the Dirty Jobs guy just makes too much sense sometimes

Trans_Maro wrote: We've all had the crap jobs at one time or another.

Some of the jobs are more literal than others- I shoveled sheep E36 M3 as a teenager. The stepping stone of that job really stunk.

(then to McD, a resort restaurant, a few summer intern jobs, then +20 years as an engineer)

It is interesting that, as a society, we value thinking work over physical work- in the percentage of difference as we do. And don't kid yourself- this isn't new what so ever. Since the dawn of time, laborers got scraps where as the architects and lawyers and designers got the riches. The only realistic time that labor has gotten more was from about 1900 to the 1970's or so. Which is the dawn to the peak of labor unions. And most of us has been taught that labor unions are bad by definition. Which isn't true. They got bad thanks to greed.

The other interesting note- how much turnover costs companies. There was an article in the past few years about that, where it cost more to train cheap labor than it does to just pay it. People like to glorify Henry Ford and his $5/day pay as it started the middle class. While some of that is true, the REASON is to stop the turnover rate of his labor.

Wally wrote:

JohnRW1621 wrote: I have a neice's boyfriend (expected fiance) who has gone this route. He is the young guy working on the big Electric Co. truck. The kid is knocking down big cash for his age. He is young enough and unconnected enough that he is signing up for any disaster travel that he can get. Sure, that work is a lot of weird hours and odd conditions but it pays well.

Besides the money the disaster travel is a good experience. I learned a lot during different disasters as a driver and a dispatcher that now when things go wrong I do a much better job of keeping things working and during large scale disruptions coming up with plans to manage them and be able to adapt those plans if they aren't working well. If his company is like ours that likes to promote experienced people from with in doing that work and doing it well looks good on a resume when he wants a promotion.

i was talking to a coworker about the local power company the other day... this is a company that not only does power, but they also invest in and flat out buy a lot of other companies... they started out as a small privately owned local utility and became successful by hiring good hard working people that were willing to work- degrees and diplomas didn't matter as long as they were good at the job and willing to do the job... over the years, those original people worked their way up into management positions and made a pretty good living for themselves and they were able to send their kids off to college... some of those kids got jobs there after college and are now running the place... now they want you to have a full college degree for every job opening in the company- if you have a high school diploma or even a 2 year tech school degree they won't even talk to you unless you are related to someone in the company with a lot of pull... over the last few years, they have discovered that they are having a hard time finding people- not because there aren't people applying and willing to do the work, but because their standards are too high and they won't even consider those people. but they won't lower their standards, because apparently a college education is important to drive a boom truck and play with big power wires and stuff..

and they don't just hold those standards for their own operations- they push the smaller manufacturing companies that they are major stakeholders in to operate the same way, and some of those companies are having a hard time finding people that meet those unrealistic standards.

I work for a gas utility company, and we're in the process of hiring 100 new positions related to construction and construction support. Lots of pipe needs replaced.

Our company is actually three individual utilities that have been purchased in the last 10 years. The workforce of one of these companies is considerably older and less educated than the two more modern companies.

The challenge of my "newer" company is to bring the older company up to modern standards. It's really surprising how many hard working laborers refuse to use computers, and how that is resulting in lots of fines and costs on the company as a result. I'm teaching a lot of these guys how to do facility management using computer systems. Many of them are resistant.

Unfortunately, the supervisors of those guys don't think I have the skills to do their job (more electrically based) but yet they are the ones costing us money.

You can teach a guy who is willing to learn, you can't teach a guy who doesn't want to learn. Education (or ones increased responsibilities) shows a willingness to learn.

In reply to PHeller:

That's not an easy task. For some reason computers can be incredibly intimidating to older people. My father almost retired from his job because they put a computer in his bus to replace the two way radio. It took him over a year to get comfortable with using it.

Wally wrote: In reply to PHeller: That's not an easy task. For some reason computers can be incredibly intimidating to older people. My father almost retired from his job because they put a computer in his bus to replace the two way radio. It took him over a year to get comfortable with using it.

I design control equipment for water and wastewater treatment plants, and run into this all the time. The younger plant operators are fine with computers, but a lot of the older guys don't want to have anything to do with them.

Wally wrote: In reply to PHeller: That's not an easy task. For some reason computers can be incredibly intimidating to older people. My father almost retired from his job because they put a computer in his bus to replace the two way radio. It took him over a year to get comfortable with using it.

Back when I was in college, one of my roommates upgraded to a new computer and decided to give his parents, who were in their 60s, his old computer. A small group of us went along with him for the weekend since they lived in a larger city than we did and there was more to do there (plus several of us were better with computers than he was in case anything didn't go smoothly). So, we were there when he tried to show his parents how to use the computer.

His mother COULD NOT get a grasp on how to use a mouse properly. Took her forever to grasp the concept of the movement of the mouse being tied to the cursor on the screen, and no matter what we tried we couldn't get her to properly click the buttons. She would move the mouse with her right hand so the cursor was where she wanted it, then hold it there with her right hand and reach over with her left to push the button.

My grandparents were almost as bad- worse in some respects since they just outright refused to get/use a computer or anything like it. I've tried to give them one- ranging from laptops to desktops or even my original iPad, but they just don't want to learn to use them.

Brett_Murphy wrote: There are no bad jobs, just bad bosses. A bad boss can make a good job seem like hell.

This, absolutely this.

This is reason #1 why I am leaving the military.

ddavidv wrote: "You like cars? Good. Just don't make working on them your career. After working on them all day, every day, you'll learn to hate them like I do." I like them much better as a hobby. Though I still work in a car related industry, I keep my hands off of them.

^This..

I love my job and I love going to work on the cars I work on every day.

There a no more project cars in my personal garage now, just a bunch of motorcycles.

Shawn.

stuart in mn wrote: I design control equipment for water and wastewater treatment plants, and run into this all the time. The younger plant operators are fine with computers, but a lot of the older guys don't want to have anything to do with them.

Gee... it's almost as if kids these days aren't learning to futz with mechanical things like their grandparents did because they are spending their youth become familiarized with different technology that requires an entirely different skill set.

(This does not mean we don't need people who know how to hoist a shovel, turn a wrench, and weld.)

I'll expand on my prior points later as I am in a rush, but just to add to the conversation:

I worked outside (laboured, if you will) doing an 18 hour shift yesterday. I most certainly do appreciate labour jobs, and most certainly do think they should be paid well. I do not envy anyone who does what I did on a continuous basis.

I don't think labour type positions should get paid less than thinking type positions. I actually think they should get paid more typically. If you have the education/ability to apply that education in a thoughtful manner, you probably are in a nice cozy office, with a coffee station, a fridge/oven/microwave for your lunch, a nice desk to sit at, internet to slack off on etc etc. You get none of those things in a labour job.

Sometimes though the discrepancies are ridiculous though is all I am pointing out. The issue is when one starts to get paid a significant larger amount than the other. Sure, an engineer dreamed up this drawing/idea; who built it? I did! So who gets paid more? Without the idea from that individual, there is nothing to produce, without the person to build it, same problem. Both sound equally as valuable to me (and lets face it, does anyone actually like engineers? )

That's class warfare at it's best. Real work (swinging shovels) vs Valuable Work (rubbing elbows with stock brokers).

HiTempguy wrote: Sometimes though the discrepancies are ridiculous though is all I am pointing out. The issue is when one starts to get paid a significant larger amount than the other. Sure, an engineer dreamed up this drawing/idea; who built it? I did! So who gets paid more? Without the idea from that individual, there is nothing to produce, without the person to build it, same problem. Both sound equally as valuable to me

I bet that 75% of the able bodied engineers could build it. I bet that less than 25% of the laborers could design it.

Just random numbers thrown out from my head. Varies with different industries.

mtn wrote: I bet that 75% of the able bodied engineers *could* build it. I bet that less than 25% of the laborers could design it. Just random numbers thrown out from my head. Varies with different industries.

I wish the automotive engineers HAD to build it (at least the prototype.) I bet we'd have a lot less "you have to pull the engine to change the spark plug" rubbish if they actually had to spin wrenches on their own projects every now and then.

JoeyM wrote:

mtn wrote: I bet that 75% of the able bodied engineers *could* build it. I bet that less than 25% of the laborers could design it. Just random numbers thrown out from my head. Varies with different industries.

I wish the automotive engineers HAD to build it (at least the prototype.) I bet we'd have a lot less "you have to pull the engine to change the spark plug" rubbish if they actually had to spin wrenches on their own projects every now and then.

Making the engineers assemble the prototype would not change that. Powertrains are fully assmebled up until part of the exhaust before they go into a car.

You want them to perform the maintenence on the prototypes.

In reply to HiTempguy:

Often they pay isn't necessarily related to the amount of knowledge required to do a job, but how hard it is to fill. I had to listen to some accounting people complain about how the uneducated track workers made more than them, but when they advertise those jobs a line of people show up, each willing to work cheaper than the next. Not as many people as anxious to come and play in the tunnels with the rats and homeless

Beer Baron wrote:

stuart in mn wrote: I design control equipment for water and wastewater treatment plants, and run into this all the time. The younger plant operators are fine with computers, but a lot of the older guys don't want to have anything to do with them.

Gee... it's almost as if kids these days aren't learning to futz with mechanical things like their grandparents did because they are spending their youth become familiarized with different technology that requires an entirely different skill set. (This does not mean we don't need people who know how to hoist a shovel, turn a wrench, and weld.)

In this case, the younger plant operators certainly know how to hoist a shovel (when you work at a wastewater treatment plant that's a necessity) along with all the other required mechanical tasks, it's just that they also tend to be more receptive to modern technology.

stuart in mn wrote: In this case, the younger plant operators certainly know how to hoist a shovel (when you work at a wastewater treatment plant that's a necessity) along with all the other required mechanical tasks, it's just that they also tend to be more receptive to modern technology.

I've long wondered about the differences in picking up things like new technology across the generations. Is it just that we can learn new things that much better when we're younger, or is it something about how we learned things long ago that makes the younger generations able to adapt more easily to new technologies/ideas?

A ways back, I got an interesting example of this phenomenon in action in a largely non-technological setting: a card game with my extended family. My now-ex-wife and I were visiting my family for a holiday, and one set of grandparents were there as well. One evening, we sat down to play a card game the ex and I really enjoyed called Flux. Flux, for those unfamiliar with it (and you should get familiar with it if you can- it's lots of fun at parties) is called 'The Game Of Ever-Changing Rules' because the rules and conditions for victory can change with every card played.

Those playing that night were myself, my ex, my younger brother, and his girlfriend- all of us 30 or under; my parents, both in their mid-50's at this point; and my grandparents, both in their late 70's. None of those involved were particularly slow or unintelligent- the least intelligent would likely have been the brother's GF.

The ex and I had obviously played before so didn't need to learn how to play. We went through the basic rules, dealt a hand and went through a few turns to demonstrate how it worked, and then reshuffled and started a real game.

My brother and his girlfriend picked it up almost immediately from just the demonstration we'd done of how to play with just a few minor questions about things we'd left out (a few special types of cards/situations). My parents didn't pick it up as quickly, but after once or twice around the table had grasped the rules well enough to not have to stop and ask for what they needed to do next. My grandparents however never got a solid grasp on the game or the rules- every time their turns came up we'd have to explain what the current rules were and what they meant and usually help them decide what card(s) to play.

The same seems to apply to when I'd need to teach them something technological- the youger set would pick it up almost immediately, the parents would need more explaining and demonstrating but would eventually grasp it, and the grandparents just never really get it and even for things like operating a DVD player would need a written list of instructions on what to do for each task.

Mike’s theory on higher education is missing many facts, Higher education institutions, especially state affiliated, do not press a magical button that automatically increases tuition, there are many channels, to do so. Tuition does not go up just because someone wants to take an expensive vacation, if you look at technology changes since 1985 you can see that not only higher education has been effected but all of education sees the increase expense in technology. In addition to all the competition of building fancy buildings, million dollar stadiums, having state of the art laboratories, it is not 1850, College is expensive to upkeep. Students make a decision based on these expenses to go there. It is certainly not from Professors or administrators because they make much less than most High school teachers. Do not get me started on how much coaches paid, I saw the article on USAtoday.

“Manufacturing sector alone, 600,000 jobs are currently available” Are they Part-time, Full Time, Seasonal? When will these jobs be shipped overseas? Who wants to get a job in a dieing profession. People are not as stupid as he thinks.

He sounds more like a politician, in saying what everybody wants to hear rather than look at the truth. Perhaps he and Ron Paul can come up with some more unrealistic banter.

ddavidv wrote:

Rusnak_322 wrote: You can bitch and moan, but the best thing to do is to take some young kid under your wing and mentor him. Give them career advice, listen to them without condemnation and allow them to benefit from your experiences.

This can also work in the opposite way. Only advice I ever heeded from an adult was the body shop guy at the restoration shop I used to hang around at for a summer. He wisely told me: "You like cars? Good. Just don't make working on them your career. After working on them all day, every day, you'll learn to hate them like I do." I like them much better as a hobby. Though I still work in a car related industry, I keep my hands off of them.

that quote is not attributed to Chip Foose, who i want to be when i grow up.

The difference is, Chip is his own boss and people will throw money at him. Most of the rest of us in the trenches will never be that lucky.

Where do you find somebody to do dirty deeds dirt cheap?

Dirt Cheap? All this time I I've been doing them with sheep. That explains the odd looks

In reply to logdog:

I dunno... Looks like this guy's rates have probably gone up...

Ain't no fun baby, not to be a millionaire

Wally wrote: Dirt Cheap? All this time I I've been doing them with sheep. That explains the odd looks

You are missing out on a business opportunity. People pay big bucks for that on the Internet