Slashdot Mirror


Yelp Employee Posts Open Letter About Cost Of Living And Low Wages, Gets Fired (modernreaders.com)

whoever57 writes: Talia Jane was employed by Yelp in San Francisco but after posting in an open letter to Yelp's CEO, Jeremy Stoppelman, that her after tax income of $8.15 was insufficient to provide basic necessities like heating, food, etc., she discovered that she had been fired. How did she discover? Her work email stopped working. Even her boss did not know what had happened. Stoppelman denies having a hand in her firing, making the claim "(There are) two sides to every HR story so Twitter army please put down the pitchforks," replying to the criticism. He didn't personally turn off her email, perhaps he did not even make the decision to fire her, but as the person who ultimately sets the culture and policies of the company, his claim to not be directly responsible is unconvincing.

51 of 1,092 comments (clear)

  1. And this is...news? by grasshoppa · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I truly hope none of us here will express amazement that someone who criticized their employer, and blamed them for what are essentially her own poor life choices, got fired.

    This is how the real world works, jr. You are not owed, or entitled, to shit.

    --
    Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
    1. Re:And this is...news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Quite to the contrary, she deserves a living wage because her parents and teachers told her that she was special. It absolutely can't have anything to do with the insane taxes or the brutal rents caused by the same people who voted themselves a raise on the taxpayer's dime. Don't like it? Leave!

    2. Re:And this is...news? by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So everyone who pickets their employer because they want to move work out of the country should also be fired? Everyone who publicly criticizes their employer for unsafe practices that endanger the public should get fired? Or, in this case, anyone who publicly points out that wages paid are too low to survive in San Francisco should get fired?

      Go move to Qatar - they're looking for slave-wage laborers who are ready to die in droves for a pittance, because if they complain they get thrown in jail and kicked out with no wages. Sounds like your kind of place.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    3. Re:And this is...news? by grasshoppa · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You can be forgiven in thinking that your examples match what we're talking about here, as the summary didn't actually link anything. For reference: https://medium.com/@taliajane/...

      The "Open Letter" wasn't discussing offshoring, nor unsafe business practices. It was nothing more than entitled whining, and not even very inspired at that. It certainly wasn't what I'd expect from an english major, short of it's verbosity. But then, she never said she finished college, so I guess I might be expecting too much.

      I especially like how she's now begging for someone to employ her. As if a whining entitled employee is right at the top of every employer's wish list.

      --
      Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
    4. Re:And this is...news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Contrary to THAT,

      She deserves a living wage, because if greedy imbeciles don't stop violating the social contract, they're not going to like it much when the masses turn to anarchy.

      Pay them now, or pay them later. Either way, nobody's going to get away with making the downtrodden a slave race for long.

    5. Re:And this is...news? by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What she made is easily a living wage in most places. The problem is she wants to live in THE most expensive place in the US. It's not expensive because somebody decided to make it that way, it's expensive because the demand to live there is high and there aren't enough domiciles to meet that demand. So what happens? People outbid one another, hence putting upward pressure on the cost of living there.

      There's really an easy fix for this: Move somewhere else. If her employer finds that they can't attract enough talent because nobody wants to live where their workplace is, then that situation will sort itself out naturally. However in choosing the living situation that she did, she created that mess for herself.

    6. Re:And this is...news? by Daemonik · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The problem is she wants to live in THE most expensive place in the US.

      No the problem is that her former EMPLOYER wants her to work in the most expensive city in the US, and gives no fucks about how she makes that happen on what they want to pay.

    7. Re:And this is...news? by Daemonik · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Her complaint amounted to an admission that she couldn't find a job which would support her lifestyle choices.

      Lifestyle choices like eating regularly, living inside shelter with running water and electricity... how dare she think she's entitled to such things from a days wage!

    8. Re:And this is...news? by haruchai · · Score: 2, Insightful

      She lives 30 miles outside of San Francisco.

      " If her employer finds that they can't attract enough talent because nobody wants to live where their workplace is, then that situation will sort itself out naturally."

      So explain how millions of jobs got moved out to other countries. Was that because companies couldn't "attract enough talent"?

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    9. Re:And this is...news? by ooloorie · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No the problem is that her former EMPLOYER wants her to work in the most expensive city in the US

      Her employer doesn't want her to do anything, they are offering her a job and a salary. She has to decide whether she can make ends meet. If she got roommates and lived frugally, it would be easy for her to live on that salary even in the Bay Area. If she wants her own apartment and her own car, the salary isn't enough and the job isn't for her.

      and gives no fucks about how she makes that happen

      Correct. And they shouldn't give a fuck how she makes that happen because her bad financial decisions are not the employer's problem.

    10. Re:And this is...news? by alvinrod · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The job position likely doesn't provide enough value to justify paying the kind of wage necessary to live in San Francisco. The company should just move the customer service department to the mid-west or somewhere else where $8.15 per hour is a living wage.

    11. Re:And this is...news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You're championing tyranny of the (lazy, selfish, thieving) majority?

      No, I'm not championing it at all.

      I'm just saying it's what WILL happen. It's the natural result when people do not have a way to obtain basic needs and human dignity. It has happened again and again in history, and it's ignorant to assume we live in some kind of exception.

      Secure a basic level of living for all working people, or don't at your own peril.

    12. Re:And this is...news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      It's delusional assholes like you that are bringing this country down, not the people working for slave wages.

    13. Re:And this is...news? by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No the problem is that her former EMPLOYER wants her to work in the most expensive city in the US, and gives no fucks about how she makes that happen on what they want to pay.

      They offered her a job that's in that area, however they likely made no requirement that she live there. Likewise how she makes ends meet isn't their business, nor should it be. I'd personally be annoyed if my employer managed my finances.

    14. Re:And this is...news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I wonder when people will start to see that people that have a job, or those looking for a job, aren't lazy entitled people, because they aren't being paid enough to live with dignity.

      I always see the same things:
      Don't have a job? You are a lazy SOB taking the money I worked for! Get one of your own!
      Not making enough? You're stupid, and look for another job!

      Employment may be getting better, but under-employment is still a horrible problem.

    15. Re:And this is...news? by spire3661 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Correct. And they shouldn't give a fuck how she makes that happen because her bad financial decisions are not the employer's problem."

      I remember a time when businesses were considered SYMBIOTIC relationships between capital and labor. You are just an amoral person who doesn't understand this concept at all. Im not saying you are wrong, im saying you are an asshole, and the world would be better off if there were less people like you.

      --
      Good-bye
    16. Re:And this is...news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Welcome to the United States of "Fuck you I got mine" America. The most soulless country on the face of the planet.

    17. Re:And this is...news? by mspohr · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights (signed by US and most countries on earth) would beg to differ.

      http://www.un.org/en/universal...

      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    18. Re:And this is...news? by msauve · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Choosing to live in a high cost metropolitan area is a life choice. It is an analogy, not a straw man.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    19. Re:And this is...news? by ooloorie · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Im not saying you are wrong, im saying you are an asshole

      I'm a gay man who has wanted to live in SF for a couple of decades but never could afford it; that is, I could actually have paid for it out of my salary, but it would have cut sharply into my retirement savings, so I didn't do it. SF has been an expensive place for many decades, and you either have to be rich or foolish to live there.

      The "assholes" are people like you and her who think that someone fresh out of college, with no marketable skills, somehow deserves their own apartment in San Francisco without roommates. Screw you and your selfish greed.

    20. Re:And this is...news? by beelsebob · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Her employer doesn't want her to do anything, they are offering her a job and a salary. She has to decide whether she can make ends meet. If she got roommates and lived frugally, it would be easy for her to live on that salary even in the Bay Area. If she wants her own apartment and her own car, the salary isn't enough and the job isn't for her.

      Right, and when that salary is not enough to live, she has two options
      1. Encourage them to offer her a higher salary
      2. Find a different job.

      She was carrying out 1, she probably had started on 2. I don't see why she should have been expected to act differently.

    21. Re:And this is...news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      posting anon because...well, it's obvious who has all the mod points right now, and people are being voted down "flamebait: I don't agree with you but I can't form a rational rebuttal"...and I rather enjoy my karma score, thanksverymuch. But I can't help but respond to this bullshit.

      It is not the responsibility of an employer to ensure the employee is living within their means. They both entered a mutual agreement where the employee would work a certain amount of time at a certain task, and the employer would provide money in return. That is the symbiotic relationship you're looking for. It's fucking right there.

      In reality, you're ranting because you think "labor" somehow is owed more simply by virtue of...I'm not really sure, but it sounds like nothing more than simply "being labor". That's more a description of a leech than a symbiant. Talk about amoralism.

      If the employee feels they are not being paid adequately for their expenses, they have a lot of options for recourse: they can slouch off to match their effort to their perceived value; they can work harder to make themselves more valuable to the employer; they can find employment elsewhere; they can lower their expenses; they can (in California, at least, where TFA describes this situation) organize and strike; they can even post an open letter to the CEO. They just can't expect to do any of those things in a vacuum, because actions have consequences.

    22. Re:And this is...news? by myowntrueself · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'd like to eat regularly at Maxim's, shelter at the Ritz, bathe in Veen and use all the electricity I want. Since you think I'm entitled to that, are you going to pay for it?

      OMG is that what this person was asking for?? No wonder they got fired then.

      Oh wait? That isn't what they were asking for and you are egregiously making shit up in order to sound like you actually have a reasonable argument?

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    23. Re: And this is...news? by KGIII · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm not sure that's entirely accurate.

      I believe we're looking at a false dichotomy. Not all labor is equal. Should it be a living wage to work as a fry cook? Should it be a living wage to work in a convenience store? Or should they be in a position where they have to pool their resources and live more frugally than someone who makes more than that? Does everyone "deserve" to live in San Fransisco and expect to be paid a living wage there without having to pool resources and live frugally - even if they're a fry cook? Are there no consequences for poor choices? And no, not everyone has made poor choices - just not like everyone is in their situation through no fault of their own.

      Some people have shitty jobs because they've done stupid things. They now have to pool their resources and live frugally. Should I be able to have a nice apartment and the various accessories that we use today - on a convenience store salary?

      I can see a logical argument for both - but you didn't actually present that argument. You just insisted it was so.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    24. Re:And this is...news? by geoskd · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Stop working for shitty salaries in overpriced cities and the executives running these corporations will stop expecting people to ruin themselves in order to bloat the executive bonuses.

      When you're staring at the want ads, on line job sites, the newspaper jobs section and anything else you can think of to find a job because you graduated 5 months ago and you're still looking for something that pays more than minimum wage, you notice something very disturbing. There are literally thousands of job postings for minimum wage jobs, and almost no postings for anything that would be considered middle class or up (maybe 1 listing in 20). Just because we have low unemployment doesn't mean that underemployment isn't rampant as hell. Sure there are plenty of other places to work, but they all pay the same crap starvation wages. Starbucks still pays the same crappy wage so that those fortunate enough to have found a solid job don't have to pay too $4 for a latte (ohhhhh, never mind, they charge that much anyways). So, all of these employees on the bottom decide to collectively have themselves a strike. What would it accomplish? The powers that be just ride it out and wait 3 weeks. Those employees will be back, and willing to do absolutely anything because, as this person so ineloquently stated, no money, no eat.

      The basic trouble with the labor market, is that workers do not have the luxury of simply not engaging in the market if the terms are unfair. The employer can file chapter 11 and shut their doors, or can wait out a strike, or can simply fire the employee and get another one. In short, they have options. The employees however are stuck with the tyranny of having a stomach and an undeniable need to put food in it with shocking regularly. In short, they have no options.

      What happens at the negotiating table when one party A needs party B, but party B doesn't need party A? Party A gets hosed. The free market theory requires that all parties have the option not to take part if the deal is not in their best interest. With the labor market, that is not the case. Workers must earn money or die. Whether the employers know that when they set wages is irrelevant, as they take advantage of it to offer minimum wage jobs nonetheless.

      12.7% of American workers make less than $10 per hour. 51% of American workers make less than $14.50 per hour. That means that the average American employee will not earn more than $14.50 per hour until they are 40 years old.

      Since 1980, median individual income has risen from $20,500 per year to $27,000 per year, an annual increase of about 0.8% per year. Over that same period, inflation has averaged 3.37%. after 35 years of that, buying power is only 28% of what it used to be, and wages are only up 31%. This means that the total buying power of the median wage today is only 36% of the median buying power in 1980. In effect, wages have fallen to 1/3 of what they were in 1980. This is partly offset by a massive increase in the number of women who are working (2 income households), as well as a marked increase in the number of hours that individual employees are working.

      As if that wasn't enough, we are fast approaching a debt crisis, as our debt to GDP is quickly approaching the highest in American history. We have been giving out massive tax break to the wealthy for almost 40 years, and financing it by going into nati

      --
      I wish I had a good sig, but all the good ones are copyrighted
    25. Re:And this is...news? by ranton · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Her complaint amounted to an admission that she couldn't find a job which would support her lifestyle choices.

      Lifestyle choices like eating regularly, living inside shelter with running water and electricity... how dare she think she's entitled to such things from a days wage!

      Get your head out of the clouds. This woman was living in one of the most expensive areas in the country with no roommate and a minimum wage job and expected to make ends meet. That is ludicrous. In 2005 I was making only a couple dollars over minimum wage and had 4 roommates in a five bedroom townhouse. And this was in the Midwest over an hour from the nearest major city.

      I am a liberal supporter of Bernie Sanders, but even I don't think this woman's problems are caused by her employer. Moving to San Francisco with no savings and no social safety net from friends or family and no significant job lined up is objectively stupid. Not taking advantage of the likely dozens of apps that help you find roommates is almost just as bad.

      There is no sob story here. This is a naive and entitled kid who hopefully has learned something from the experience.

      --
      -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
    26. Re: And this is...news? by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Not all labor is equal. Should it be a living wage to work as a fry cook? Should it be a living wage to work in a convenience store?

      Yes. If you're highly paid person in San Fransisco and you expect to have a fry cook make you food or a convenience store clerk serve you a Slushee, then you also have to expect that those places are manned because it's worth the while of those providing the service to you. They're not going to drive two-hours one way to get to their reasonably-priced living accommodations.

      There is no reason, especially in the circumstances of rent inflation due to a concentration of highly paid people, why you should have to exploit people to get your low-priced burgers or Slim Jims.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    27. Re:And this is...news? by jcr · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "Slave wages" is an oxymoron. If you don't like what you're earning, then it's up to YOU to increase the value of your labor.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    28. Re: And this is...news? by L.+J.+Beauregard · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Should it be a living wage to work as a fry cook? Should it be a living wage to work in a convenience store?

      No one is saying that fry cooks should all live in McMansions. But if a fry cook is not worth enough to pay the minimum needed to maintain a single person in basic health and dignity, then it is not worth your while to have fry cooks.

      If you use a mule to do a job, you provide it with enough to sustain its life and health. If you use a machine, you keep it powered and in good repair. But if you use a man, it seems, it's perfectly OK to pay him a pittance and expect him to live on it.

      --
      Ooh, moderator points! Five more idjits go to Minus One Hell!
      Delendae sunt RIAA, MPAA et Windoze
    29. Re: And this is...news? by dgatwood · · Score: 3, Insightful

      She should have turned down the job cold. But like many new college grads, she knew what field she wanted to work in, and she took the only job she could find for a company that operated within that field, under the assumption that it would be easier to transfer internally to a job that wasn't beneath her skill level when one became available. That trick used to work well forty years ago. Nowadays, it is almost invariably a mistake. Unfortunately, schools don't teach that, because the people who teach in schools mostly haven't worked in industry for decades.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    30. Re: And this is...news? by mrchaotica · · Score: 5, Insightful

      We don't have enough gainful employment for everyone.

      That's an interesting point. In that case, there are only a few solutions:

      1. Overpaying for labor (i.e., the "living wage")
      2. Welfare
      3. Government make-work jobs (e.g. CCC)
      4. Letting people descend into homelessness and die in the street

      Given that most of the radical conservative types have been railing against #1 and #2 and (given their support for cuts in government spending) clearly reject #3 as an option... well, it's hard to believe anybody could be so heartless as to prefer option #4, but it's the only one left...

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    31. Re:And this is...news? by MightyMartian · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Not if you're a sociopath masking your pathology in a thin veneer of Libertarianism it isn't.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    32. Re:And this is...news? by Aighearach · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If they had dignity, they would still have it even if they were starving to death. They have shitty jobs because they have no dignity, and value money above self respect.

      And other people have the exact same job, and do have dignity, and do have self respect, and they have that job because they wanted it, not because they couldn't find where to stand for a bag of money to land on their head.

      I swear, man... I've been homeless, and if you go to a homeless shelter or soup kitchen very few of the people there have this sort of sense of entitlement. At least half the homeless are going to be fighting against this revolution if you nutters ever organize. ;)

      Read the "open letter." It is just a kid who grows up and finds out the world isn't fair and there are no free ponies, and an English degree isn't actually useful unless you want to teach English, and then she blames her employer. Guess what? Writers don't prepare to be writers by getting an English degree. Now, maybe she has a legit gripe against her HS career counselor. Somebody should have pointed it out. If you want to work in "media," you need an art degree, a computer degree, a drama degree, maybe even meteorology. If you want to be a writer... there is no degree for that, you have to "go out in the world and live" and then "find your voice." English degrees are for teachers. It is really that simple. The don't even start teaching how to write until the 4th year. An English degree doesn't even prepare you to be an editor. So she finds a crap job, and she's shocked she would have to work a year in her starting position before having any chance to transfer. A whole year, omg that is like so long because I'm still a kid! Except, a year is a really short time in a job. If you don't even want the job you're taking, they're not going to promise to move you into a better job. You need to prove yourself in the first position, not act entitled and show disdain for the actual position that they hired you for.

      And for the record, if you starve a pack of wolves and throw them a steak, the alpha pair will eat it, and everybody else will sit back crying. They teach that in a different department than English, though.

      What kind of idiot takes a full time job that would only pay 80% of their rent, without having moved as soon as they knew they were taking the job? I thought even English majors had to pass algebra, and this is just arithmetic! I'm sure there is a word problem for this. There is no irony in not having enough money for food. There is only arithmetic in it. When it gets the BART part, we find out the truth; she's still too spoiled to move to a part of the bay area that she can afford. She probably doesn't want to give up her free time to spend it commuting on a bus. Welcome to the most expensive part of the country, why did you expect to live there at the start of your career... with an English degree?

    33. Re: And this is...news? by dgatwood · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There are, indeed, much deeper problems, and the problems are that the minimum wage is still less than half what it should be, given the cost of living. San Francisco's minimum wage isn't even close to being a living wage. The proposed $15/hr minimum wage is barely enough in the South Bay, much less in SF. To illustrate, let me use Tennessee for comparison purposes. I'll show both rural and urban versions of Tennessee for maximum impact.

      TN minimum wage: $7.25/hr, $290.00/wk.
      After taxes: $239.72/wk.
      Minimal apartment (rural): $300/month, $75/wk
      Average commute: 7.5 miles each way, 15 miles round trip @ 25 MPG average = 0.6 gallons * $1.49/gal = 89.4 cents per day, $4.47/week
      Remaining money: $160.25/wk

      If you go with a city location in Tennessee, the apartment jumps to about $800/month,or $200/week. Remaining money is down to $35.25/week, which is just barely enough to survive, but it is possible to survive on minimum wage in Tennessee cities without sharing an apartment.

      Now contrast that with the Bay Area:

      CA minimum wage: $12.25/hr, $490/week
      After taxes: $381.41/week
      Minimal apartment: $1600/month, $400/week (unless you get really lucky and manage to find one of the tiny number of rent-controlled apartments out there)
      Average commute: 25 miles per day @ 25 MPG average = 1 gallon * $2.09/gal = $2.09 per day, $10.45/week
      Remaining money: -$29.04/wk

      So people making minimum wage in San Francisco, even with its $12.25 minimum wage have a substantially lower quality of life than people making $7.25 in Tennessee; it is actually plausible to have your own small apartment in rural Tennessee on minimum wage. It isn't even possible to pay for a basic studio apartment on minimum wage in San Francisco (again, unless you get lucky and find something under rent control with income restrictions, and these are few and far between).

      Worse, even if you double up in that Bay Area apartment, you still have only $170.96/week after taxes, shared apartment, and commuting. In an area where everything from food to electricity costs at least 20% more than in TN (and for electricity, up to 5x as much as in TN), you're in serious trouble if you're making only 7% more than somebody in TN making minimum wage.

      To calculate the minimum living wage, which I define as the level in which a Bay Area resident has the same standard of living as someone in Tennessee making the federal living wage, we can reverse that math. Assuming the average cost of goods is 20% more in California, you would need $192.30 ($160.25 * 1.2) per week after paying for a single apartment rent plus your typical commute cost to have a similar standard of living. $192.30 + $10.45 + $400 = $602.75 per week after taxes, which is a whopping $807.88 before taxes, or $20.20 per hour! So $12.25 per hour is nowhere close to a living wage. It is abject poverty.

      Basically, we need to bite the bullet, acknowledge that rent control doesn't work, and simultaneously eliminate rent control and raise the minimum wage for the entire Bay Area to at least $25/hour, adjusted annually for inflation. Not the $15 that has been proposed. $25. This will fix a lot of problems.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    34. Re: And this is...news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      There is no lazy selfish thieving majority. There is a majority of people being screwed out of just compensation for their work because of conditions created by greedy selfish employers who think the world owes them cheap labor.

      There's a reason the middle class is gone in this country. Better yet, there's a reason why it existed in the first place. That reason was that the people demanded it exist through fair wages and good benefits. They did this through laws and through organizing, because organizing labor is every bit as important as organizing capital. Of course the capitalists don't like that part because they still believe labor should be free or very cheap.

      So now we have a population of what seems by election results to be about 50 percent brainwashed idiots who vote against their own interests, which perpetuates this race to the bottom.

      It's not people voting for minimum wage increases that increase rents in these metro areas btw, for the very simple reason that the insane rents preceded that. Also, back when wages and productivity had an actual correlation, you really didn't have this problem even though you had more money in the hands of more people.

      What causes this is the redistribution of wealth from the workers to the rich and the resulting speculative behavior as people seek return on piles of cash and landowners seek a way to get at those piles of cash. The internet doesn't help of course as in years past you didn't have national and international companies buying up property to lease out. It wasn't practical. Now it is, so Americans with their pitiful wages relative to the pre-Reagan years are also competing with foreign speculators for housing in their own neighborhoods.

      To blame this on workers who want a fraction of what their parents had in terms of wage to shelter price ratio is just stupid, but I imagine it's what keeps non-rich people who believe these myths from killing themselves.

  2. Some perspective by alvinrod · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Why is anyone making barely above minimum wage trying to live in San Francisco, one of the most expensive cities in the U.S. without even getting a roommate to split the rent? Also, the low temperature doesn't get below freezing so there's no need to ever run a heater. Yes, that means you'll probably want an additional heavy blanket to sleep under, but you're not going to die.

    1. Re:Some perspective by Nemyst · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You can die from temperatures well above freezing, you know that right?

  3. Re:I would have fired her. by SvnLyrBrto · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Even if it's not in the employment agreement, California is an at-will state. You can be fired for not sounding cheerful enough when you greet your CEO in the elevator, if he so desires and is that petty.

    --
    Imagine all the people...
  4. Re:She deserved it by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What a crock. Sure you don't work for Yelp's HR department?

    Here's the post in question.

    --
    "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
  5. Re: I already posted this on another site.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'd bet she has a roommate. I looked at living in SF and my rent would be in the ballpark of $3k/mo for a small piece of shit. My salary would need to increase about 28% from where I live to offset the cost of living increase, which doesn't take into account the fact that my current state has no income tax.

  6. Yes you are by rsilvergun · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You're a human being. You're owed food, shelter and healthcare. Otherwise wtf is the point of civilization? Why shouldn't I just sell your organs on the open market or crack your skull open and feast on the goo? Stop acting like dog eat dog is just how it should be because you got yours (fuck me). We band together as a species to make life better for all of us. You're more vulnerable than you think you are. Wake up before it's too late.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Yes you are by aralin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You are not guaranteed your life or property either. You only get to keep your life, because I feel like to is to my advantage not to kill you. As you have made laws that guarantee I will starve and freeze on the street, because my skills are not useful anymore at this very moment, I have no incentive to obey any of the laws anymore. So I might just as well kill you, take your stuff and live few days longer.

      So while people are not guaranteed food, shelter and healthcare, it is in my best interest to convince them there is a reasonable chance they might survive, otherwise my own life is not very safe now, is it? It does not matter what laws there are. If the society is severely unfair for 80% of the participants, you will either have apartheid or you won't have a lawful society.

      So suck it and don't kill and starve people with your stupid attitude. Golden Rule, remember? If you want to live, that is.

      --
      If programs would be read like poetry, most programmers would be Vogons.
    2. Re:Yes you are by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1, Insightful

      So suck it and don't kill and starve people with your stupid attitude. Golden Rule, remember? If you want to live, that is.

      Even if it wasn't a moral imperative, it's basic common sense and an inevitability.

      With automation and the eternal quest for "productivity" and "efficiency" we just don't have enough work so that everybody can have a job. Nor should we expect everyone to work. Because there just isn't that much work that someone is willing to pay for anymore.

      If we're going to embrace this future, and our robotic corporate overlords, we're going to have to accept a much larger welfare state. Either that or find a way to severely reduce the population.

      Even if you think you embrace Ayn Rand and neoliberalism, and if you think you're going to be one of the successful ones because you're so clever and so talented and you work so hard, you really don't want to live in a place where you're wealthy and everyone around you is poor. You really don't. It's a shitty way to live.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
  7. Re:Medical Issue by orlanz · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The open door policies of ALL companies is bullshit. It doesn't mean what people think it means. The best it gets is, "We will openly listen and TRY to address your criticism." Most people think that also means the company won't be insulted or won't fire them or won't impact their career. This is false. Somewhere in that machine, there is a cog that will feel insulted and will seek redress. The open door just slaps a name on the offender. Someone who goes through that open door is really trying to help the company at their own expense. If they want something personal, they should choose someone they trust, and have a closed door conversation.

  8. Re:Disclosing your salary by rekoil · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Enforcing such a clause is illegal if your company is subject to the NRLA (hint: most US companies are): http://www.npr.org/2014/04/13/...

  9. Re:you have nobody but yourself to blame by pepsikid · · Score: 4, Insightful

    A lot of people (sock puppets?) seem to be making this the story of a brat who can't make good choices, but I see it as the story of how a young American worker's enthusiasm and determination got her ground into hamburger. It's a warning to other young would-be Yelp workers to steer clear lest they suffer too. That's the only way these soulless corporations will ever feel the sting and be forced to raise wages.

  10. Re:Take this job and... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Let's emphasize that Yelp is PAYING this insultingly low wage in such an expensive city.

    There are plenty of technical jobs in Silicon Valley that start off at $10 per hour — and plenty of people who take those jobs. Employers aren't going to raise their pay rates until they have difficulty finding people to fill those positions. For the kind of I.T. support work that I do, recruiters are offering $35 to $40 per hour to find people to work in southern Silicon Valley — San Jose, Santa Clara and Sunnyvale — because young hipsters can't commute more than 30 minutes away from San Francisco.

  11. Re:Whiplash et. al. Interesting moderation article by Cow+Jones · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Please be very careful when trying to "fix" moderation on Slashdot. This is one of the features that work reasonably well, compared to other sites. There's always room for improvement, but there are dozens of more rewarding fixes and changes than the moderation system.

    This site is already a technological anachronism; we stay for the comments and the discussion. If that breaks down because of half-assed fixes to the moderation system, it's good night.

    Just my 2 cents.

    --

    Ah, arrogance and stupidity, all in the same package. How efficient of you. -- Londo Mollari
  12. Re:Might be other reasons... by aralin · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Most companies can make up this type of bullshit reasons for most of their employees. If I search your work laptop and browsing history, I am guaranteed to find worse than that...

    --
    If programs would be read like poetry, most programmers would be Vogons.
  13. Re:Might be other reasons... by Shoten · · Score: 4, Insightful

    And I am sure it had nothing to do with her getting alcohol delivered to her while at work or bragging about making sexual jokes to the companies twitter account. It's either quite a coincidence or she knew she was in trouble and wrote the letter to try and make the company look worse.

    Wow...Bulleit bourbon, delivered to her at work. And she was supposedly poor?

    --

    For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
  14. Re:I already posted this on another site.... by tlambert · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I wont bother to check all your math, since you blew it in the first line: At $10/hr she would be making $20,400 per year gross, not $35K.

    I won't bother to read the rest of your posting, since you did not read mine.

    I said "nearly $10/hour over minimum wage". Federal minimum wage is currently $7.25/hour. That places her at *nearly* $10 + $7.25 /hour total, or *nearly * $17.25/hour. The actual amount if she took the job listed on Indeed.com would be $17/hour. Which is *nearly* $17.25/hour.

    You will notice that $17/hour * 40 hours/week * 52 week/year is precisely the figure I quoted.