Quote:
Originally Posted by transplant99
Yes...unless we are talking about different things.
take a set of electricians or plumbers for example...they have a few journeymen, some 3rd years, some 2nd years and then 1st year/laborer types. The 1st years are the gofers for the rest of the bunch but only for that particular trade.
If you are talking about the GC guys walking around pushing brooms...then yeah they dont get paid much (in fact i know most places are starting them at 15-16 an hour now) but anyone can do that job for the most part and thats what the job pays when no sills are needed.
|
We must be talking about different things because in a lot of cases a single tradesmen will be working with a number of "skilless" labourers.
Edit: to clarify I'm not talking about apprentices, I'm speaking straight up labourers who are just helpers and gain no work experience towards any kind of ticket
Let me ask you this, if companies should pay next to nothing for positions that require no skill, how do they fill those positions if nobody is able to work at minimum wage?
Whether you like it or not the fact of the matter is, companies that make enough money should compensate their employees with a decent living wage. That makes the employee a positive contributor to society. Should everyone follow the Walmart model and pay everyone the bare minimum just because they can? Or would you rather the company that can afford to pay that worker an amount they can live on so the rest of us don't have to pick up the slack by paying for their low income support, subsidized housing and a number of other program with our tax dollars?