And they've said the same of bosses they've had that were older than them. Lots of people complain about their bosses based on their personal interactions with them. Very few people take into account the over all picture. Mostly because individual employees are concerned mostly only with themselves and don't think much beyond that. In any case, age, soley, does not make good or bad management.
Age does play a factor, it can mean more experience for an older person or less experience for a younger person.
There's always exceptions to the rule, older people that are horrible bosses, younger people that are exceptional.
Then again, I had a boss that hired her younger brother (she was 21), he didn't show up to work, and she came through the drive thru line later that day (with him in the car), saying that he couldn't make it to work, then drove off.
I'm not disagreeing that anyone at any age can be awesome at management, just based on what I've seen I'm starting to think I won't get the opportunity.
Minors are only allowed to work a certain number of hours. Normally.
lol....normally.
That doesn't stop McDonalds from working a minor 12 hours a day 5 times a week, stupid *** ran me ragged.
Actually, that is illegal.
Federal law states that a minor cannot work more than 8 hours a day, not later than 10 P.M. on a school night, and not work overtime..period.
You should have reported them when it happened. There is that OSHA and Federal Law poster that has to be placed in plain sight at a "break room" that states all federal and applicable state laws. Even my firm has one, although we know the laws by heart, so we generally ignore it.
I'm not disagreeing that anyone at any age can be awesome at management, just based on what I've seen I'm starting to think I won't get the opportunity.
I don't know, there are some "people skills" that you don't learn until you have been at an entry-level position for a while (until you get promoted to senior-entry level position or whatever the next rung of the ladder is).
Working with younger folks on large scale projects at first I found bothersome. These kids in their min 20s barley knew how to put together a building, I mean they could tell you how but not actually do it. I quickly learned some of these construction/business management types are great at all the paper work and seeing the massive picture, managing time, people, assets. The may not be able to do what they know needs to be done but they know how to manage folks who do on very large scales. I have grown to respect the brain generation we have and they have learned to not be so soft as older guys in this line of work are often a bit rough around the edges.
Over all I really enjoy working with them, having 3 daughters my self it is like the sons I never had. The point I am trying to make here is age does mean something, we look at things differently, but I have found combining forces get everyone along faster and further then splitting ranks. It may be hard to see the big picture but if you look for it and try to understand it, you will find your self in the lane of advancement over others regardless of your field.
Before I left the McDonald's I worked at, the new owners of the store decided that they didn't want to hire minors anymore.
They can't use any equipment, they have to be out by a certain time, limiting their availability, and the paperwork to keep them hired was just too much.
Funny how an industry that was "designed for high school kids to get money" now won't even hire them.. interesting.
In any case It's illegal and I'm surprised the IRS didn't come back at you or the store for those practices unless they were paying you under the table or something.
It isn't IRS that would ping the company, it would be OSHA and DOL that pings the company.
I'm not disagreeing that anyone at any age can be awesome at management, just based on what I've seen I'm starting to think I won't get the opportunity.
I don't know, there are some "people skills" that you don't learn until you have been at an entry-level position for a while (until you get promoted to senior-entry level position or whatever the next rung of the ladder is).
It depends on the person. Like I said, always exceptions to the rule.
Experience in your specific job doesn't have as much to do with management as you might think. Unless this person is 50 and has 20 years in management and that's what you're talking about?
Management is a whole different beast in and of itself. There are poeople out there who have multitudes of experience in there field and are still terrible managers. As close to irreplacebable as you can get in a company and wouldn't let em manage a sinlge person beyond themselves.
You seem to be basing this off of your personal experiences and biases. Not only that you're not even willing to address your issues with anyone besides venting to others. I'd suggest you respectfully take your greivances to management, supply your own ideas and thoughts in a respectful and organized manner on how you think things can be improved for the staff and store on the whole. Show them that you're someone that is going to take the first step instead of just sitting back and showing up like a drone every day.
I'm not disagreeing that anyone at any age can be awesome at management, just based on what I've seen I'm starting to think I won't get the opportunity.
I don't know, there are some "people skills" that you don't learn until you have been at an entry-level position for a while (until you get promoted to senior-entry level position or whatever the next rung of the ladder is).
It depends on the person. Like I said, always exceptions to the rule.
It's not the rule though lol...
Your rule states that someone that is 46 is better than someone that is 45... You're rule would have all management in every company breaking 65...
Experience in your specific job doesn't have as much to do with management as you might think. Unless this person is 50 and has 20 years in management and that's what you're talking about?
Management is a whole different beast in and of itself. There are poeople out there who have multitudes of experience in there field and are still terrible managers. As close to irreplacebable as you can get in a company and wouldn't let em manage a sinlge person beyond themselves.
You seem to be basing this off of your personal experiences and biases. Not only that you're not even willing to address your issues with anyone besides venting to others. I'd suggest you respectfully take your greivances to management, supply your own ideas and thoughts in a respectful and organized manner on how you think things can be improved for the staff and store on the whole. Show them that you're someone that is going to take the first step instead of just sitting back and showing up like a drone every day.
You act like I haven't tried, that I just sit here going "oh boo hoo me, I can't do anything".
I have. No one listens. It's hard to go to management when they don't see there is a problem and just tell you to "do your job" and "don't cause any problems".
I'm sure several others have been in these shoes as well.
Kinda hard to try to change things when people won't let you try.
My own experience with younger managers: I was the younger manager :)
First key holder/shift manager at 19 and a full-time manager at 21. Most of the employees each shift were older than me. Some had issues with it, tested me, or whatever and others didn't have a problem with it. Age is not the primary variable (to me it should not even be considered) for a mangement position.
I'm not disagreeing that anyone at any age can be awesome at management, just based on what I've seen I'm starting to think I won't get the opportunity.
I don't know, there are some "people skills" that you don't learn until you have been at an entry-level position for a while (until you get promoted to senior-entry level position or whatever the next rung of the ladder is).
It depends on the person. Like I said, always exceptions to the rule.
It's not the rule though lol...
Your rule states that someone that is 46 is better than someone that is 45... You're rule would have all management in every company breaking 65...
My own experience with younger managers: I was the younger manager :)
First key holder/shift manager at 19 and a full-time manager at 21. Most of the employees each shift were older than me. Some had issues with it, tested me, or whatever and others didn't have a problem with it. Age is not the primary variable (to me it should not even be considered) for a mangement position.
Congrats to you, wish I could have worked with you, probably would have been awesome.
I've said before, age does affect experience, but it doesn't mean that younger people will always be bad and older always good.
I'm not disagreeing that anyone at any age can be awesome at management, just based on what I've seen I'm starting to think I won't get the opportunity.
I don't know, there are some "people skills" that you don't learn until you have been at an entry-level position for a while (until you get promoted to senior-entry level position or whatever the next rung of the ladder is).
It depends on the person. Like I said, always exceptions to the rule.
It's not the rule though lol... Your rule states that someone that is 46 is better than someone that is 45... You're rule would have all management in every company breaking 65...
...wait, what?
You're positing that the rule is age defines management capability. The higher the age the better the better qualified you are to manage and the exception to this rule is when someone that is younger ends up being the better manager (older worse).
This is your percived reality based on personal experience.
I'm not disagreeing that anyone at any age can be awesome at management, just based on what I've seen I'm starting to think I won't get the opportunity.
I don't know, there are some "people skills" that you don't learn until you have been at an entry-level position for a while (until you get promoted to senior-entry level position or whatever the next rung of the ladder is).
It depends on the person. Like I said, always exceptions to the rule.
It's not the rule though lol... Your rule states that someone that is 46 is better than someone that is 45... You're rule would have all management in every company breaking 65...
...wait, what?
You're positing that the rule is age defines management capability. The higher the age the better the better qualified you are to manage and the exception to this rule is when someone that is younger ends up being the better manager (older worse).
This is your percived reality based on personal experience.
I'm not disagreeing that anyone at any age can be awesome at management, just based on what I've seen I'm starting to think I won't get the opportunity.
I don't know, there are some "people skills" that you don't learn until you have been at an entry-level position for a while (until you get promoted to senior-entry level position or whatever the next rung of the ladder is).
It depends on the person. Like I said, always exceptions to the rule.
It's not the rule though lol... Your rule states that someone that is 46 is better than someone that is 45... You're rule would have all management in every company breaking 65...
...wait, what?
You're positing that the rule is age defines management capability. The higher the age the better the better qualified you are to manage and the exception to this rule is when someone that is younger ends up being the better manager (older worse). This is your percived reality based on personal experience.
Experience in your specific job doesn't have as much to do with management as you might think. Unless this person is 50 and has 20 years in management and that's what you're talking about? Management is a whole different beast in and of itself. There are poeople out there who have multitudes of experience in there field and are still terrible managers. As close to irreplacebable as you can get in a company and wouldn't let em manage a sinlge person beyond themselves. You seem to be basing this off of your personal experiences and biases. Not only that you're not even willing to address your issues with anyone besides venting to others. I'd suggest you respectfully take your greivances to management, supply your own ideas and thoughts in a respectful and organized manner on how you think things can be improved for the staff and store on the whole. Show them that you're someone that is going to take the first step instead of just sitting back and showing up like a drone every day.
You act like I haven't tried, that I just sit here going "oh boo hoo me, I can't do anything". I have. No one listens. It's hard to go to management when they don't see there is a problem and just tell you to "do your job" and "don't cause any problems". I'm sure several others have been in these shoes as well. Kinda hard to try to change things when people won't let you try.
/sigh, I never said that "THIS IS TRUTH, ACCEPT IT". Tendency seems like a more appropriate term for this, whereas it's not always the case. Anyone can be a good manager. Little experience, lots of experience. Depends on the person. Tendency shows that if you have someone that has 10 years experience on someone's 1, 10 years might be better. Not always the case, but just might.
One time the cashier at a local candy store explained they had ran out a particular kind of candy I was looking for...
so I made a frown face and said "you're fired!"
the shocked and horrified expression on her face told me that it took her a minute or two to realize I didn't actually have the power to fire her and she still had her job....
You take things too literally sometimes, you know...
I was unaware that healthy debate was not meant to be taken literally. Unless of course you're purposefully being sarcastic or whatnot.
Beyond that, it's not only that she claimed the rule/exception, it's that all of her previous posts pointed towards her position that that was the case. I should have interpreted all that differently?
Wealthy suggest a training wage under minimum wage to "stimulate" hiring and training of long term unemployed...
The real issue on bottom line profits are that consumer spending is flat-lined. This leads to business growing profits on the backs of employees with lower wages, less or no benefits, and only offering part time work. If a business is suffering from a lack of business caused by a lack of consumer spending, lowering the wage to $4 (training wage) an hour won't create any more jobs because business still isn't experience any increase in consumer spending. Where is the money coming from to hire new workers ? Instead business would just exploit this, replacing good paying existing jobs with lower paying jobs to streamline their profit margin. On the flip side, if the basic cost of living is $14 an hour for a single person working a full-time job as it is in most states, raising the minimum wage to anything less than this basic cost of living will also result in only negative consequences, ie. jobs cuts, reducing of hours, higher consumer prices, because still there is no increase in consumer spending for business to afford that. It is only after wage is higher than the basic cost of living that there would be an increase in business through consumer spending which could offset such a raise in wage. To be clear .... if it costs $14 an hour working a full-time job just for the basics in cost of living, they can raise the wage to $13 an hour and the only business that will benefit from that wage increase are landlords, banks, utility companies, transportation, and the tax man. The rest of the businesses out there are SOL because consumers still won't have one penny to spend stimulating the economy. This issue at hand is not an issue of class inequality, ie. rich vs. poor, it is an issue of inequality in wage vs. cost of living. Minimum wage is as counter-productive as the cost of living and they have no problem with the cost of living rising every year. They have allowed this problem to occur and have let it get out of hand. You can't fix this with education so everyone has a college degree because the payoff on that after a person pays off the debt of that education and is actually contributing to economy growth won't have results for decades. You also can't fix this problem with subsidies and bailouts, the ONLY solution is for wage to be higher than the cost of living so the result is massive consumer spending and real economic growth.
Reason for using "~" is these figures (%) change quarterly and this is for general ideal.
The US government spends (Not including Medical, since my personal belief is everyone should have medical care) ~2.6% of the ~$16 Trillion (2.1% GDP impoverish family medical welfare, to make a point) ~416 Billion/yr (2.6%) & 336 Billion/yr. (2.1%). Also which is not listed under welfare spending but rather "Agriculture" spending are the food stamp programs which amount to ~80 billion/yr. totaling ~832 Billion/yr.
The poverty guidelines in the US. are roughly $12k/yr. Single +4k/yr. per additional household member. This is the equivalent to having a part time job(32 hours a week) with no benefits at minimum wage. Consider ~15% of the US lives in poverty, with a population of 314 Million, nearly 47 million people live in poverty which in turn creates the need and dependency of social welfare. 22% of these citizens are children who have no recourse for their situation. Leaving ~36.5 million working age Americans in the pits - dependency.The government spends nearly $17-18k/yr. per individual person in poverty. This does not include tax subsidies for programs like EIC which pays out about 1.2 Billion a year to low income families with dependent children. This is small dent in the big picture. Link for reading.
Getting to the point, if we where to take the over 22k/yr. spent in welfare services and divert them into a living wage subsidy supporting a higher base minimum wage of nearly 2x ($14.5) the current minimum wage for persons who are working age (18+) [maybe keep lower minimum wage($7.25) for ages 15-17 who are restricted to part time and often live as a dependent]. we would in turn begin to nullify the need for such large social welfare. as this wage would create independent earning as well as stimulate economic growth via increased purchasing power.
Why should this be a government subsidy? Look, the government is already paying this money out. We know we can not trust corporate America to care for the well being of their country and those who work for them. A subsidy would both benefit employees and lesson the bottom-line of the employer.
I truly feel the original intent of social welfare has long been lost to the stepping stone it was meant to be. It has become a crutch for generational poverty and a means to create social apathy and dependency in the impoverished and working class of America.
If we can start to take the right steps now on matters like this as well as clean up some other issues in our country and government we may be able to set forth a bright and lucrative future for our children.