Muh Muh Muh My Corona (virus)

My friend, I would gladly do that, and “hatch” some schemes with my “off time”!

 

People who work for tips get very good at doing financial computations in their heads. The restaurant workers who were predominately the subject of the entirely anecdotal evidence that added UI kept folks from returning to work were computing what their earnings would be under the varying limits on capacity placed on restaurants as they reopened over the late spring and summer. It wasn't until June that even outdoor dining was allowed in Mass. If indoor dining was capped at even 50 percent capacity, that's a significant dropoff in tips and therefore income in a trade not known for high pay.

 

That's more than I made in my final year of working at a newspaper. And yes, I reevaluated and got the hell out.

 

I had the same thought.

 

I’m not aware of any reason why that wouldn’t work, but that is not currently the plan and officials would probably discourage it

 

People being able to live their lives without selling half of it to some shitty, low-paying job would be awesome. If you want people to work for you, make it worth it

 

You also lose out on health insurance, which doesn't matter to many in the restaurant industry because they figure they'll be dead before they get seriously ill.

 

Whatever you think of this package or that package, here's one of several ticking time bombs

Lawmakers are working this week to reach agreement on a variety of divisive policy questions, including how to apportion aid to state and local governments, and a liability shield to grant legal immunity to firms over coronavirus-related lawsuits. A number of critical emergency aid programs are set to expire if Congress does not act, including unemployment benefits for more than 12 million people and a federal eviction moratorium.

 

Years ago, the outlet I worked for lost a handful of our writers to other sites that were frankly paying more and putting out better content. During our weekly editorial meeting, the site owner and EIC ranted about it, saying he was tired of being the site where people got their start and moved on as soon as they found a place elsewhere. Most of the editors murmured sympathetic things and offered headpats. I had a good relationship with him and felt like I could be honest if I stayed diplomatic about it. So I explained that at the first of the week, I looked at what I needed to do to meet my obligations as a contributing editor and columnist. Then I looked at what was on my plate in terms of other things I could write that week. The work that kept the lights on and put kibble in the bowl came first, then the stuff I did that might not pay as well or at all would happen as I had time for it.

"You insist on being paid!" He couched this as an accusation.

Yeah, that's how it works.

"You're supposed to do this because you love it!"

What I didn't say was: "The reality is the people churning out content (that I later found out he was selling as "syndicated packages" to bloggers) are also working in cubicle farms, warehouses, etc. to make ends meet. We don't have trust funds, degrees from McGill, and wealthy spouses with whom we take off on months-long vacations while the help keeps the website going."

Then he said, "I want to be the destination, not a starting point."

At that point, I told him he would be better off to have a smaller masthead and pay his editorial staff a living wage.

No. That couldn't be it.

 

Did you see the recent “meme” about how teachers don’t “teach for the income, they teach for the outcome”? Then many re-circulated an edited version “inserting” language about how they deserve a living wage.

It was a hoot!

 

There are lots of things that would be awesome if not for that pesky thing called "reality."