There isn’t a labor shortage. There’s a shortage of people willing to be abused and exploited.
I don’t think any amount of money would be enough for me to work with retail customers again. Much less unruly kids that you can’t do anything about.
If it’s between your story and the story the kid told their parents, you’ll lose that battle most of the time and likely end up getting yourself in more trouble than you already were.
As soon as the customer stops being always right, we can talk about pay.
> If it’s between your story and the story the kid told their parents, you’ll lose that battle most of the time and likely end up getting yourself in more trouble than you already were.
You're not wrong, but I wanted to add to it.
This is the reason the district where I live has 7 cameras per bus, 4 of which are inside, IIRC.
> There isn’t a labor shortage. There’s a shortage of people willing to be abused and exploited.
and those "abused and exploited" people are providing the labor, leading to a labor shortage.
I don't understand people who think "shortage" need to be qualified by how sympathetic the reason for the shortage is. You can either be the type of person who thinks any failure to meet demand is a shortage, or that shortages don't exist because people can simply pay more. The in-between of "there's a failure to meet demand but they deserve it so it's not really a shortage" seems like trying to inject subjectivity to an objective word.
>There is a shortage of people willing to accept their terms. There isn’t a shortage of people who want to work.
Would you also agree that there's no housing shortage in the US, only a shortage of houses available at locations and prices that people are willing to accept?
This is where there's disagreement. Is it people fed up with poor working conditions, life circumstances that prevent employment, or purposeful unwillingness to work?
I believe the first 2 categories are significant and worth fixing to identify if/how many fall into the 3rd category. Not many do in a well functioning society, IMO.
I don't think it's helpful to conflate a literal technical term w/ a philosophy on labor...
Could say, "there's not a hamburger shortage, there's a shortage of cows willing to be abused and exploited for their flesh".
Which is true, and probably worth evaluation, but at the same time, there is in the hamburger isle a hamburger shortage... no point talking past each other here.
Most buses are filmed continuously now, so for the most part you just need to be like "yeah, go get the video." But there are still a lot of reason you'd probably rather not be a bus driver.
"There's a lot of downtime during the day that you don't get paid for. You might work a 10-hour day, but you only get compensated for your shifts. .... [Corey Ford] as a driver, he earned $19/hr, which works out to a pre-tax income of ~$19.4k for 180 days of 5-hour shifts."
Imagine a job that required your entire day, but they decided not to pay you during the late morning through the early afternoon. This has got to be one of the worst paying jobs in the country. I'm surprised they could fill their roles during normal times.
Part time hours but fulltime availability! What a complete scam. My spouse working in healthcare ran into this at one job. It didn't last long. And they wondered why employee retention was miserable. What's even the point of working at a place that demands such unpaid concessions?
Those hours represent an opportunity cost and should be paid for. They are not free.
"We've spent decades closing neighborhood schools, consolidating schools in unwalkable locations, and making our communities more dangerous places for kids to walk and bike, all while public transportation became less frequent and less available.
As late as 1969, about half of kids under 15 usually walked or bicycled to school. By 2009, the figure was 13 percent."
I have a Class B CDL (with a medical cert restriction since it was for a state job, meaning no commerical jobs unless I get a medical done. I presume driving a school bus would be exempt for this) in New York. I guess I was one of the "500k+" people targeted by NYS, as I received an email asking me to apply to be a school bus driver. I gave it a quick thought before realizing that I work a 9 to 5 job, so there was no way I could even work the job if I wanted to. Besides the other good reasons mentioned in the article and this thread, I'm sure that also restricts the number of applicants because most people can't work during those hours unless they are retired or unemployed.
The article mainly focuses on pay.
And that's true, bus drivers need and deserve way, way more money. Anyone with a CDL can go out and make 6 digits without much trouble.
Yet they want people to do it for 1/4 the money.
In addition to more money, they need more power to throw kids off the bus or ban them outright. Today they must just tolerate kids cussing you out, throwing things at you, and oftentimes trying to physically assault you. You wouldn't believe the awful things I saw on a public schoolbus.
You'd have to be insane to sign up for that in current conditions.
In our local district, rather than have individual buses for elementary, middle school, etc., they are having one driver pick up the elementary kids, drop them off, the go back out and pick up the older kids. They had to change the start times for elementary and high school to make this work, and they're also paying the drivers more, but it seems to be working. One issue is that if a single driver goes down (illness, etc.) it's a huge hit to logistics, and subs are hard to come by. But mostly they've made it work.
Huh, I'm surprised, my initial guess of "pays like shit" wasn't the primary reason - "bus driving has been privatized and the for-profit bus companies laid everyone off for C19" was the main one, with a chaser of "doesn't pay as well as other driving jobs".
To be fair, if they did want those drivers to come back, they shouldn't have laid them off.
I get it, it cost money and it sunk your profits for the year. And driving a bus, while it needs some skills, is not a hard trade to teach, so the company owners thought they would be fine.
But the effect of this pandemic on the laborer class is huge. Most of them think that they were nothing but a cog at best, and something to be exploited by the capital at worst. Working for a company, you are expected to earn less, but to have work security. Some (most?) of them will work for themselves now, whether its hairdressers or plumbers.
Online engineering classes during the pandemic were sky-high. My brother was a sound technician, working for event and sometime TV. After the lay-off during the pandemic, he taught himself some code. Most of his ex-coworkers are now working for themselves and are way more expensive than they use to be for companies hiring them, only on temp contracts. Also, they now work less hours, so not only the costs for TV production/event recording are way higher, a small labor shortage is growing in a trade where most people couldn't find a job easily, and were forced to do pro-bono work to build their CVs.
> To be fair, if they did want those drivers to come back, they shouldn't have laid them off.
How much would it cost to keep the drivers on the payroll? If the drivers are available to be hired, but your business is driven to bankruptcy a few months into the pandemic, that doesn't really improve the situation.
They could, but they don't because it's not their responsibility. Likewise, should we shame rich silicon valley knowledge workers because they didn't pay to keep their local restaurants afloat during the pandemic?
No, but we should shame the rich silicon valley workers for participating in the same kind of relentless race to find perfectly functioning systems that they can wedge themselves into the middle of and extract profit from while making life for everyone else a little shittier, just as we should shame the for-profit bus companies.
Oh, and we should also shame the elected officials that keep on cutting the amount of money being given to public education. And possibly everyone who votes for them, as well.
Why not? They're private entities too, with plenty of money to keep the neighborhood resturant from having to shut down. Or better yet, pay their babysitter/dog walker even though they don't need their services?
>but we should shame the rich silicon valley workers for participating in the same kind of relentless race to find perfectly functioning systems that they can wedge themselves into the middle of and extract profit from while making life for everyone else a little shittier
I fail to see how this applies for someone working for FAANG.
>just as we should shame the for-profit bus companies.
No, we shouldn't, because that's not their job. There's a clear delineation of what's the private sector's responsibility and what's the governments. I sure as hell don't want my pandemic stimulus checks to depend on whether I happened to work for a well-off company or not.
>we should also shame the elected officials that keep on cutting the amount of money being given to public education
There is also no "shortage" of materials like microchips. Those are all just fancy ways of saying INFLATION.
If you pay enough, you'll get those microchips delivered to wherever you want by tomorrow morning, trust me. That's how the world works, like it or not.
Very similar. Part of the story here seems to be that the US also has shortages of HGV drivers that have also caused issues like fuel stations having to close: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-08-02/a-truckin... Since it's basically the same license to drive a school bus or a truck, all those drivers can now get plenty of better-paying work. (As far as I can tell, the only reason this hasn't turned into a full-on fuel crisis like in the UK is because it hasn't been featured on the front page of the American equivalent of the BBC and the Sun, which means the US hasn't had the large-scale panic buying the UK did. Nearly all the examples of petrol stations running out of fuel here are due to massively increased demand rather than an underlying lack of supply; they just don't have the infrastructure to cope with everyone deciding to fill their tanks full at once even if everything's running perfectly. I've seen hints that there are empty shop shelves in the US too from people there complaining about it, but that doesn't have news coverage at all.)
I trained as a school bus driver, and I agree with both of you, but especially the dealing with children part.
I quit my job as a bus driver on my second day because I was stressed out about hurting kids. (Yes, I know school buses are among the safest vehicles on the road; it was an irrational fear.)
But the other part of the equation is the schedule.
You are hired as a part-time employee, no benefits, but the schedule is such that finding a second job is unlikely. In the district I trained in, the schedule was 6-9, 12-2. Those are awkward hours to work around.
School bus driver is a good job for otherwise stay at home parents. You drive your kids to school and back home everyday and get paid for it. Sure if you drove your own care you could do the round trip in half an hour, while the bus means it takes 2 hours, but you get paid and ensure you kids actually go to school every day. You can also take the babies along with you to work (or at least my school allowed that)
It is also a good I'm retired but need to get out of the house to do something job.
Otherwise yes, you can earn more elsewhere with better hours.
Every teacher I've ever known on a personal level has been overworked and underpaid, and still had to go into their own pockets tl provide things for their class, from what I understand it's common practice at schools now to force costs to the teachers, or have them shunt it to the parents (have student bring X for class!) because we dont already pay for the schools with taxes, lunches, after school programs and electives, uniforms, bake sales, candy drives, etc.
AFAIK teachers are often overworked and/or do extra work outside of the classroom. I doubt they'd want a few extra hours tacked onto their existing schedule.
Does this point to a solution in the form of using smaller vehicles that don't require a CDL?
School buses are super inefficient because kids are all spread out, so you end up driving a huge 6 MPG diesel a lot of miles to pick up 40 kids. Or worse, driving it a lot of miles to pick up less than 40 kids.
If you used smaller vehicles to pick up the same number of kids, you would need more of them, but they would each only have to cover a fraction of the bus route, and they get much better mileage.
The main reason not to use smaller vehicles is that you need more drivers. Not as many as you would have additional vehicles, because with shorter routes the same driver could cover two of them in the same time. But if you're all out of CDL drivers and there are a surplus of, effectively, Uber drivers, then that goes the other way, right?
Good solutions to labor shortages rarely involve making things more labor-intensive.
In wealthy countries, labor costs are already much higher than the costs of operating the bus itself. (People often claim 70% vs. 30%.) If the economy grows in a way that benefits the working class, labor becomes even more expensive relative to the vehicle. The key to cost-effective services is therefore minimizing the number of people needed for providing the service.
That usually involves moving the jobs to a country with a labor surplus.
The labor shortages we see in the US are mostly caused by the wide gap between the working class and the (upper) middle class. The pandemic disrupted the job market and forced people out of their daily routines. In the aftermath, many people didn't return to their old jobs but started trying harder to improve their lives. They are looking for jobs that pay better, offer better working conditions, and where they get more respect. Many traditional services have a hard time hiring enough people. The solution is likely a mix of offering better jobs, providing the same service with fewer people, and not providing the service at all.
If you're going to hire more drivers, might as well instead pay your existing drivers more. You'll get drivers that are more skilled and care more. Do you really want the equivalent of an Uber driver taking your kid to school each day?
> If you're going to hire more drivers, might as well instead pay your existing drivers more.
They already get paid more than Uber drivers. The problem is that "more" isn't enough right now, and there comes a point where the alternative is less expensive.
> You'll get drivers that are more skilled and care more.
There isn't a "caring" section on the CDL test. Why is the assumption that anyone without a CDL is some kind of negligent drug addict?
But why would that be the case? Maybe they need the job more because they can't just go make more money driving a big rig and are then less likely to jeopardize it by doing something wrong.
Plus, the driver of a smaller vehicle has fewer kids to care about, so the same amount of caring goes less diluted. If you get into a collision, the driver only has to take care of 8 kids instead of 40.
I'm sure Uber would be happy to fix this problem for less than the cost of more bus drivers. Not that that's a good solution or that parents would be comfortable with having kids ubered to school. I have no horse in the race, though. I will never send my kids to these failing, pathetic indoctrination centers.
I don’t think any amount of money would be enough for me to work with retail customers again. Much less unruly kids that you can’t do anything about.
If it’s between your story and the story the kid told their parents, you’ll lose that battle most of the time and likely end up getting yourself in more trouble than you already were.
As soon as the customer stops being always right, we can talk about pay.