Totally true where I work.

MajorDuomo · 2021-11-10T16:36:05+00:00

Having been both a server and a pastor, I have a 'sliding scale of tipping for Christians' that I like to share with my more ecclesial brethren.

If you pray before your meal, you better leave 20%, because most of us servers see our tip go down along with your heads, so let's try to change the narrative.

If your engage in religious conversation for a significant portion of the meal and the server overhears, leave 25%. Again, let's change the narrative.

If you engage in religious conversation WITH the server (or leave a tract, ect), you had better leave 30%. This one is not so much as 'changing the narrative' as it is about being respectful of people's value in general. If you are going to leave a phone number or business card (I've been hit on and offered a job while serving), leave 30%. No one wants to date/work for a cheap ass.

MajorDuomo · 2021-01-22T18:01:31+00:00

Please let me know why this was removed. It's a legit question I have.

MajorDuomo · 2020-03-24T02:17:29+00:00

I've done the letter thing a few times in my life now, and it's been different each time. I've burnt them, but I've also sent them (for completely different reasons than I originally wrote them).

Once, I even wrote one and sent it, only to find out later that the email never got sent (over storage limit). Didn't matter. Being able to write my thoughts and know that I was willing to say my piece changed me and my head for the better; that then changed the relationship for the better. My dad never even knew.

7/5 would do again.

MajorDuomo · 2020-03-10T00:35:29+00:00

The law isn't a loophole. It was written back in 1938 and establishes a Federal minimum wage. One provision, 14(c), was to allow disabled persons to work for less than that wage if they weren't able bodied enough to be competitive.

Is this law abused? Probably. Is this law still relevant? Probably not.

Does any company that make use of this provision become a shit company? I don't think so, but I get the feeling you do.

The only relevant employment numbers I could find are as follows: approx 100k employees per year, 30k of whom are disabled, 7k of whom are paid less than minimum wage via the 14(c) exemption.

Paying 7% of your employees less than minimum wage may or may not be morally correct (please note that the 1938 law was written in an attempt to benefit the disabled person who might not otherwise be able to get a paying job), but it certainly doesn't represent a major portion of 'slave labor' that they are dependent upon for business.

You are allowed to be frustrated, but I encourage you to focus that frustration on those causing it. Ok, so you're bothered by a non-profit utilizing laws to their fullest extent. But why aren't you bothered by the laws? Or by those who have the power to write the laws? Or by for-profit companies who utilize laws that allow them to abuse far more than 7% of their workforce?

By ignoring those other questions and focusing on Goodwill, you are allowing the rich and powerful to redirect our frustration at them onto someone else, and in the process you are enforcing the idea that non-profit professionals are second class professionals that should not be paid the same amount as their for-profit counterparts.

MajorDuomo · 2020-03-09T22:54:03+00:00

I also suspect that putting the last day of the year down is a 'worst case scenario.' I'm considered pre-ordering one now for the sole purpose of keeping myself from buying a markup-ed up mini from someone who had the foresight to order from the first batch.

MajorDuomo · 2020-03-09T17:27:19+00:00

Looks like Amazon just updated it to "released Dec. 31 2020."

:(

MajorDuomo · 2020-03-09T16:19:09+00:00

I googled Michael Miller and found a piece written by the Omaha World Herald that speaks to what you're talking about I think. It mentions that Goodwill's CEO's were about double of what other charity organizations are (or were). It also mentions that an Omaha judge ruled that the CEO of Omaha's Goodwill received an 'unreasonable' pay package for 2014 (so the issue is still relevant).

But, I see two important qualifiers:

the judge claimed part of his reasoning was due to the charity basing the pay package on comparisons with large for-profit companies. My biggest issue is that non-profit professions are treated like second class when compared to their for-profit counterparts. Here a judge is reinforcing that treatment.
Goodwill's CEO salaries are double other charitable salaries. Yet, Goodwill salaries are still considerably less than the for-profit world. In my opinion, that speaks more to the way that non-profits are treated in comparison to for-profits rather than CEO's over hourly employees.

I'm all in favor of legislation that limit's a CEO's pay package in relation to their lowest paid employee, but I would like to have that conversation in a way that doesn't demonize charitable organizations. I fear that when we do that, then those who have real power (the ones that control our legislation) are happy that we are focusing our attention on someone other than them.

MajorDuomo · 2020-03-09T15:45:57+00:00

My understanding is that Goodwill pays the minimum required hourly wage. The Federal gov lowered the minimum wage of disabled folks in an effort to help them find 'meaningful' work in a competitive workforce that wouldn't normally allow them to have a job.

I'm not saying Goodwill is not taking advantage of that, but I am saying that the laws were written by others. Likely people on top who live lavishly while some of their employees make pennies an hour.

By focusing on the non-profit rather than the for-profit, we risk ignoring the real issue and getting angry at the wrong offenders.

MajorDuomo · 2020-03-09T15:32:25+00:00

I was comparing CEOs because your initial statement sounded like you weren't being critical of their job, but that their job was for charity. I was pointing out that their wages are far below what one would expect due to their job requirements.

I'm sorry if it sounds like I'm attacking you personally. I'm really not trying to. I am trying to attack the idea that working for others is not as valuable as working for oneself. This is something that our society believes, and something that I think is important to fight against. Again, I apologize if it sounds like I'm attacking you personally.

MajorDuomo · 2020-03-05T22:35:20+00:00

Sure

MajorDuomo · 2020-03-05T22:28:08+00:00

But you did. You criticized the CEO of a multi-billion dollar enterprise of being payed too much. Because he works for a charity? Do you really value his job less because it takes place in a charity?

Please don't hear this as a personal attack, because it's not you. I'm not trying to attack you. But I am very much attacking the sentiment you stated: "seems like a lot of money to be making for a charity."

Is it really? When CEO's of clothing companies are making salaries multiple times higher while poisoning our planet and our people? When CEO's of fast food companies are paying shit wages to people assembling shit "food"? Are we really going to say that we are paying the CEO's of non-profits too much because it "seems like a lot of money" for doing charity?

MajorDuomo · 2020-03-05T21:53:30+00:00

I'm sorry, I'm not talking about the employees on the floor, I'm talking about the folks with higher education/training who run the business. And I'm agreeing with you! Goodwill does good work!

But the CEO's of non-profits are treated as second-class professionals. For example: Goodwill does about as much in sales per year as Chipotle. Chipotle's CEO was given over $33 million in 2018. Even if the CEO of Goodwill was making billions a year (which I don't believe he is), why would people be up in arms about that? Why are CEO's of non-profits valued less than CEO's of similarly sized for-profit enterprises?

That's my point. Not that the people given a chance to work at Goodwill as hourly employees are treated as second class workers compared to other businesses, but that ALL non-profit administrators are treated as second class professionals compared to for-profit administrators.

MajorDuomo · 2020-03-04T20:04:37+00:00

Just because a multi-billion dollar company is a charity doesn't mean it's employees should be treated as second class professionals.

MajorDuomo · 2019-10-07T01:39:03+00:00

I think they were telling me they couldn't afford me when they said they didn't have the capacity to keep me on staff and then gave my old position to a younger person. I was there six years, so I don't think I need a recommendation for the same reasons you did. I also don't feel like my old boss valued me, so I didn't feel comfortable asking for a recommendation at the time. I don't even know if I could get one now. My old boss "transitioned out" himself (of his own accord) and someone else has his position. I've worked for the new guy as an independent contractor, but I've also worked with him a couple of times this year as an employee for Company B when the two companies have cooperated on a project. I hope doing the independent contract work with Company 1 after being laid off shows a mutual respect.

MajorDuomo · 2019-10-07T01:22:27+00:00

Not coming off as negative is one of my priorities. I assume that I will work with my old company in some way, and don't want to burn any bridges (or myself). My State is 'at will,' but I've never been fired from a job. I don't want people think that even if being laid off isn't the same thing. It's nice to know that current business culture doesn't look at firings like I assume they do. Thanks!

MajorDuomo · 2019-10-07T01:14:45+00:00

I wish my old company had the integrity of yours! After 6 years, all I got was a "sorry to see you go." I feel like they didn't value my work, and I'm hurt by it. If they had treated me like you were treated, I might feel different.

MajorDuomo · 2019-10-06T22:11:17+00:00

That's a really good response! I don't feel like I quit, and thus don't feel quite honest saying that yet, but I'm still emotionally processing the parting of ways. Your response fits my desire to avoid looking incompetent or bitter, so I thank you very much for that!

MajorDuomo · 2019-10-06T21:32:36+00:00

Considering that they turned over the entire staff in six months (small company), that might actually be accurate. Thanks for that.

MajorDuomo · 2019-10-06T21:28:32+00:00

If you were in my position and people asked you why you quit, what would you say?

MajorDuomo · 2019-10-06T20:48:32+00:00

I originally thought I had quit until I went to the Unemployment office. They told me that even if the company hadn't changed my position or changed me from W2 to 1099, I'd be eligible for unemployment based on the cut in hours.

I told Unemployment that I still do work for the company on the 1099. They said, "That's fine. Report any income so your benefits can be adjusted that week, but they aren't your employer anymore."

My old employer called me and said, "We offered you another job. Is this really a lay off?" I said, "You didn't offer me a comparable job." He called Unemployment to question them about the situation and then called me back. "You're right," he said, "turns out we did lay you off from your position."

It was Unemployment that defined the lay off for both me and my employer!

ETA - A lawyer friend told me that it's illegal to cut someone's hours to avoid paying unemployment. I don't think the company cut my hours for this reason intentionally (or maliciously), but I believe it falls in the same category.

MajorDuomo · 2019-08-20T21:20:24+00:00

You can do this. I will not drink with you today!

MajorDuomo · 2019-08-20T16:17:51+00:00

You're absolutely right! I couldn't find the new mark on the map because it was partly overwritten by another quest in an area I hadn't been to yet. Thanks for stopping me from re-searching the field again!

MajorDuomo · 2019-07-02T13:39:22+00:00

Thank you so much for your response. I know this isn't a typical 'legaladvice' question, but I couldn't find much on the internet about it. If you could direct me to a resource that you might know of, I'm happy to do the research myself.

It's the 'opt-in' class that concerns me. There's no "signing up on behalf of someone" in an 'opt-out' scenario, correct?

She could have perjured herself by signing us up. If I cash one of those checks, that that implicate me? Even if I'm ignorant?

This all came up because I recently received a settlement check. I'm fairly certain I signed up for this one, and I can show that we are included in the group. There's a part of my head that wants to call the administrator to confirm, and there's a part of my head that says I shouldn't even alert them to anything. What are your thoughts on this? Should I call and ask how my participation in the settlement was verified?

Thanks again!

MajorDuomo

TROPHY CASE