Hacker News Reader

Comment by nerdponx | Hacker News Reader

> Coast Guard culinary specialists are critical afloat. But, on bases, contractors have taken away many shore billets culinary specialists need to recharge after a stint at sea. Lacking spots at kitchens ashore, Coast Guard culinary specialists have little choice but to spend their career constantly at sea, struggling to keep old or under-designed ship kitchens operational. And when they are lucky enough to find a shoreside job, they’re usually snatched away to temporarily fill in for an understaffed vessel.

The problem, as we are seeing in many other parts of the economy right now, is that if you treat your employees badly, they will eventually all quit, regardless of how good the pay is. Especially so if they are highly-trained professionals that are in high demand elsewhere, as in this case.

View on HN

Indeed, and the surprise is that... it's a surprise to many.

I think inertia allowed things to go sideways for a long time in a lot of professions, without paying the price for it soon enough. It stayed unseen for long because those jobs are often not affecting directly the structure main goals, like sales, manufacturing or field agents. They are support jobs, and help the structure maintain its integrity on the long run.

So it takes time for the problem to be detected, and for the top to even become motivated to fix it. It's quite possible they didn't even know it was a problem, or didn't think it was important. Hell, the person currently in charge have likely arrive at the post way after the decisions to destroy those jobs has been taken, years after years. Each year, one small increment at a time.

We are seeing an extreme version phenomenon in the health system in France. Extreme because it touches more than support jobs. Hospitals are full of exhausted staff that are asked to make yet another effort, "just this once". Getting appointments for specialists now take months, even for repeated sessions. Doctors are making much less money than I do in IT, for much more work, responsibility and administrative pressure. This frog has been boiling for quite some time.

It was an easy to predict consequences of the shift of paradigm in the last thirty to forty years.

With the removal of companies middle layers, paths from operational positions to top management have basically disappeared. That means that at most companies, top managers have made their whole career there often starting in corporate finance jobs or at management consulting firms and have no experience whatsoever of what working for them as an employee is like.

Usually the army fares better here because it still promote from inside its own ranks but apparently it was not enough to avoid this.

Indeed, for the hospital it's probably part of the story: directors are now not required to have been doctors before.

Maybe having pairs (one doctor, one non doctor) for those jobs would be a solution.

But it's probably not the only problem.

France has a budget problem, it's been borrowing more and more, and producing less and less. We can't maintain our way of life without cutting some spending, and you do it where people complain less, or where consequences will be seen way down the road.

Sorry my answer was strictly about the issue with labour in the USA.

The French hospital issues are entirely different. I could a write an entire essay about it - I’m French myself. Most of it is due to brain dead management by the Health Ministry in the 90s. It was thought that by training less doctors, there would be less acts done and it would cost less to the sécurité sociale. The order agreed because it protected their revenue. Add to that that far too many acts which could be done by support staff have to be done by a doctor to be reimbursed and widely underpaid nurses and you get the current shit show.

The US has done much the same thing. Almost all graduate medical education (residencies) is funded by the federal government through the Medicare program. But despite increasing demand, Congress has held that funding roughly flat in order to keep Medicare costs under control. So we have a ridiculous situation where students are graduating from medical school but can't actually practice because they can't get matched to a residency slot. This is leading to delays in care and overwork for existing physicians.

Someone has given you a bill of goods. Any US MD/DO graduate will get a residency position, but there are a few every year that only apply for Orthopedics or Ophthalmology and don't select a backup IM/FM program and thus wind up unmatched. There are IM/FM/PEDS/Internship positions open, but they choose to pass and reapply next year. The only reason they couldn't get any residency is bad advising or an issue which is expected to prevent them from getting a medical license.

The medical schools carefully coordinate admissions with residency counts so that everyone is guaranteed a spot.

The Boomers climbed the ladder then cut all the opportunities out from below them and pocketed and spent the money and didn’t save for retirement.

As a whole, they are clearly going senile and mentally declining a lot faster than their parents. Also they’re selfish whiners. Most of em deserve cattle call retirement line up take your meds in run down projects they never bothered to upgrade.

Prison not pensions for a bunch of them.

There are many situations where jobs suck, or are dangerous, etc. In that case, the employer can make them suck less or pay a lot more. At some point, they will find people to staff those jobs. So I am not a big fan of employers talking about "labor shortages". What they mean is "we have this role, and can't afford to pay the market clearing rate for the role. Therefore there is a shortage." This is as much true for a government employer, non-profit employer, or private sector worker, as they are all hiring from the same labor pool, and workers have a choice as to who to work for.

Before you say that "no amount of money is enough", just think that if for some reason they can't have the workers be cooks on shore, they can just pay them a vacation for that same shore period. The cooks on shore could then travel, or take a class, or do whatever they want. If you could find cooks who would work on a mix of shore and sea, but not sea only, then rotate the staff and pay the cooks to do nothing. Obviously an extreme example, but I'm giving it to illustrate the point that yes, it does boil down to money in the end. It usually does.

Anytime someone uses the phrase "labor shortage", remind them that what they have is a "salary shortage".

It’s amazing how often a salary shortage coexists with a significant profit surplus.

Not just that, salary refuses to go up but prices refuses to go down.

From https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/01/business/food-prices-prof... archived at https://archive.ph/B1cjX

» Although food companies are prominent examples of how rapid inflation is being passed from producers to consumers, the trend is evident across a wide variety of industries. Executives from banks, airlines, hotels, consumer goods companies and other firms have said they are finding that customers have money to spend and can tolerate higher prices.

[...]

» Over the last year, the price of food eaten at home has soared 13 percent, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, with some items spiking even higher. Cereals and bakery goods are up 16.2 percent from a year ago, closely followed by dairy, which has risen 15.9 percent.

In this case it might be more literal since line cook was one of the jobs with the highest covid casualty rate. IIRC higher than frontline medical workers in the US.

Yep, in my country, we have a "labour shortage" in various industries...

...because those industries relied on migrants, offshore seasonal workers, and working holiday visa holders, to maintain staffing levels, at the lowest wages possible, with often shite working conditions - to the point of exploitation - because seasonal workers who paid a broker to get that job, and don't speak English, don't feel able to complain.

When Covid kicked the teeth in of these industries addicted to low wage labour, did they re-evaluate their approach and improve the working conditions and wages they offeredto attract domestic workers?

Haha no, they just complained about the government restricting international travel during a pandemic, and demanded special treatment.

Sucks when the free market sends you signals about your price point.

This is the dirty side of the "open immigration" - both illegal and legal.

It's a modern form of indentured servitude trending to slavery.

> This is the dirty side of the "open immigration" - both illegal and legal.

At least legal immigrants can be reached by the government and have their rights explained to them in a language they can understand. Unfortunately, most countries don't do that by default, and if people are lucky some sort of NGO (usually unions) steps up.

The core problem anyway is a lack of enforcement of labor regulations, first by a lack of employer audits, followed by a subsequent lack of punitive actions against employers found to violate regulations.

If you have a relatively humane set of worker protections in addition to the a straight-forward path to legal immigration, it's nothing like indentured servitude or slavery. It's just ... work.

And if I had a pony with wings I could fly to work.

It's totally possible to have just and moral immigration, but it's certainly not the situation in many so-called developed countries today.

Of course, many countries are almost as good at exploiting citizens as they are non-citizens, so there's that.

It's fine to concede that the world isn't perfect - but saying that because you aren't well protected as a worker and that therefore immigration is wrong is nonsense.

And I wasn't asking for a magical pony with wings - I deliberately set the bar very low, "relatively humane" is table stakes.

Technically yes, but in reality, greed... greed never changes. And immigration regulations that are intended to protect against abuse of the system, are often abused to extort people.

E.g., you're from country X, living in a new country, Y, where you've bought a small business. Y is a desirable country to live in if you are from X. Your business is very low margin. You work very long hours to keep afloat.

But, an immigration broker also from country X gets in touch. They have many clients back home who would love to be in country Y. They just need a work visa, but the job has to be a) skilled and b) not able to be easily filled by an existing citizen or permanent resident of Y.

So here's the deal. The client pays the broker to be introduce to you. The client then agrees to pay you for a job - often there's a lump sum up-front, and often there's ongoing payments made under the table to the employer. You have to create a position that's suitably skilled of course, and you have to prove you couldn't fill the role locally.

So your corner store is now recruiting for a "retail and marketing manager", and you placed one advert in the situations vacant in a local newspaper, no-one replied. You are now able to recruit your retail and marketing manager from X, and they can move here knowing that they have a work visa.

It's a great deal - your worker got to move from X to Y, and you got an employee who, after their below-table payments to you, is likely working for far below minimum wage.

And here's the best bit - if you treat them like crap, and they decide to complain to the authorities, well, given that they knowingly participated in immigration fraud, which you have proof of, they're very likely to be deported and banned from returning. So they have a very strong disincentive to complain, no matter how you treat them. And thus you continue to have a good source of revenue and cheap labour until they've been in the country long enough to apply for residence.

And then, gosh well, you'll need another retail and marketing manager, won't you? Who pays a lump-sum upfront, and then kickbacks for two years.

Here's some examples from my country:

https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/122467368/vicious-cycle-why...

https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/411939/samoan-chief-jose...

https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/123020969/tauranga-man-char...

Fixing this is a hard question - yes, we want workers being exploited to be able to complain, but we also don't want people lying and falsifying documentation to get a visa. So what do you do in these scenarios? Where do you find a balance?

So the country needs workers, has an immigration policy that restricts the flow of those required workers and is hostile and unforgiving towards those that do find their way into the country.

Sounds to me like this is not in tension at all with what I said. This country should provide a way for those required workers to immigrate without an "immigration broker" [shudder] to abuse and hold power over them.

The fact that a lot of governments are xenophobic[0] and/or want to erode workers' rights[1] means that many places don't have this - apparently this includes New Zealand. But it doesn't change that this is a way to virtually eliminate that sort of problem. It might seem like a lofty or unattainable goal, but we shouldn't ignore what is right just because it's hard to do.

[0] - or enact such policies to appeal to a xenophobic portion of the electorate

[1] - or were elected with help from wealthy people and corporations who benefit when workers have less rights

Paying people to not work leads people to leave so they can work more to maintain and grow their skills for their next-level-up job.

My parents company does that for pilots, and they eventually all quit saying they want to fly more

If your parents are employing pilots on the treadmill towards 1500 hours where they qualify for an ATP and airline job, I can easily understand that.

Why is the company paying pilots to not fly? Seems like bad business?

So when they will they won't have to hire

The only jobs that pay for pilots are airlines. Of course they all quit. They would be stupid to stay

Another branch - Sealift Command in the Navy - Chief Cook posting ( https://sealiftcommand.com/departments/culinary/chief-cook/2... ) has

> Salary: $44,866 - $48,453 + $8,973

This isn't too far off from the median pay of a head cook ( https://www.bls.gov/ooh/food-preparation-and-serving/chefs-a... ) though, there are variations out there ( https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes351011.htm )

True, but most of the cooks I know don't have to live in the basement of their kitchens.

But that pay includes room and board (I think? Hope? I assume you don't have to bring your own boat) but it's also darn close to some of the McDonald's ads I've seen.

I think the real kicker is there is/was a group of people who would do 6 months on the boat, 6 on shore and were happy with that setup, but now they can only do on the boat or just give up and go work on land.

Not to mention pretty insane post-career benefits. I've had to hire more than one wildly unqualified person because higher-ups have a hardon for veterans.

> Not to mention pretty insane post-career benefits.

VA healthcare is garbage, and pensions are heavily backloaded for people who have done the full 20.

VA healthcare is garbage

VA healthcare is a bonus. You don't have to use it.

pensions are heavily backloaded for people who have done the full 20

You realize regular people only get their retirement after thirty years, right? "Full 20" indeed.

Thirty years in the same job though? Presumably that's the criteria of the full 20?

You get monthly pay for life after 20 years of service. The amount you receive is certainly higher after 30, but 30 isn't the minimum for eligibility.

High street cooks don't get that after 20, which I think is the point being made here.

I'd have to check what the pension rules actually are to say if it's 30 or 40 or more for civilians, but it's not 20.

In the USA, most civilian workers are eligible for Social Security retirement payments after 10 years of work. But payments only start when you actually retire at age 62+. Whereas military pensions start as soon as you retire from the service. So there are people who enlist at age 18, retire at 38, and then go on to have a second civilian career while simultaneously collecting a military pension. It's a pretty good deal for those willing to take the risk and stick it out.

And, you know, be in military shape. And be in military. The salary should be serviceman + head cook.

Dick's hamburgers in Seattle starts at $20/hour and pays education benefits. And at the end of your shift you can just go home. And if you don't like the vibe, you can quit.

Seems like not a great deal to get yanked around by the coast guard for years for an extra 4 bucks an hour.

While I don't disagree with the sentiment, you have to factor in the fact that room/board is included in the military and it certainly isn't in Seattle. That's probably around a minus 8/hr for the Dick's job.

What about tips and tip sharing in Seattle? Wouldn't that factor in, too?

Back of house generally doesn't get tips.

There's change in the air on that one. Minneapolis, for one, commonly adds service fees to restaurant bills and shares with the back.

Some referenda in a couple days will determine ending the minimum wage exemption (which would be a shot across the bow for tips and thereby the imbalance between front and back of house). Fought heavily by large restaurant industry players.

Seattle and WA, where Dicks is, has not had a tipped minimum wage exception for many, many years. And also, Dicks is not a restaurant with wait service, so I have no idea why a tip would be expected.

Even without the tipped minimum wage exception in WA/OR/CA, tips are still socially expected for wait service in the West coast, so waiters would probably continue to earn more in Minneapolis.

Being stuck on the water for every hour of the day is way more negative than minus $8 per hour.

That’s how I learned to read.

You cant take your kids or partner into that room. That is a big one. You cant invite friends over. And the way you clean and use the space is controlled by your boss instead of having privacy.

Can't go for a walk. Can't go down to the park. Can't go down to the grocery, or the pub, or the library.

There's a lot more to an apartment than four walls and a roof.

Being a sole chef on board a Coast Guard ship is a much more challenging job than being a line cook at a fast food restaurant, as it includes all the aspects of planning and logistics that would normally be management's duties at the fast food place.

Given that, the position is severely underpaid.

In fairness, the benefits are much better though; McDonald's isn't going to pay for your entire college education based on three years time in service.

True, so that's one benefit, but it's also one shared by any other service member including those in positions with far less responsibility and difficulty.

Keeping a ship fed while at sea for months is a hard task.

The GI Bill is not "one benefit", it's like "the richest benefit in the history of benefits". It will pay all your tuition and fees for a four year college degree, and it'll pay a book stipend, and it'll pay you housing allowance on top of that.

Fair, I should've phrased that better. What I mean is that it's not unique to the ship's chef posting, but a general benefit for any enlisted member of the armed forces.

It's also not something that most people place enough value on to serve in bad conditions for three years to get, judging by the US military's difficulty in recruiting.

That's on top of a fully qualified CG Culinary Specialist potentially being able to get a high enough salary in the private sector to match the GI Bill's tuition cost, without needing to spend time away from home or dealing with austere service living conditions.

Of course this doesn't mean that the only option is to increase salaries. The Coast Guard could also try to substantially improve the quality of life in the post and make it more attractive in that sense. It's a post that's been taken for granted for far too long.

The current approach clearly isn't working, despite the GI Bill.

That's a racket enabled by the absurdly high cost of tuition in the US. In most countries in the world, higher education is free, and their societies and militaries haven't collapsed. And people don't start in life as debt slaves either.

Unsure why you chose McDonald's, but those employees are eligible for $2500-$3000 tuition assistance - with good standing and 30 hours a week. Even more assistance if they apply for targeted scholarships.

https://www.archwaystoopportunity.com/tuition_assistance.htm...

McDonalds is like the one cooking job where you actually can still get ahead in life. McDonalds heavily emphasizes promoting within.

They don't get a room, they get a bunk.

Are you really comparing living on a ship 24/7 to an apartment ?!

Seattle..

Everyone on HN seems to be missing that there's a hell of a lot of people out there who would gladly sign themselves up for 4yr in the bottom of a ship if it means they never have to flip a burger for someone on HN.

As an aside, pretty much all the "but you have to put up with <insert military structure here>" gripe that anyone can come up with has a "but you don't have to put up with <uncertainty of civilian life>" on the other side of that coin. People who are good at picking up on what the organizational goals are as well as the goals of the various parties they are subordinate to tend to fit really well in military life and there are a lot of these people out there.

> Everyone on HN seems to be missing that there's a hell of a lot of people out there who would gladly sign themselves up for 4yr in the bottom of a ship if it means they never have to flip a burger for someone on HN.

Where are those people?

Retirement benefits play a huge role too. You get very good benefits from the USCG relative to Dick's Burgers.

This is the base wage.

The pay is 7 days a week, 8 hours a day for the salary portion. Saturday & Sunday are all overtime hours at time and a half. Weekdays are typically 11 hours, so three hours per day at time and a half.

That's the base wage plus 62 hours of overtime pay per paycheck.

Terrible. Each additional overtime hour is worth more than the last. 1.5x does not begin to cover having zero leisure time.

The jobs are typically 50-70% of the year. 180-240 days

The trade off is that you work most of your time in blocks, but make as much or more money than working every week.

The remainder of your leisure time is also in large blocks. This allows for extensive travel, private enterprise or focused effort on projects.

It's unusual, but terrible it certainly isn't

And then people act like it is an unsolvable problem. Maybe we just treat people better and make their job more tenable? No? Okay. It will keep being a problem then.

It's hard to convince people to treat each other well when they've made it part of their identity that some types of people shouldn't be allowed to get ahead, or exist, and that you shouldn't be allowed to NOT have an unwanted pregnancy and therefore child.

They see a labor force gaining power and they decide the "correct response" is to just decimate any power the labor force might gain. I don't understand it. This is america. We are ungodly wealthy. You can have your cake and eat it too, you can treat employees well and still make stupid amounts of money!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com