Again you've beat me to the punch, posting while I'm still composing. I wouldn't expect my data to compell you Tony, you're arguing the other side. I think others may find it interesting though, regardless if it proves my point or not.
One more thing-
I have great respect for your ratiocinatory and literary sKizZiL'z, so I would be remiss if I did not address your very cogent argument regarding "logical leaps".
While I agree that such leaps are sometimes useful and necessary, care must be exercised in their use. For example: Once you jump your car off a bridge, or touch a hot stove, you can reasonably assume that it would be unwise to go around palpating any other hot stove you encountered, regardless of make. Hot is hot, no matter what the context, and Possum Gulch is simply brimming with the smashed and besotted cruisers of the hapless Hazzard County PD. A logical leap of faith is, of course, useful here.
But, using the hot stove example, what if you had been cooking your entire life on stoves, in a town where stove-cooking was all the rage? Would it be sage to conclude that the all the horror stories you had heard about the young cooks and their snappy new convection ovens are of anecdotal necessity true just because you are lacking any other evidence? More to the point, what if the young'uns start whipping out soufflés and roasts to beat the band? Can you then make the same logical leap?
At this point all the old-timers in their rocking chairs will dribble confidently in to their beards that "...it will all come to tears, and you just wait till Thanksgiving dinner's ruined! Then you'll see! Only an old-timey oven-jock with x number of lifetime meals prepared can do the job properly! When you're older you'll understand!" Meantime, several Thanksgivings have come and gone with moist turkey and savory stuffing. At what point do the graybeards cease their dribbling, turn back to their checkerboards, and accept the inevitability of change?
At this point, when some not-so-old-timer points out that it seems the old guys are burning pot roasts at nearly twice the rate of the young guys, you can expect that fella will be shouted down with arguments about how range-cooking and convection-oven cooking simply can't be compared, what with the ovens being so much more complex, and the types of cooking so different, "...and whose side are you on anyway?" And we then begin to realize that the concern this whole time is not with burned food, but with the hubris and dignity of the old timers, and how much money the bakeries are paying the younger cooks.
Ah, the money! Now we're getting somewhere! Could it be that this may be at the root of the whole problem? For it seems that the young cooks have been accepting jobs at bakeries for minimal pay, some even stooping to paying the bakery for a chance to acquire a high-profile dreamed-about cooking job! And the bigger bakeries, undercut by the convection-cookers, are cutting the older cooks pay. Here the plot thickens, for we finally have a piece of this mystery that has been missing the whole time-- MOTIVE! And we begin to see the root cause of all the complaints against the young fellas.
Are the young fellas to blame? Some, perhaps. Those from rich families are given unfair advantage for a career that should be based on skill, determination, intelligence, and aptitude rather than daddy's checkbook. But still many others are simply seeking escape from the abysmal wages of the entry-level jobs, which have no medical benefits, poor working conditions, and little hope for advancement. Most are simply unaware that their actions are ultimately detrimental to the whole of the industry, but a determined effort from the older crowd could change that. And it will take discipline too, on the part of the younger crowd to refuse a pittance for all thier hard work and enthusiasm. Simply holding a bias against the low-timers is insufficient to solve the problem. In fact, it's destructive.
Perhaps the companies themselves are to blame? How could they conscientiously offer such poor wages for such an important position? Have no illusions. The corporation knows the name of the game, and it sure as hell ain't epicurism. Or aviation for that matter. It's money. Money money money. Bling-bling, stay-high, dolla-bill y'all money. Anyone willing to cast aside naivety and idealism for two seconds knows that a bee will sting, a snake will bite, and a CEO will pay you .50 cents a week if he thinks he can get away with it. No we can't blame the company and still stay here in reality. We can only force the companies hand- but how?
The unions! If it's not the company's fault, and it's not the young'uns fault, then it must be the union! Yes, that's it. Weak unions are to blame. But really, how much can the union do when they're stuck between the greedy CEO's and the young folk who are unable to be protected under union contract? Not a whole lot. They can lobby for higher starting wages, sure, but that ultimately comes out of everyone’s check- no way the senior guys are going to vote that one in. No, the unions can't be held totally to blame- in fact, they're our best hope. They should be worked with- I wonder what influence they may have if some contact was made with the younger fellas before they took the low-paying jobs, or chose to pay for training?
Well, it seems that this analogy has been whipped to stiff peaks. It's time to put it in the oven and hope it comes out digestible. For my part, I hope that I have been at least somewhat cogent in my appeal to not repudiate the low-time airline pilot out of hand. I think that there are a lot of problems with our industry right now, but I'm confident that they won't be worked out effectively through in fighting and exclusion, but through communication, appreciation, understanding-- and change.
tag.Typically post in between working accnts so type quickly have to meet my hourly quota.
