• jj4211@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    Unfortunately, for the support that manages to feed people, work must be done, and not every job can find enough people that want to do it sincerely to avoid some people hating their job.

    That doesn’t mean employers should get away with being exploitative and abusive, or that reform isn’t needed. But the philosophy “no one should ever have to do something they don’t want to do” is unrealistic.

    • Girru00@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Agreed. Now imagine if the people doing the work they don’t enjoy, do it because the compensation outweighs the hardship. Rather than creating systems that both compensate disproportionately less for some roles in society AND ensure there is enough labour through coercive means.

      Lets say everyone gets free college education, and there is no bias in the system for who gets to work where. No one wants to be lets say… a technician for utility lines, or work in maintaining sewage systems because there are easier jobs.

      Should we a) increase compensation or b) make it difficult for people who work there transition to other work.

      Universal healthcare, unemployment income, free education, universal child care, universal housing etc. all undermine the societal ability to keep people at work that is difficult but underfunded.

      • jj4211@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’m on board with the reforms that properly recognize jobs people are inclined to hate as deserving of being some of the highest paid rather than lowest paid. I think health insurance should not be tied to employment (universal ideally, but at least decoupled from employment benefits). Free education to a point. I think universities need to be held more accountable for efficiency, rather than anything resembling a blank check (the well-intended student loan system has caused unintended badness without any accountability for actually managing expense). I’ll accept that universal ‘housing’ can be difficult when you get into the minutia (a fine line to walk between providing universal housing and appearance of just packing away undesirables out of sight, and auditing the living conditions)

      • SCB@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        You listed power line technician, but Linemen (as they are called) make crazy good money. I believe they deserve more, because the job is insane, but it’s a skilled, union job that pays very well.

        Also they commonly only work 4 days per week.

        • Girru00@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Awesome. Firefighters are also paid quite well and have an on and off schedule. Thanks (sincerely) for the name - Linemen. Couldn’t remember it for the life of me.

          All labour requires skill, some more, some less. Unfortunately pay doesn’t always scale with skill and danger/dislike/inconvenience etc.

    • J Lou@mastodon.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I agree that there should be rewards for doing undesirable jobs. It would improve coordination.

      We could have a society without employers. Everyone could be individually or jointly self-employed as in a worker coop. Such a society would give workers control rights over the fruits of their labor, which employer-employee relationships inherently deny. This denial makes being an employer by itself exploitative and abusive. We need to abolish the property relationships of work not reform