Installer Steam
connexion
|
langue
简体中文 (chinois simplifié)
繁體中文 (chinois traditionnel)
日本語 (japonais)
한국어 (coréen)
ไทย (thaï)
Български (bulgare)
Čeština (tchèque)
Dansk (danois)
Deutsch (allemand)
English (anglais)
Español - España (espagnol castillan)
Español - Latinoamérica (espagnol d'Amérique latine)
Ελληνικά (grec)
Italiano (italien)
Bahasa Indonesia (indonésien)
Magyar (hongrois)
Nederlands (néerlandais)
Norsk (norvégien)
Polski (polonais)
Português (portugais du Portugal)
Português - Brasil (portugais du Brésil)
Română (roumain)
Русский (russe)
Suomi (finnois)
Svenska (suédois)
Türkçe (turc)
Tiếng Việt (vietnamien)
Українська (ukrainien)
Signaler un problème de traduction
Procédures à suivre et règles des discussions
Signaler ce message
By definition a slave does not have a choice and in the USA you have the feedom to leave anytime you want.
The work environment may be difficult or you have lousy bosses but slaves "only if you want to be one". But, there are people who are so afraid of change that they do choose to be slaves.
Work at what you want and you will never have to work again.
Slaves could refuse to work too if they wanted. They'd likely get beaten for it but they still technically have the option. Nowdays you just starve or lose your house instead.
Technically that is not true. There are some seedy criminal enterprises that enslave vulnerable people through drug addiction and/or threats of violence. Fortunately, they're quite rare, but there is a human trafficking industry in the US.
As for wage-slavery, you can't see it but I'm rolling my eyes and making a suggestive hand motion. The term is just Communist doublethink - no voluntary labor can, by definition, be slavery, but they can't know that or it would undermine the idea that capitalism is oppressive in some way. Because working for yourself is oppressive and working entirely for the good of others is somehow not. They're insane.
It sounds like they have strict standards and pay more because of that. What, are you looking for a job there or something? I never worked at Costco, maybe somebody around here has, but I have worked for companies with strict performance standards.
The thing to look at for an estimation of labor conditions is the turnover rate. If Costco is paying more and still losing employees very quickly, work conditions must be pretty bad. You can find out about employee turnover just by asking someone who works there, even in an interview. Truth be told, employers generally take a favorable view of such concern because it means you're thinking about staying with them. Employees who keep working are cheaper than new ones unelss the company has some insane government retirement package.
Other than that, I can say that work at places which are willing to pay more for your professionalism and/or inconvenience isn't that bad in any experience of mine. They are strict, but they also tend to be well-structured with clear paths for advancement. All you have to do is what you're told and look like you'rte happy doing it.
Sadly, I can't give you a personal evaluation for Costco, I haven't been in one for years. Clues you might look for are how well the store is kept up, how cheerful the employees seem, and if items are well-stocked. If things look bad, and especially if there is a high turnover rate, you're likerly dealing with incompetent, heavy-handed management that is losing money just trying to keep people.
Pay increases are a relatively simple way of trying to retain labor, but not always the best because they encourage people looking for short-term jobs as well as longer-term employees. If the work conditions and potential for advancement are poor, there will be a lot of "churn and burn" employees working for only a few months or weeks before quitting.
I hope some of this helps answer your question more thoroughly, or can at least serve as useful knowledge for future employment.
The only people calling it slave labor are the lazy "I wan't more money for less work" types.
Most of the costco stores will actually weed out the lazies by putting them on the hardest and most stressful stuff first, like doing carts or food court, before letting them into the other areas or giving them promotions.
Getting paid $22+ an hour for labor is not even close to "slave labor".
Getting paid NOTHING for hard work while having no other choice would be slave labor.
The correct phrase is some people as most employees for costco dont earn that level of pay so its disingenuous to mislead people that a considerable number do and simply dismiss those that dont as lazy.
Secondly the general use of the term slave labor isnt given the full spectrum of analysis it should. While the type of slavery of the past still exists, never does it get considered new variations exists.
Slaves would cost more money to feed,clothe and house today if we consider it was allowed and we acknowledged human rights,health and safety,etc than regular non to low skilled employees who form the backbone of any societies industries.
Very few humans get the luxury of living off the land so its not hard to state we are slaves to work considering if we dont, we cease to exist. Just because we can choose our pay master does not change the fact we are all still subservient to legalised Monopolies, monopsonies and oligopolies.
No it doesn't. Unions form precisely because labor conditions are poor, by history and their own admission. Companies that pay well have marked resistance to unionization, because workers don't want a union taking their money. Union dues are a significant bite out of a paycheck, and there's no reason to pay them if the company is treating you well.
I've heard that "fear keeps employees from joining unions" shtick before, and it's always a bunch of collectivist nonsense. Fear brokered by the unions themselves is usually what makes people join unions.
I used to work for UPS, and there was a huge battle between employees who wanted unions and those who didn't. Some drivers worked for the Teamster's union, others wouldn't, and the union itself tried to get the non-union drivers fired, not to mention all the sorters and other employees. UPS refused, they protected their employees.
It's always the same story because it has to be by definition. A union is a closed shop. You pay your dues and you get to work. If you don't pay them, you don't get to work. No company has a protection racket like that, which is probably why the unions have always had ties to organized crime.
I was not on the union side in that battle or any thereafter. UPS wasn't threatening my job, they were. Complete with the usual Communist nonsense about workers' rights. I was a worker. Where were my rights? I only got them if I paid for them? Am I just retarded in thinking that doesn't sound like workers' rights at all? Discontented Communist workers everywhere agree, it's not about workers' rights. It's more about idiots thinking they are going to get something for nothing.
Same experience at Wal-Mart, where I worked for a brief stint during college. There were a lot of very stupid people who wanted to unionize Wal-Mart labor. If that happened, Wal-Mart would just cut jobs for people like me who needed them, and certainly people like them. They aren't going to just pay everyone more, they can't! Most of their profit is re-invested, and if they ever did anything else, some other chain would start beating them.
What they did do was give us stock options and bonuses based on stock, a very wise decision that produced incentive to work. The company was invested in us, and we were invested in the company. But the labor people hated that. They didn't say it directly, they were too dumb to articulate their thoughts, but they hated the idea of our own stockholders making money without doing the same work. I could not have cared less, stockholders were helping to pay our salary by risking their own money.
This is just my opinion, backed up by what logic and facts I have, of course, but I really do not like unions. In 32 years, I have never met a contented union employee. They think companies are "stealing" from them or "forcing" them to work when nothing could be further from the truth.In any natural circumstance, you would always have to take care of yourself. I blame the Communists and their stupid double-think for that. Even if I'm wrong, they deserve a lot of blame.
It's still an entry-level job. One you use to build up your work history. You're making the common mistake of assuming that these should be careers. If they were for everyone, you'd never be able to afford groceries. After all, you have to pay for an entire career every time you bought anything, over a lifetime, and everyone else would have to do the same.
That is not how economics work. Economics are a growth process. As people become more skilled they can create new products and services that in turn engender other generations to become more skilled and create more worth.
Mostly because they don't Simply re-interpreting a definition doesn't make it true, or even useful. If everttyhing means everything then everything means nothing, which is exaclty how we get a lot of unhappy Socialists.
[quote=} Slaves would cost more money to feed,clothe and house today if we consider it was allowed and we acknowledged human rights,health and safety,etc than regular non to low skilled employees who form the backbone of any societies industries.
Very few humans get the luxury of living off the land so its not hard to state we are slaves to work considering if we dont, we cease to exist. Just because we can choose our pay master does not change the fact we are all still subservient to legalised Monopolies, monopsonies and oligopolies. [/quote]
See? Exactly like this garbage. First of all, it's a lie based on an entirely false premise. From whence do you derive the right to health care? Safety? Are those rights society guarantees you? How can you claim them without imposing on the actual rights of others? You'd need someone to protect and care for you, which not everyone in society has a responsibility for.
Then you claim we're slaves except for those who live off the land. Do you have any idea how much work living off the land is? The land sucks. We wouldn't have built cities and tried to get away from living off the land as much as possible if the general human consensus was that living, or rather, dying off the land was a good pursuit.
As if that weren't enough, you go on to reference a bunch of "opolies" like they wouldn't be there already, despite all of nature claiming otherwise. If some big guy "living off the land" stomps your throat in to point a sharp rock at it, you are living in some sort of "opoly." Civilization is good because we don't have to live that way, and you're making it seem like civilization created these things.
They were already there, they always have been. Nothing changed but your definitions. Now civilization is bad and somehow replacing it is good? Replace it with what? I'd love to hear it. Most people who have fallen into a little Communist indoctrination, and it's all over the place, rarely consider what happens afterwards, or how anything works. They just know that they're unhappy with the current state of things.