voicemails from people that I save until the end of the day so I can play them for my husband....and we laugh out loud. There are people calling me as potential new customers who sound as if it's absolutely my obligation to not only call them back, but to go work for them. Pro tip...if you call a service business and leave a rude message....you don't get a call back. There just aren't enough dog walkers, uber drivers, instacart workers in my area to meet the demand level right now.....and there are clearly people who are frustrated. And some of them are throwing hissy fits. And...I don't exactly live in the boondocks, not even remotely rural....we're a packed in suburb.

 

[Forevermarypoppins]

I’ll have to check my company’s policy. I said after 90 days of employment, which for some part-timers may mean almost 9 months at 2 or 3 shifts per week.

It’s probably 90 days after hiring date.

A few years ago, my past employer offered us a very large and generous bonus, to be paid out 3 times over a 2 year period. The reason for the bonus was :retention. Taxes on that bonus were brutal and there was the stipulation that if anyone was to leave the company ALL $ would be garnished, not just the amount received after taxes. A few of my co workers went bonkers with their bonus $ right away. I saved it all and actually put more money into my savings to compensate for the taxes taken out. I was always afraid I wouldn't make it to the end of those 2 years. I have no doubt the company would have taken all legal action to recoup the $.
I had emailed my boss to ask a question if the time frame for being free and clear was coming up and she called me immediately asking me if I was considering quitting. I stated NO, I'm looking to buy a car. I'm not employed there anymore ( they terminated me) and I'm all the better for it!

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

“Unskilled labor” is just another way to separate, to bring others down, and to devalue.

Yeah I think the thing is we all can get what an industry-standard definition is. We're not, however, in a class being taught what these terms do and don't mean to the industry. When people talk about this they are usually discussing it on a way different level. And the conversation has been around long enough, it's not just any one person, it's just how people often end up with the discussion. That's exactly why I made the first comment on this thread because the very first post was discussing sign-on bonuses with a low-skilled job effectively saying because it was considered low-skilled they shouldn't get it. People, IRL, tend to talk about skilled vs unskilled in a not so nice way. It's usually used in a way to say you don't deserve something because of xyz, you should be treated (or not treated) a certain way because xyz (like talking about a sign on bonus using low-skill as a qualifier), or that lower pay is because it's unskilled (and the business world is more nuisance that just that, it may be the original thought but in practice that's not necessarily why a pay is lower) and much more. We're talking about people's lives and them as human beings whether they are a teen, young adult, or adult. Then again just like I said in my first comment I really dislike when people talk about jobs like that (low-skill, unskilled, etc in a not so nice way) so it probably will rub me the wrong way stronger than someone else (even if the intent totally isn't to do that).

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

A few years ago, my past employer offered us a very large and generous bonus, to be paid out 3 times over a 2 year period.

wow that is quite the stipulation there.

When I was at the insurance company we effectively got a bonus (called something else though) but each year I was there they changed the definition of what the benchmark would be for us to qualify (like one year it was net profitability, next year it was PIF {policies in force}), year after that it was CAT losses+PIF). Let's just say it was usually used in a way to NOT want to pay, putting a lot of pressure on people like me who had zero control over it. It also included how 2 other subsidiaries were doing and again not anything we could control. But in the end we still got it even though I believe 2 years we technically didn't qualify based on the qualifications of that year (which by the way they didn't tell you until that time of year which was March came around and it was for the year prior).

The first year I was there I was not eligible as I had just started and hadn't been there long enough for the stats of the fiscal year the bonus was for. But I did get one the other years. They did allow you to get the full bonus (subject to I believe what amounted to in my state with federal included about a 40% tax liability), divert partial or full to your 401K (which that portion would be tax free at that time).

Because of my age and situation I ended up not diverting any of my bonuses and took the tax hit, but one year I needed car repairs right at that time and it paid for that, another year I put the entire amount left over towards my student loans, etc.

 

[RedAngie]

When exH’s former employer enticed him (and me and DDs) to move to LA and help establish an office there, there were lots of stipulations attached to the offer. He had to commit to staying 3 years or would have to pay back moving costs, the free housing for a year, furniture rental costs, return the bonuses, etc.

He stayed with them for 8 years.

 

[tzolkin]

bonus, to be paid out 3 times over a 2 year period. The reason for the bonus was :retention.

When exH’s former employer enticed him (and me and DDs) to move to LA and help establish an office there, there were lots of stipulations attached to the offer. He had to commit to staying 3 years or would have to pay back moving costs, the free housing for a year, furniture rental costs, return the bonuses, etc.

Most people I know work in healthcare and this seems to be the norm in the states where we have lived. To receive any sign on bonuses, education benefits, moving expenses, etc you have to sign a 2 or 3 year contract stating that if you leave before the end of the term that you will have to repay the full amount. The payments are usually also spread over a period of time (ex. a $6000 sign on bonus may be paid as $3000 at 6 months, $2000 at 12 months, and the remaining $1000 at 18 months)

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

When exH’s former employer enticed him (and me and DDs) to move to LA and help establish an office there, there were lots of stipulations attached to the offer. He had to commit to staying 3 years or would have to pay back moving costs, the free housing for a year, furniture rental costs, return the bonuses, etc.

He stayed with them for 8 years.

That I think is a bit different. Relocation offers often do have stipulations because otherwise you could just move there, take the offer, and leave. If you're relocating you're investing in that area. You'll find cities that offer people money for moving there but it's reasonable to attach a time period you need to live there.

But that should, IMO, be treated differently than a normal bonus (which to be fair can be treated differently than a sign-on bonus). Attaching a bonus to a 2 year time period is off-putting IMO. If the company feels like they cannot afford that high of a bonus don't give it. If they feel that employees won't stay without that high of a bonus just give 3 bonuses spaced out over time without attachments, personally speaking a bonus that requires 2 year time frame to pay me makes me not have confidence in the company and makes me fee more like a hostage and honestly less inclined to want to stay there. Bonuses are def. nice, they aren't required, and at least me I'd rather not have so many strings attached to a bonus that makes me feel beholden to a company for graciously giving it to me (said sarcastically).

 

[soccerdad72]

Most people I know work in healthcare and this seems to be the norm in the states where we have lived. To receive any sign on bonuses, education benefits, moving expenses, etc you have to sign a 2 or 3 year contract stating that if you leave before the end of the term that you will have to repay the full amount. The payments are usually also spread over a period of time (ex. a $6000 sign on bonus may be paid as $3000 at 6 months, $2000 at 12 months, and the remaining $1000 at 18 months)

I don't know if it's still commonly done, but years ago, when my FIL was a hospital CEO, he would regularly offer as part of his package to new doctors the payment of their student loan debt. They did need to sign a contract for 3 (or 4, I forget) years, however, or they would have to repay the debt. He had one doctor (that I can recall) leave before the end of the contract and have to take loans back out to repay the hospital when he left.

 

[wenrob]

I don't know if it's still commonly done, but years ago, when my FIL was a hospital CEO, he would regularly offer as part of his package to new doctors the payment of their student loan debt. They did need to sign a contract for 3 (or 4, I forget) years, however, or they would have to repay the debt. He had one doctor (that I can recall) leave before the end of the contract and have to take loans back out to repay the hospital when he left.

Caesar’s Entertainment would have paid for my DD’s BA but you had to commit to a year for each year after completion. So two years working and school and then two years tied exclusively to them. A fair deal IMO but she felt she’d be held back from advancing by essentially committing to four years with one company. She was right but had it been me at her age at the time it would have been life changing.

 

[EveDallas]

99% of jobs are customer service based and that takes skill. “Unskilled labor” is just another way to separate, to bring others down, and to devalue. It takes skills to deal with entitlement from customers or to calm them down, adaptability to put up with all sorts of management along with dealing with logistics of just trying to survive in today’s world. A simple thank you or take care goes a long way, yet it’s hardly ever granted or bestowed upon others when they give customer service in general. It’s majority what you’ve done wrong and hardly ever recognized what was done right. Factor in greed from corporations taking away benefits and perks, just makes matters worse off.
Especially when there’s no appreciation from them and customers to begin with.

The finger is being pointed at unemployment benefits as the scapegoat. It’s not true. People are tired of being treated lower than low. Dealing with “new management” that forces others out of decades of service due to ageism, corporation greed, and less than humane treatment that happens daily. It has opened a lot of eyes of what people truly want out of life and this shift started in 2017 with “ghosting” employers. The cancel culture and pandemic pushed it over the edge. Made a lot realize the can get on with less and be there for what’s truly important to them and their families.

So much this. Calling jobs "unskilled labor" makes people feel better about paying those people crap wages.

 

[EveDallas]

Yeah I think the thing is we all can get what an industry-standard definition is. We're not, however, in a class being taught what these terms do and don't mean to the industry. When people talk about this they are usually discussing it on a way different level. And the conversation has been around long enough, it's not just any one person, it's just how people often end up with the discussion. That's exactly why I made the first comment on this thread because the very first post was discussing sign-on bonuses with a low-skilled job effectively saying because it was considered low-skilled they shouldn't get it. People, IRL, tend to talk about skilled vs unskilled in a not so nice way. It's usually used in a way to say you don't deserve something because of xyz, you should be treated (or not treated) a certain way because xyz (like talking about a sign on bonus using low-skill as a qualifier), or that lower pay is because it's unskilled (and the business world is more nuisance that just that, it may be the original thought but in practice that's not necessarily why a pay is lower) and much more. We're talking about people's lives and them as human beings whether they are a teen, young adult, or adult. Then again just like I said in my first comment I really dislike when people talk about jobs like that (low-skill, unskilled, etc in a not so nice way) so it probably will rub me the wrong way stronger than someone else (even if the intent totally isn't to do that).

You said everything I was thinking, but in a much more eloquent way.

 

[dez1978]

You are right, it won't work for all business models. Very few things work for every business model. Places like fast food, which have a low-cost assembly line business model, will use automation. The local restaurant that you go to for the quality food and service won't. Jobs come and go all the time and have for all of history.



This is how I look at it. Some jobs takes years to learn and even more to master and they span the white-collar/blue-collar divide. It takes a long time to become a surgeon or welder, especially to be viewed as an expert at it.



I think skilled vs unskilled gets misinterpreted but the underlying premise holds. While "skill" can be defined as being able to do just about anything from balancing a pencil on your nose to being able to whistle I think the definition is about "hard" skills. Fast food jobs can very well train you soft skills like time management, just in time production, and talking to customers the job itself isn't hard. As a PP mentioned if I can be taught to do your job in a few hours and master it in a few weeks it isn't hard skill based.



Calligraphers lost their jobs with the invention of the movable press, buggy whip makers with the invention of the automobile, blacksmiths with the invention of mechanized manufacturing. This is a cycle that has been going on since the beginning of society and will continue to happen. We always look at it as something new when it is happening to us in real time but it really isn't. Each evolution generally increases the skill necessary to do a job, not decreases it.



Absolutely. Just because you are doing a low-skill job (maybe a better description than unskilled" doesn't make you any less deserving of respect.

That... You said exactly what I was trying and failing to properly get across. And hard vs soft skills is prob a better way to put it, or at least less likely to rile feathers.

Yeah I think the thing is we all can get what an industry-standard definition is. We're not, however, in a class being taught what these terms do and don't mean to the industry. When people talk about this they are usually discussing it on a way different level. And the conversation has been around long enough, it's not just any one person, it's just how people often end up with the discussion. That's exactly why I made the first comment on this thread because the very first post was discussing sign-on bonuses with a low-skilled job effectively saying because it was considered low-skilled they shouldn't get it. People, IRL, tend to talk about skilled vs unskilled in a not so nice way. It's usually used in a way to say you don't deserve something because of xyz, you should be treated (or not treated) a certain way because xyz (like talking about a sign on bonus using low-skill as a qualifier), or that lower pay is because it's unskilled (and the business world is more nuisance that just that, it may be the original thought but in practice that's not necessarily why a pay is lower) and much more. We're talking about people's lives and them as human beings whether they are a teen, young adult, or adult. Then again just like I said in my first comment I really dislike when people talk about jobs like that (low-skill, unskilled, etc in a not so nice way) so it probably will rub me the wrong way stronger than someone else (even if the intent totally isn't to do that).

My intent has never been to talk about people who work in what I've called unskilled labor positions or those positions themselves in a negative way. Those jobs are hard work and the people that do them deserve to be treated with respect. But there is a difference in jobs like working fast food vs a job as a welder. As the PP said that I quoted above, there are hard skills and soft skills and those skills determine the pay you get. It's not about the person, it's about the job itself. If you work at a job that requires this set of skills, that's the $ you are going to make. I mean, I have a college degree and have worked for the state for 21 years. A couple of years ago I had a job as a corrections case manager making $45k/yr and that job required a certain knowledge and skill set that I learned over about 10 yrs working for corrections and getting my degree. And that particular job required knowledge that you would only have if you'd worked in the department and seen/experienced things for yourself, so it was a job you worked up to, you could not just be hired off the street for it. After a few years I decided I did not want to make that drive anymore and it was more important for me to be close to home. So I took a job, still with the state, as an office support assistant (basically a secretary). I now make about 26K a year because that's what the skill set this job uses is worth (in this area). Not bc I'm any less skilled or any less knowledgeable, but bc that's what the skillset it worth. To be honest, I work harder, or do more work at this job than I did at my higher paying job bc I'm generally doing my job and someone elses. But anyone who can type and has basic computer skills could be taught to do this job in just a couple weeks. And that's why it pays less than the job that requires specific knowledge and training. That's really all I mean when I talk about skilled vs unskilled positions. But when business can't get anyone to come work, then the market will determine what a particular set of skills is worth, and thats what's happening now.

As far as customer service being a skill itself, yes it def is. It amazes me the way people talk to customer service people. Why do they think it's acceptable to talk to anyone like that? And I absolutely get why people don't want to work in retail or fast food or basically anywhere you have to deal with the public, bc dealing with them is 100% the hardest part of those jobs. I've always said that we should require everyone as part of their sr year in high school to work part time for a few months in fast food or retail so they understand what it's like because they'd know how it is. I can almost guarantee these jerks out here who are throwing drinks at people bc they are mad their order is wrong (or whatever instance you want to use) have never worked customer service bc if they had, they'd be a little more understanding.

 

[BadPinkTink]

very interesting reading, lots of "solutions" without any really experience of living and bringing up a family in a food dessert , low income area. I guess most people replying have never had to decide between using electricity / gas to cook food and using electricity / gas for heating, lights etc. Have anyone of you even lived with prepaid electricity , where you put credit on a meter and that's all you can afford to spend that week, so you limit your use of electricity and prioritize what appliances to use that week?

Also low income people budget down to the $, so while you may be able to drop $100 for food in one trip to Walmart which will last for a while, a low income person may have a daily spending limit of $50 which has to cover food for the day, any travel required, public transport or gas, as well as putting money aside for bills and other living expenses. Your $100 shop at Walmart, never mind any other money you have spent that day is just so far out of reach for a low income person. Thats why many low income people eat a lot of fast food compared to cooking at home, because they can only afford to spend small amounts of money at a time.

 

[Starport Seven-Five]

They cited the extended unemployment benefits saying that in the 24 states that have dropped the extra $300 in enhanced benefits, the unemployment rate has dropped to 4.4%. In the states that haven't....the rate is 5.9%. However, and I found this interesting, the rate has fallen *faster* in the states with the enhanced unemployment benefits vs. those who have dropped it since January. This would seem to also be that many of the states that have cut those benefits are in the south and mid/upper west....and those states are less populous than the states that still have those benefits in place.

I wonder how much of this is correlation vs causation. The states that have cut benefits generally lean a certain way politically and states that lean that way had less aggressive shutdowns/earlier reopening. It may be clouding the data since other factors are correlated that could have increased unemployment.

The higher rate of change could be a sign of that since more places were closed in those states that are now reopening.

Just speculating and throwing out ideas.