this post was submitted on 06 Jun 2026
1251 points (99.3% liked)

Work Reform

16590 readers
663 users here now

A place to discuss positive changes that can make work more equitable, and to vent about current practices. We are NOT against work; we just want the fruits of our labor to be recognized better.

Our Philosophies:

Our Goals

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Skyrmir@lemmy.world 182 points 2 weeks ago (8 children)

Daycare is a crazy one. Insanely expensive, yet the workers are damn near indentured servants.

[–] Dettweiler42@lemmy.dbzer0.com 86 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

It's honestly a major contributor to the labor shortage. For anyone with a decent job, it's significantly cheaper for the spouse to just stay home until the kids are old enough to take care of themselves.

[–] nutcase2690@lemmy.dbzer0.com 126 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (6 children)

Don't let the media force you to twist your words-- it is not a labor shortage, but a wage and cost of living crisis.

"Nobody wants to work anymore" == "I pay so shitty wages that no one can even afford to come work for me."

[–] Qwazpoi@lemmy.world 36 points 1 week ago (3 children)

I've run into dozens of people who are complaining about how they have applied to literally everything and never heard back or get rejected for things like gas station cashier and yet those places always put up the help wanted signs. Shortage seems like a fabrication when these places hire nobody and keep the ad up

[–] MonkeMischief@lemmy.today 21 points 1 week ago (2 children)

When I.T and nurses are complaining that they keep getting ghosted and can't find work? That feels like a major economic failure signal to me. It's freaking mad.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Zombie@feddit.uk 20 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

You know what your life is when you are out of work; and when you do have a job, how the fear of losing it hangs over you. You are also aware what a danger the standing army of unemployed is to you when you are out on strike for better conditions. You know that strikebreakers are enlisted from the unemployed whom capitalism always keeps on hand, to help break your strike.

‘How does capitalism keep the unemployed on hand?’ you ask.

Simply by compelling you to work long hours and as hard as possible, so as to produce the greatest amount. All the modern schemes of ‘efficiency’, the Taylor and other systems of ‘economy’ and ‘rationalization’ serve only to squeeze greater profits out of the worker. It is economy in the interest of the employer only. But as concerns you, the worker, this ‘economy’ spells the greatest expenditure of your effort and energy, a fatal waste of your vitality.

It pays the employer to use up and exploit your strength and ability at the highest tension. True, it ruins your health and breaks down your nervous system, makes you a prey to illness and disease (there are even special proletarian diseases), cripples you and brings you to an early grave — but what does your boss care? Are there not thousands of unemployed waiting for your job and ready to take it the moment you are disabled or dead?

That is why it is to the profit of the capitalist to keep an army of unemployed ready at hand. It is part and parcel of the wage system, a necessary and inevitable characteristic of it.

It is in the interest of the people that there should be no unemployed, that all should have an opportunity to work and earn their living; that all should help, each according to his ability and strength, to increase the wealth of the country, so that each should be able to have a greater share of it.

But capitalism is not interested in the welfare of the people. Capitalism, as I have shown before, is interested only in profits. By employing less people and working them long hours larger profits can be made than by giving work to more people at shorter hours. That is why it is to the interest of your employer, for instance, to have 100 people work 10 hours daily rather than to employ 200 at 5 hours. He would need more room for 200 than for 100 persons — a larger factory, more tools and machinery, and so on. That is, he would require a greater investment of capital. The employment of a larger force at less hours would bring less profits, and that is why your boss will not run his factory or shop on such a plan. Which means that a system of profit-making is not compatible with considerations of humanity and the well-being of the workers. On the contrary, the harder and more ‘efficiently’ you work and the longer hours you stay at it, the better for your employer and the greater his profits.

You can therefore see that capitalism is not interested in employing all those who want and are able to work. On the contrary: a minimum of ‘hands’ and a maximum of effort is the principle and the profit of the capitalist system. This is the whole secret of all ‘rationalization’ schemes. And that is why you will find thousands of people in every capitalist country willing and anxious to work, yet unable to get employment. This army of unemployed is a constant threat to your standard of living. They are ready to take your place at lower pay, because necessity compels them to it. That is, of course, very advantageous to the boss: it is a whip in his hands constantly held over you, so you will slave hard for him and ‘behave’ yourself.

from Now and After, by Alexander Berkman, Chapter 5: Unemployment. Available to read for free here.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] SwingingTheLamp@piefed.zip 51 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (4 children)

I read an interview, probably from NPR, but I can't find it at the moment. The upshot was that caring for infants is insanely expensive, since they need one-on-one care pretty much continuously.

But parents can't afford that cost, so, essentially, the price they charge for infant care is a loss-leader, and parents of older children (who need less supervision and thus more favorable staffing ratios) subsidize the cost of caring for infants. Daycare operators are barely keeping afloat.

Edit: Ah, here it is: Baby's first market failure

[–] Eheran@lemmy.world 20 points 2 weeks ago

This is the only answer that is not just a hand waiving "investors bad".

[–] Quokka@quokk.au 14 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

They may require 1-on-1 interaction, but generally the ratio for 0-2's is around 1:4.

And many childcare companies are owned by huge multi-billion dollar investment firms because they are cash generators.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] slaacaa@lemmy.world 22 points 1 week ago (8 children)

It’s almost like somebody pays the workers much less than the revenues and pockets the difference

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] 4am@lemmy.zip 21 points 1 week ago (1 children)

My wife and I had to pay $1600 a month for daycare as things opened up after the pandemic. The teachers there would have made more working at the Burger King across the street.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] sexy_peach@feddit.org 18 points 2 weeks ago (4 children)
load more comments (4 replies)

I've served on the board of non-profit daycares and I [vaguely] know at least one person who actually owns a for profit daycare.

Only a complete idiot would think they were going to make any money on a daycare. The overhead is nuts -- even when paying really shitty compensation -- and the competition is relentless.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] MonkeMischief@lemmy.today 76 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (10 children)

What's funny in a sad-not-haha way, is that labor for caretaking of small human beings is the enormous untenable driving cost here.

Parents can't afford the rates, daycares can't afford living wages for the caretakers. This is an endeavor, like many, that the Hand of the Market(TM) is OBVIOUSLY unsuitable for solving.

The "funny" part: Parents would gladly do this job for free as they have for centuries and millennia. This problem was already solved, and wouldn't be an issue if every member of the household wasn't forced into full-time 40+ hour work plus hunting for side-hustles, and being taken away from their loved ones for most of their waking friggin lives, just to survive.

How many generations deep are we now? Where so many kids spend so long in daycare from infancy that they never even get to form a decent bond with their own parents? How healthy is that, for anybody, much less larger society?

"Parenting as a Service" is peak capitalistic hellscape...

Edit: spelling

[–] JoeBigelow@lemmy.ca 19 points 1 week ago (2 children)

My wife is starting her own home daycare Monday for many of the reasons you listed. Almost a decade at a YMCA run Montessori, ~18/hr.

And the poor kids! The caregivers are all burnt out by terrible management and shit pay, have no motivation to provide anything beyond the necessities, and God bless them, at least a few spend their own money on supplies to at least try and enrich the time the kids spend there.

I'm really proud of her, taking a huge step into somewhat unknown water. I know the kids she cares for are going to get so much more value from her, here in her space, on her terms, than they ever would have at the center.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] gandalf_der_12te@feddit.org 16 points 1 week ago (2 children)

well we have that situation in germany right now where supposedly daycare is good because it allows women to work more hours (full time instead of half time)

it's ... let me tell you, it's a shitshow. i have come to understand that the internet is largely a propaganda apparatus. they install the thought in you that a certain way of seeing things is "normal", because everybody sees it that way. in other words, the other bots or paid influencers (idk which one) that the algorithm then pushes sothat everybody sees it.

you got 1 crazy person saying things like "actually, we should all work more, i like it, it's fun" and you know what, they can say that. anyways, that's 1 person in 1000. then the algorithm pushes it on everybody's front page sothat now everybody thinks "ah, that's a normal thing to think". and since most people follow group-think, that's now society's opinion.

internet exists to cause a shift in public opinion by astroturfing. the illusion that the thought comes from within society organically.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] ZMoney@lemmy.world 11 points 1 week ago (5 children)

The irony is that this causes birth rates to plummet, which eliminates the future workforce for the very companies forcing childcare to be untenable. One of the major contradictions of capitalism is that it does not reproduce its own labor force. I guess the resolution is to replace human workers with AI.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
[–] bitofarambler@crazypeople.online 51 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (5 children)

the US lost so many battles against corporate monopolies that now 4 companies own the majority of the US healthcare system.

i suggest medical care abroad if you'd like similar or better healthcare at a much lower price. travel offers much more than a vacation.

[–] schipelblorp@sh.itjust.works 10 points 2 weeks ago (7 children)

Thinking of going abroad for dental implants. An oral surgeon said it used to be an issue with poor-quality knock off parts, but that the manufacturing has gotten really good.

Countries keep cost low by subsidizing doctors' education, by the way, which is even more expensive for them when those doctors cash out to come to the US where doctors graduate with a debt of $250,000 from schools where graduation class size hasn't changed in decades.

By the by, intensive and indiscrimnate care by specialists--where doctors want to end up instead of low-paid primary care--is definitely more expensive without necessarily leading to better outcomes.

[–] bitofarambler@crazypeople.online 13 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (11 children)

Dental work is my most common healthcare experience abroad. I cannot recommend Thailand enough, especially for dental work, nothing but 5 out of 5 dentistry for me so far.

3rd-party analyses and patient surveys rating Thailand higher than the US in health care these days are included in the link above. and here, why not?

load more comments (11 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Star@lemmy.blahaj.zone 49 points 1 week ago (4 children)

As a nursing aide, it's because not enough of us are unionized.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] buddascrayon@lemmy.world 38 points 1 week ago (11 children)

Why are Walmart employees using food stamps and medicaid when the family that owns Walmart are multibillionaires? It doesn't make any sense. :\

load more comments (11 replies)
[–] Sylvartas@lemmy.dbzer0.com 36 points 1 week ago (4 children)

Sounds like some surplus value generated from labour is being extracted by the people owning the means of production

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] wpb@lemmy.world 35 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (3 children)

What's not to understand? The owning class owns the facilities and sets both the prices and the wages, and they will do this in the way that maximally benefits themselves, i.e., maximizes profits. It's a really, really basic feature of capitalism (yes, also whatever super duper special unicorn flavor of capitalism you think works better than "crony" capitalism).

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] tburkhol@slrpnk.net 32 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Workers feel responsibility for the people under their care. Bosses exploit their guilt over untended people to reduce wages.

[–] henfredemars@infosec.pub 12 points 2 weeks ago

For the same reason, nurses are not fairly compensated for their work.

[–] Alwaysnownevernotme@lemmy.world 29 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Nursing homes are often owned by investment trusts who have to pay out to their investors based on profits, so the managers of the trust take it upon themselves to outsource the maintenance, management, and labor to other entities they control. At a healthy upcharge, the menials who perform the tasks associated are not even an afterthought. They work for a faceless corporation that is puppeteered by the same people who own the nursing home, who rents it's facility from a real estate trust they also own, allowing them to extract as much value as possible from each level of the operation while limiting liability.

[–] TwoBeeSan@lemmy.world 19 points 1 week ago (3 children)

Worked in them for about 7 years.

You are correct.

We had one where could never get ANY supplies 1 year in despite a 25k lump sum buy in by residents. even before paying month to month rent.

My expeince is management will play the "heroes work here" type behavior and take advantage of people's passion for elderly to then underpay then and mistreat them to the degree they do.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] slaacaa@lemmy.world 28 points 1 week ago (11 children)
[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 11 points 1 week ago

Chronic Luigi Insufficiency.

load more comments (10 replies)
[–] Leviathan@lemmy.world 27 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I feel like half these problems would be fixed if everyone woke up and unionized. Corpos would have no leverage left.

[–] SippyCup@lemmy.world 20 points 1 week ago (4 children)

The Pinkerton agency has entered the chat.

If you're curious, yes they're still around, yes they're still doing it, and they're owned by Securitas now.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] slaacaa@lemmy.world 23 points 1 week ago
[–] Glitch@lemmy.dbzer0.com 22 points 1 week ago

Private Equity. Capital is the root of all evil

[–] Dozzi92@lemmy.world 20 points 1 week ago (1 children)

My friend was the director of a daycare, and she's leaving because she works 60 hour weeks, has no help from above, and her pay is literally canceled out by sending her kids to camp over the summer. And obviously they won't pay her more. And she's the head of the daycare. It's insane.

[–] Mountainaire@lemmy.world 25 points 1 week ago (1 children)

It's because private equity capitalists took over daycares, nursing homes, funeral services, and veterinary clinics. They're leeches on even the most indispensable aspects of society.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Th4tGuyII@fedia.io 16 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Its simple really. The management make all the money, while the workers and customers get shafted

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com 14 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Boomers built an economy based around raping the wealth and futures of their children, to fund their retirement.

They consistently voted for politicians and policies that would benefit themselves at the expense of everyone else, in basically every economic sector.

Of course they don't pay their orderlies well either.

That would mean their 401ks wouldn't go up by as much.

Only now that the most grotesque frontman conceivable is helming the logical conclusion of their mindset turned into policy, are they starting to regret it all.

The pathological narccisist gerontocracy society.

Healthcare is the only sector with actual job growth now.

Everything else is collapsing.

The turned the entire country into basically a big retirement home supercomplex that you can't opt out of.

[–] CompactFlax@discuss.tchncs.de 14 points 2 weeks ago

Very simple; the shareholders get value.

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 13 points 1 week ago

Vocational Awe

There are certain jobs that people really want to do. No matter how little the job pays, there will be people willing to do that job. Often these are the most important jobs.

That's not a good match for a purely capitalist system where someone can't survive on their salary. Unions are one way to fight this. Traditionally nurses had strong unions, but these days no union seems to be particularly strong. The other way is for the government to get involved and say that certain jobs are important enough that they get special exemptions from the purely capitalist system. That could mean different minimum wages, special tax exemptions, or all kinds of other things.

[–] speaksintv@lemmy.world 13 points 1 week ago (2 children)

For daycare at least, ours and most others in our city got bought out by one company. Even daycares no explicitly renamed after the company fall under its umbrella.

They raise rates 8% per year and added two new annual fees. Yet they struggle with teacher retention because they don't pay them hardly anything but charged us $3k/monthf or two kids full time.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] HrabiaVulpes@europe.pub 13 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (3 children)

If you can afford it, it will be exactly that expensive.

When government of my country passed a bill that gives monthly payouts of X per child to parents who both work and have at least one child, all daycare centers in the country raised their prices by X next month citing inflation.

Supply and demand do not set the price, when people have no choice but to buy anyway.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] EgoNo4@lemmy.world 13 points 2 weeks ago
[–] pelespirit@sh.itjust.works 13 points 1 week ago

Because nursing homes are mostly ran by private assholes that only care about making money? Go on the rounds to interview them, the smoke and mirrors are real. It's like all of healthcare.

[–] nerv@fedinsfw.app 12 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

And that is why child and elderly care should never leave the public domain.

These are essential services nowadays; the wide family support that once existed is crumbling.

Private companies do not care. The company exists to make money and generate profit, at any cost.

If the accounting of one single entity was made public, it would be horrendous to read. The profit margins are huge, the salary gap between floor personel and executives gargantuan.

[–] aNemesis@lemmy.zip 13 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

This is such a low effort response. I worked on the board of Directors for my daughter's daycare in the US for 8 years. Literally none of this is true. We are a non-profit and our audits are public. Feel free actually look for the accounting for a child or elder care facility and you'll find plenty of them. You'll find them anything other than horrendous. They're boring and exactly what you'd expect them to look like.

Even without margin as a factor because we're a non-profit we are still charging as much as my mortgage for an infant.

This might sound obvious but operating a care facility is expensive. Labor is the driving cost, by far, and what makes it so is legally mandated caretaker ratios. 4 infants per. 6 Toddlers per. 10 children per. Imagine if you were splitting just an infant caretaker's salary four ways, without benefits or other costs. Literally federal poverty wages would be $700/month for you. Without benefits. Without facilities. Without supplies. Just a person's full time supervision. And that person would qualify for SNAP benefits.

While there are definitely orgs focused on investor returns they're not the root cause. Care is just expensive.

Don't get all righteous at the people who dedicate their lives to caring for people in need. Even those in charge of the facilities can be doing it for the right reasons. Look at the government. Why aren't we supplementing these critical services? In my state Medicare and education are already the top tax expenditures by far. You might be able to shift some $ between priorities but the real answer appears to be that we're just not funding the government sufficiently for it to do all things for all people. If we don't take advantage of the scale of government then we're going to be paying for this stuff out of pocket.

It's just expensive no matter how you solve the problem.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›