I have been looking for manufacturing, assembly, production positions all over the Midwest. It’s absolutely shocking how many of them want you to work rotating shifts.

Look at the image I submitted. That company wants you to work 3rd shift one week, then 2nd shift the next, then 1st shift the next, and then repeat it over and over. How in the hell is that healthy?

And this requirement for rotating shifts is prevalent in so many job ads now. WTF is going on with the world?

Full job ad here:

https://www.indeed.com/viewjob?jk=2ac8cd23b6411f88

  • jet@hackertalks.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    20
    ·
    7 months ago

    I have to disagree. This is the same argument against running sweatshops. Everything is relevant in the local context of the people there.

    Do people have a better option? If they did they would take it rather than a rotating shift schedule right?

    If this is the best use of their time economically, how is it a bad thing how is it a net evil? Would it be better for the company just to not be there at all? Not providing any jobs?

    • jpreston2005@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      31
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      the better option is not having a rotating shift, and compensating the employees that have to take third shift.

      you’re seriously advocating for sweat shops? like the only options are abuse your employees or fail as a business? if that’s true, then your business should fail.

      • jet@hackertalks.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        16
        ·
        7 months ago

        From an economic perspective many countries had to develop with sweatshop labor effectively until they built enough prosperity to develop other industries. But without that intermediate sweatshop stage, they couldn’t compete economically, couldn’t get the capital to modernize, and would be stuck in the agrarian phase

        • ArbiterXero@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          18
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          That’s really just a bureaucratic way of making it nobody’s fault.

          We don’t need high enough profits to support sweatshops, no matter how “economical” you make the argument.

        • forrgott@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          An “economic perspective” is horribly skewed in favor of the capitalist class; that’s just saying the misery of the commoner is justified by the greed of those who refuse to actually assist in producing any goods or value for society.

          • jet@hackertalks.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            7
            ·
            7 months ago

            In the context of the United States, which I believe the original poster is talking about. There’s the classic rural problem of how do you keep them down on the farm. There’s many economic opportunities across the whole country, which allows freedom of movement, so people can emigrate to different parts of the country with more job opportunities and more lucrative uses of time.

            So it’s not a dichotomy of work a rotating schedule or starve. There are other jobs in the area, they might be farm labor jobs, they may not pay as consistently, they may not pay as well, but there are economic opportunities in most rural areas. If those are insufficient, people have been known to move to the cities the urban areas where there’s more work opportunities.

            This rotating shift opportunity, is just one of many available to people living in the United States. They’re not being forced into it. People are choosing it of their own free will.

            If we would like to say rotating schedules should be illegal, great, let’s codify that into the labor laws. Vote on it. Then every business will have the same constraints.

            • forrgott@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              10
              ·
              edit-2
              7 months ago

              Oh, for heavens sake. I chose to be born into a life where I can only choose the form of my exploitation, in other words?

              No. It is not in any way shape or form a result of my choice that some business owner is prioritizing money over people.

              Capitalism is not a neutral system. And it’s flaws are certainly not the fault of those being exploited.

              • jet@hackertalks.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                7
                ·
                7 months ago

                Nobody is forcing your labor. You can live off the land mountain man style if you want to.

                • grue@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  6
                  ·
                  7 months ago

                  You literally cannot. Homesteading hasn’t been a thing since the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976.

        • UsernameHere@lemmings.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          7 months ago

          So you feel the US is still in that intermediate sweatshop stage and that will go away if they could just get the capital to modernize?

          • jet@hackertalks.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            7 months ago

            Some areas - yes. Developing a local economy is tricky, for places that don’t have historic concentration of logistics, there has to be a some attractive force to offset geographic conditions, and attract capital and employers to an area.

            I’m all for providing alternative jobs to communities, a national Job corps, increasing military pay, or providing labor laws saying that rotating shift jobs are not allowed. Those are all fine. Giving people better options is the solution.

    • RedditWanderer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      That would be fine if it weren’t fur subsidies keeping these businesses afloat on top of all that, while everyone has to make a net 10+% year over year for investors.

      If you need all these handouts and to craft elaborate schemes where youre essentially taking time and money from employees and government to stay afloat, yeah best the business not be there at all. People will start solving the problem differently. i.e don’t spend a billion dollars keeping a business in your town afloat, spend a billion dollars educating the population and giving them new skills. Capitalism doesn’t work that way though.