Occupation
Questions 11-20
Feel free to browse the following questions, some of which may
still await answers. You can then post an answer or counter an answer
that has already been posted. Please read the
guidelines for answering questions
before making a posting.
Previous 10 this topic
area 
Next 10 this topic area
THE
QUESTION:
O20: To General Motors workers: Why did you strike? It seems
you make a good buck. Some might even say you're overpaid. Why do you
feel GM owes you more than that? If GM is such a bad employer, why
didn't you just quit?
POSTED AUG. 2, 1998
Kevin T.
<kthompso@cei.net>,
Little Rock, AR
ANSWER 1:
I read quite a bit about the recent strike. Basically,
money was an issue, but benefits was the main issue (health benefits
in particular). I find it interesting that while a company sets
record profits, has rising stock profits and pays its upper
management ever-increasing sums, the company will not raise the pay
of the workers and wants to cut benefits. In the '80s , GM asked the
unions to take cuts in pay and benefits because "We're in it
together." In the '90s that's been forgotten. If a company is making
more and more money, who should benefit, the stockholders? Or the
workers, too?
POSTED SEPT. 19, 1998
Linda L., Gainesville, FL
FURTHER NOTICE:
Whenever any manufacturing company wants to cut costs, the
easiest and quickest way is to cut labor. And most of the time it is
the blue-collar workers who get the pink slip first. Some may say
that union workers are overpaid, but are there not white-collar
workers overpaid as well? Somehow, many people feel that blue-collar
work is less valuable than white-collar work. Bob Eaton and his crew
received approximately $62 million as a result of the merger of
Chrysler and Daimler Benz. Is their work worth this much money? Many
white collars feel they should not pay someone $40,000 a year to put
lugnuts on a car, but who will do it for less? Why should a person be
penalized by making less money because they chose to work with their
hands? The auto workers in Detroit are also always in fear of their
jobs moving to Mexico. If you were in danger of losing your job to a
foreign country, wouldn't you strike too? You will hear lots of talk
about how union workers will finish an eight-hour batch job in four
hours and still get paid for eight. There is also lots of talk about
how union workers are not as productive as non-union, and that GM is
forced to keep bad employees. This is all a nice sob story, but GM
signed the contract, and now they are unhappy with their decision.
These are a few of the reasons the strike happened.
POSTED SEPT. 23, 1998
P.B., white male, white collar, Detroit, MI
To answer
BACK TO TOP
THE QUESTION:
O19: I recently attended the county fair and was astounded at
the general look of apathy and drug addiction of the carnival
workers. What makes them tick? Where do they come from? Why do they
look this way?
POSTED JULY 28, 1998
Tom W., white male, Wheaton, IL
ANSWER 1:
Carnival work, like many other dangerous, low-skilled,
dead-end jobs, attracts people who can not or will not work at safer,
more traditional tasks. They seek employment that requires little
loyalty or responsibility, no commitment beyond the next paycheck,
plenty of "off-time" for pursuing hedonistic pleasures (like drugs)
and, most importantly, no urinalysis. I hire people to do exactly
this type of work (although not at a carnival) and I hire ex-cons,
carnies and others who fit your description, and require them to do
life-threatening tasks at just a little above minimum wage. It always
amazed me how upset some of these men got when I had to fire them for
non-performance or lack of attendance, until I realized we were one
of the few employers in town who didn't require pre-employment and
random drug-screening! I later had several employees confirm this
suspicion.
POSTED AUG. 31, 1998
B.J., shop foreman, Temple, TX
To answer
BACK TO TOP
THE QUESTION:
O18: I have worked behind a desk at a dead-end job, at the
same company, for the last eight years. I am completely envious of
people who "love their work," but at 30 feel it may be too late to
switch career paths and still be successful. How do I begin my life
over?
POSTED JULY 27, 1998
Rob H., 30
<rcholt@aol.com>,
Charleston, SC
ANSWER 1:
Please don't be so despairing. There are many things you
can do to address your problem. Many people are afflicted by the "I
don't know what I want to do because I don't know what there is to
want to do" syndrome. Enroll in a vocational testing program that
includes some counseling and guidance. Registering in some
leisure-oriented classes could help you discover something that
interests you that might lead to new employment (also, you might meet
others who have already done this and can help you). Check out the
book What Color is Your Parachute?, almost always available at
your public library. In the end, you're better off working in
something you like, even if it doesn't pay quite as well, than to
take a much higher paying job that you will come to hate.
POSTED AUG. 18, 1998
John; 48, white
<voiceman@elecrotex.com>,
Houston, TX
FURTHER NOTICE:
Too late to change careers at 30? I don't think so. People
do it and are doing it more all the time. Gone are the days of
working for the same company for 50 years and retiring. I spent 15
years in a management job working 60 to 80 hours a week and killing
myself. At 35 I decided to do something I always wanted to do and
become a police officer. Been at it for five years now, and I am one
of those who now "loves their job." It can be done, you can do it.
Thirty is nowhere near too late to change, if that's what you truly
want to do.
POSTED SEPT. 29, 1998
Wayne, white male
<bobobro@usa.net>,
Houston, TX
FURTHER NOTICE 2:
It's never too late to change careers. Develop or find a
hobby you enjoy - it'll give you diversity, and who knows? Perhaps
down the road you'll be able to turn it into your own business. Take
a course completely different from your job. It'll give you a new
perspective and you could add it to your resume. In case you're laid
off or fired, you have a few courses to your credit, which looks good
to prospective employers.
POSTED OCT. 12, 1998
Skater, NJ
To answer
BACK TO TOP
THE QUESTION:
O17: Lately when I am shopping for groceries or anything else,
I have noticed that I rarely get a "thank you" from the cashier for
my purchase. It's "Have a good day" (even in the late evening). Why
is this? I usually tell the clerk "thank you" when I receive my
change.
POSTED JULY 1998
Patrick
<pfall1@aol.com>
ANSWER 1:
I know this sounds terrible, but most supermarket cashiers
don't say "Thank you" because they are doing a mind-numbing job for
terrible pay, in addition to the fact they get all the blame if the
till or credit-card reader goes wrong. They aren't in the mood for
thanking anyone. Also, it's company policy to say "Have a nice day"
for some reason, but I don't know why this is.
POSTED FEB. 24, 1999
Flora, female
<hert0759@sable.ox.ac.uk>,
Oxford , England
FURTHER NOTICE:
I think the lack of thank-yous is another symptom of the
"disease" that has led to all those tip jars that have sprung up at
Dunkin' Donuts, ice cream parlors, etc. Somehow the customer should
be very grateful that the person behind the counter has performed 12
seconds of work and collected $1.25 for some flavored water. In my
part of the country, stores have a hard time filling jobs, so maybe
the employees know they won't get fired for not going the extra step
cheerfully.
POSTED FEB. 25, 1999
B. Hale,
<halehart@aol.com>
Hartford , CT
FURTHER NOTICE 2:
To Flora: I am unfamiliar with England and how grocery
stores are run, but in the United States there is an issue with
cashiers being overly polite. Recently a chain of stores was taken to
court because it required its cashiers to be very friendly, and
apparently many customers have taken this as sexual advances and have
tried to "hit" on the employees. I am from Canada, though, and one
thing I have noticed in America is that people are far less polite to
the service industry. For example, in a coffee place like Starbucks
in Canada, a customer would say "I'd like a Mocha, please" or words
to that effect. But in the States, the customer is more likely to say
"Give me a Mocha," which I think is very rude.
POSTED FEB. 25, 1999
D. Meerkat, white male, 26, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
To answer
BACK TO TOP
THE QUESTION:
O16: Why do some bankers wear suspenders and belts at the same
time? For being efficient people, that seems quite redundant.
POSTED JULY 15, 1998
Russ "the accountant", Troy, MI
ANSWER 1:
The differences in American English and British English
caused me some confusion when I read this question.The picture that
popped into my mind was quite different from the one that the
respondent intended. In the United Kingdom, braces hold up your
trousers (not pants - they go underneath) - women hold up their
stockings with suspenders (garter belts to you). There is an
expression, "belt and braces," meaning to make doubly sure.
POSTED NOV. 13, 1998
C.J., 40, Portsmouth, UK
To answer
BACK TO TOP
THE QUESTION:
O15: Which occupations have the highest and lowest divorce
rates, and why?
POSTED JUNE 28, 1998
Steve S., 46, white, Omaha, NE
ANSWER 1:
Occupations with the lowest divorce rates tend to be
lower-paying, causing the couples to have to work together for
survival purposes, whereas higher-paying occupations allow the
partner to walk out if desired. Hence, the more money, the more
choices in lifestyles. As a clerical worker, I observe couples
working side by side earning the household income. Divorce is almost
unheard of in my profession.
POSTED JULY 26, 1998
Christopher D., 22
<alphacentuari@mindspring.com
>, Arlington, TX
FURTHER NOTICE:
Any job that offers odd hours and places the individual in
regular proximity to the opposite sex has the potential to be a
problem for someone who is married. Throw in a power image, coupled
with having to deal with people who are vulnerable, and the formula
for marital disaster increases. Bartenders and police officers are
high on the risk list, as are instructors engaged in specialized
endeavors. Being able to travel away from home on a regular basis can
also be the kiss of death to an otherwise happy marriage.
POSTED SEPT. 11, 1998
F.R., 53 <FR3FR3@aol.com>,
Simi Valley, CA
To answer
BACK TO TOP
THE QUESTION:
O14: To exotic dancers, as well as to escorts working for an
agency: What percentage of the money paid by a client (excluding
tips) goes to the "house," and what percentage goes to the
individual?
POSTED JUNE 25, 1998
Chris S., Detroit, MI
ANSWER 1:
At the club where I danced, the house took a base fee of
$20 for each shift we worked, plus a percentage of earnings that
averaged out to an additional 10 percent of the earnings they were
aware of. Often, not all table dances are counted or reported. I
usually took home $200 after paying the club anywhere from $20 to
$50.
POSTED AUG. 4, 1998
J.P., 20, female, San Antonio, TX
FURTHER NOTICE:
I worked as an exotic dancer about four years ago. At that
time, we tipped the D.J. 10 percent, the bar $5, the bouncer $3 and
the house mom $5. The house mom is a woman who works the girls'
dressing room. She supplies the girls with makeup, perfume,
deodorant, body powder, etc., as well as sets up the schedules. The
rest was ours to keep. On an average night, I could make about $250,
but it could range from $80 to $450 per night. After tip-out, the
rest was ours to keep.
POSTED AUG. 5, 1998
T.S., 28, white female, Fulton, GA
To answer
BACK TO TOP
THE QUESTION:
O13: Is it OK for a college professor to date a student who
attends the same school but is not directly associated with the
professor's academic curriculum?
POSTED JUNE 24, 1998
J.T., Newark, NJ
ANSWER 1:
I would guess it is not OK, because it would be fairly
impossible to determine for sure that a student would never be in
that professor's curriculum. Many students change programs often,
even when only a semester away from finishing the program they are
in.
POSTED JULY 24, 1998
Tara, 24
<tarakennedy@yahoo.com>,
Washington, DC
FURTHER NOTICE:
It seems inappropriate for a college professor to date any
student because the power relationships are not equal. Even if the
student is in another field, the professor can encounter colleagues
who teach the student and influence them in committees, for
promotion, research time, etc. So I say no, and I have been a
university professor for 25 years.
POSTED AUG. 10, 1998
Adele M., 61, college professor
<mccollum@saturn.montclair.edu>,
Upper Montclair, NJ
FURTHER NOTICE 2:
It's OK as long as the student isn't in the professor's
class. The "power relationships" referred to by the previous
respondent are seldom equal in any personal pairing, and so are not
unique to the student/professor issue. More to the point is the issue
of the abuse of "power," which is relevant in any personal situation.
The idea that "worldly" professors may take advantage of
"impressionable" students ignores the fact that the same issue is
totally applicable to relationships outside academia, and is seldom
addressed.
POSTED AUG. 14, 1998
Sam D., Knoxville, TN
FURTHER NOTICE 3:
I'd like to second Adele's comment. The tremendous
differences in access to influence and power between an undergraduate
and a professor would make a relationship between the two a bad idea
on any campus. Should the relationship sour, the student risks the
unfair advantages the professor has on making or influencing
decisions that could have lasting affects on the student's grades
and/or career. The professor's risks may be even greater, given the
student's potential abuse of grievance systems that have been
established for his or her own protection. False charges of abuse of
power can be as harmful to a faculty member's reputation and career
as its actual abuse can be to a student. In the best of
circumstances, the professor still risks losing the respect of a
majority of colleagues who identify such relationships as
irresponsible. It is better to act prudently and avoid disaster -
unless a high degree of risk (and a willingness to deal with dire
consequences) is an essential part of romance.
POSTED AUG. 14, 1998
John, 39, professor
<john@hoopes.com>,
Lawrence, KS
FURTHER NOTICE 4:
I've always wondered about that as well, and my question
is this: Does that mean that if a professor is in a relationship with
someone, his girlfriend should not be allowed to enroll as a student
in his school? That can't be right. In any case, I don't think you
can make any hard and fast rules when it comes to matters of the
heart. It really depends on the two people involved. (My opinion's
not popular, I know.)
POSTED SEPT. 28, 1998
Jessica N, female, 26
<jessica@pioneeris,net>,
New York , NY
FURTHER NOTICE 5:
As a college student, I say no, it is not OK. It would
raise several problems. Could such a professor be influenced by an
attractive student and give a better grade? Also, anyone who had a
class with the professor would be thinking to themselves - was the
teacher flirting with me when he wanted me to stay after, etc.? At my
college, we pride ourselves on the closeness between students and
faculty. Unprofessional relationships between students and professors
should not happen because this would hurt the freedom both sides
currently feel. A good question would be, Why would a professor want
to date a person who is probably much younger than them? Or why would
a student want to date someone so much older and with so much more
life experience?
POSTED DEC. 9, 1998
Julie H., 19, Caucasian female
To answer
BACK TO TOP
THE QUESTION:
O12: What are people's opinions about midwives? Do you believe
they attend only home births? Don't have formal educations? Only
attend poor women?
POSTED JUNE 18, 1998
Bobbie M., 37, CNM
<bjmcnm@primary.net>,
St. Louis, MO
ANSWER 1:
My (uneducated) opinion of midwives is that they are a
more intimate, personal, affordable alternative to a hospital birth.
I have one acquaintance who used a midwife for her birth out of
personal choice (not economic), and was very happy with the
experience. I was under the impression that midwives had to be held
up to some sort of licensing procedure. I don't know why people would
think of them as "uneducated." Also, living in the West, perhaps I
have the bias of seeing midwifery as an "enlightened" or "natural"
alternative to conventional medicine.
POSTED JULY 20, 1998
Amber, 26, Las Vegas, NV
FURTHER NOTICE:
I didn't even know there were still midwives until I was
pregnant the first time (in 1984). I went to my private physician,
who diagnosed me as pregnant, and he said: "Well, you don't have any
health problems or anything that will lead to complications. You can
go down the hall to our midwifery practice and register as a patient
there." I did as told and had a great experience. Both my children
were delivered by midwives in hospitals (one in Seattle and one in
Oakland). Through experiences like this, ordinary people like me are
learning more about midwives. And yes, my insurance covered it (and
gladly, since it was cheaper than the M.D.).
POSTED AUG. 4, 1998
A & K's mom, 38, Richmond, CA
FURTHER NOTICE 2:
I have attended two birth center births and one hospital
birth involving midwives (I was the videographer in the birth center
births). The midwives were educated, had several forms of
certification, continually go to new classes as new information or
methods come about, and are some of the most amazing women I have
ever met. The birth experiences at the birth centers were remarkable
in that, while the well-being of the baby and the mother were never
for one moment forgotten, the midwives explain and permit the parents
to have so many choices that I rarely hear are permitted in
"traditional" hospital births. The flexibility and consideration
these women showed the families and friends, while always focusing on
the well-being of mother and child, was wonderful and astounding.
POSTED OCT. 15, 1998
Midori, female
<midorichan1@juno.com>,
Orlando, FL
To answer
BACK TO TOP
THE QUESTION:
O11: Why are most employers these days more interested in the
bottom line, even to the point of treating employees poorly? Don't
they want life-long employees? (Director's note: Y? would prefer that
an employer, or someone at a high level of management, as opposed to
an employee, answer this question.)
POSTED JUNE 17, 1998
N.M., Hagerstown, MD
ANSWER 1:
Many companies do not encourage life-long employees, as
high-seniority employees command higher wages. Labor cost is the most
expensive component in any business and as such the desire to keep
labor cost low precedes the need for loyal employees.
POSTED JULY 17, 1998
GDVG, 40
<Sabadelle@yahoo.com>,
Sacramento, CA
FURTHER NOTICE:
As a former business owner with an advanced degree in
economics, I can provide at least one answer that comes from both
perspectives. Employers are more interested in the bottom line
because that is the point of being in business. I did not start a
business and lose hair, sleep and occasionally money in order to
provide someone else with a job. My point was to make money for
myself. The fact that I was able to provide jobs for others was a
corollary, and I did my best to make their jobs as enjoyable and
secure as possible (because the result was that I made more money
with experienced, well-trained, happy employees). It was not the
point of my business. If my business had ever become a money loser, I
would have closed it. I would have felt bad for my staff, and I would
have helped them find other employment, but I certainly would not
have gone bankrupt to protect their jobs.
POSTED JULY 28, 1998
Roger
<xsiroger@ix.netcom.com>,
San Francisco, CA
FURTHER NOTICE 2:
Based on a handful of MBA courses and a couple decades of
observation, one suspects it's an inevitable distortion of
capitalism. We started out being little capitalists and making our
adequate profits, even great big adequate profits. We then discovered
the economies of scale and the advantage$ of corporate leverage. For
the most part it then became profitable to muscle out the
less-competitive competition, and this seems to have become a primary
corporate strategy. We increasingly have a pond with fewer, larger
and hungrier fish in it. Our survival is judged by performance and
profit alone, and the bottom line becomes the final arbiter. Anything
that increases (short-term) profit and efficiency is de facto good,
otherwise forget it. I once knew a fellow who was hired by a
corporation and was told they had hired two people for the one
position, and in two months one of them would be gone. One suspects
the guy who got the job worked his buns off and is more likely to
support the ethic than my acquaintance, who was looking for work.
POSTED AUG. 9, 1998
Al <alarose@ncwc.edu>,
Rocky Mount, NC
FURTHER NOTICE 3:
Director's Note: Y? sought an answer from Marina v.N.
Whitman, professor of business administration and public policy at
the University of Michigan and a former member of the President's
Council of Economic Advisers. She is author of the just-published
book New World, New Rules: The Changing Role of the American
Corporation (Harvard Business School Press, 1999). Here is her
response:
"The answer to N.M.'s question has two parts: Global competition
and more demanding shareholders.
Back in the "good old days" of the 1950s and '60s, no other
country could anywhere near match the United States in efficiency and
technology, and American companies had no effective competition from
anywhere else in the world. This dominance meant high earnings
-profit rates in those days were much higher than they have ever been
since. It also enabled those who ran the companies to spread the
gains from market power around, not only in the form of lavish perks
and excess management layers, but also as high pay and generous
benfits to rank-and-file workers. And, because they didn't have to
worry about always running a tight ship, lifetime jobs were secure.
Today, many countries can compete effectively with us, and intense
global competition is pressuring U.S. companies to increase
efficiency and cut costs in order to survive and thrive. This
competition gives consumers lower prices, better quality and more
choice, and has also made it possible for the United States to
experience both inflation and unemployment at lower levels than we've
seen in decades. But cost-cutting may mean laying off people or
skinnying-down generous benefits, both of which threaten people's
sense of economic security.
Along with more intense competition, American employers are
feeling presure from more aggressive shareholders. Now that more than
half the stock of large firms is held by institutional investors -
mainly mutual funds and pension funds - companies whose profits don't
measure up to expectations are likely to find themselves threatened
with forced merger, hostile takeover or a change in top management.
None of this means employers want to treat employees poorly. In
fact, the "high-performance workplace" instituted by many of the most
successful companies gives employees more responsibility and freedom
to make decisions, both of which require a positive attitude. And
many employers are trying to improve working conditions with such
innovations as flextime or on-site daycare. But the old mutual
commitment of cradle-to-grave loyalty is gone; not only are employers
less likely to guarantee lifetime jobs, but most young people today
neither expect nor want them."
POSTED FEB. 26, 1999
To answer
BACK TO TOP