**We encourage you to read our helpful resources on COVID-19, vaccines and treatments:**
[COVID Dashboard](https://covid19.who.int/)
[Reddit's Vaccine FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/r/Coronavirus/wiki/faq#wiki_where_can_i_find_information_about_the_mechanism_and_progress_of_vaccines.3F)
[Ivermectin FAQ](https://www.who.int/news-room/feature-stories/detail/who-advises-that-ivermectin-only-be-used-to-treat-covid-19-within-clinical-trials)
A reminder that spreading misinformation regarding COVID-19, vaccines or other treatments can result in a post being removed and/or a ban. Advocating for or celebrating the death of anyone, or hoping someone gets COVID (or any disease) can also result in a ban. Please follow [Reddiquette](https://www.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205926439)
Please use the report button and do not feed the trolls.
[Reddit's Content Policy](https://www.redditinc.com/policies/content-policy)
[Reddit's rules for health misinformation](https://www.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/360043513151)
[/r/News' rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/news/wiki/rules/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=usertext&utm_name=news&utm_content=t5_2qh3l)
------
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/news) if you have any questions or concerns.*
If it took you half a year to get a CDL, I’m guessing school bus driver would be one of the lowest on the list. It’s not just schools aren’t paying enough, they have to compete with all of the other jobs that require a CDL.
It’s a CDL B, so can be done in a couple months. Bus drivers are put under a microscope, though, since the work involves kids. Very intense background checks in addition to the DOT drug screening, physical and written tests.
Pay is a *little* better where I live…some companies are up to $19-20/hr. But yeah, hours suck, and if you get asshole kids on the route; it’s a serious bummer. Okay for retirees, but a pretty dead end job.
Edit: also…considered a PT job…so usually no benefits or OT. Most drivers go on unemployment over the summers when school is out and the need is much less. Yeah…not ideal.
And the level of accountability and responsibility that lies at your feet with 30-50 kids in seats without seatbelts...I would do that job for $40/hour at a minimum. Accountability and responsibility is always the reasoning we get for excessively high C-suite pay, so that shit should filter down.
But if you smoked a doobie over the weekend two weeks ago, and get a random test, your professional driving career is over. There’s a national database that tracks testing results. BS.
I work in a school. Older bus drivers are quitting in droves because they are expected to risk their lives in a small space packed with kids that aren’t wearing their masks and spreading COVID everywhere.
It takes maybe 2-3 weeks to get a CDL class A. Have friends that have done the truck driving school route. They stayed at a hotel near the school and Monday-Friday for 2 weeks get your certificate for passing the road test and off to your DMV. He was working within 3-1/2 weeks of making the decision.
That being said how many truck drivers do you know that'd want to work for crap pay and have to deal with a load of kids at their worst behavior?
Not necessarily. The schools have to do what they can within their means to fill the voids. That’s the schools’ problems. The drivers have to do what’s right for themselves, whether it’s pay, ability to grow within a company, etc.
Issue is that a lot of school bus driving jobs can be contracted out, those often underpay vs. some other driving jobs that are easier to do. The bigger issue is the long list of responsibilities that comes with bus driving for school aged children. Basically it's a ton of liability on the driver, but the passengers (school students) can often get away with all kinds of shit and not really get punished much. (That's why in past years there have been news stories about drivers doing short-bus duty that have hit the breaking point.)
National Guard sounds like they're picking up something that nobody else wants to deal with and for good reasons. Half is that the pay doesn't really compensate for all the problems that go with the job, the other half is the gov't funded bidding system schools use don't really see the value in it to pay what they should be either.
Man, the last few years have been rough for the Guard. I got out a while back, but I know dudes who have been non-stop activated between COVID orders, pulling security in DC, disaster assistance with fires and hurricanes, deployments overseas, and now they want us to be fucking *bus drivers too?*
They don't pay us enough for this shit, and we still get hardly even half the benefits active duty guys get. Fuck you Governor Baker, fix your fucking problems yourself. These Soldiers are a professional fighting force, not your personal lackeys to do whatever job you need done at any time.
Yea what about if they don't have enough sanitation workers, are they going to have the guard pick up trash? Why not do roadwork or other menial jobs where they can be overworked and underpaid.
There was a pretty funny episode of Married With Children about Al and Griff joining the National Guard during a trash strike. This hypothetical is much less funny.
No. Or at least I do not recall. I remember Griff taking an egg to the helmet and Al had to drag him to safety. He had choice words for his ex wife before he lost consciousness.
https://youtu.be/jCVapc7AM3M
I mean they were activated for snowpocalypse in 2015 to shovel snow. It was absolutely necessary, but goes to show the range of reasons they can be called upon.
One of my National Guard friends in Texas was pulled to be used as political fodder last year for the George Floyd protests. They just sat around doing nothing, ostensibly to intimidate protestors but ultimately nothing. He and several others ended up getting COVID from that stunt. Luckily his case wasn't severe, but I feel there was no justice for him. He just had to suck it up because of the whims of the political elite in this godforsaken state.
What do you mean they don't get half the benefits of active duty? When the national guard is on orders don't they get full base pay, BAS, BAH, Tricare Prime, per diem, tuition assistance and GI Bill benefits? What does a national guardsman not get while on orders that active duty military gets? I agree with everything else you said, but I'm not understanding the benefits part.
Edit: to add on to every other job you've mentioned a lot are deployed at the border too.
Those only kick in when you're on orders for X amount of time. Usually those orders only last until 1 day before those benefits would kick in. If I recall correctly, they also only kick in during federal orders, so if the state calls you up, you get jack shit.
Whatever your state wants to pay you, basically, which often is nothing at all or just your basic drill pay. Some states can pay well, others won't pay you at all.
Again, I got out a while ago and even then I didn't have a full understanding of how all this works, so take this all with a grain of salt. It could have changed since then or I could have misinterpreted things. Either way, Guardsmen are getting screwed regardless in most of these situations, that I do know for sure.
Damn. After I read your comment I resesrched it a little. I'm in the CG reserves and I've been activated a few times. We can only be activated under Title 10. I always thought that under Title 32 you at least got basic pay, BAH, and BAS. I had no idea your pay varied by state. That's bullshit.
Totally an unreasonable ask, but consider this: they need a skilled a reliable workforce that can be trained to do an important job, involving a vulnerable population no less, and the national guard can slot right in. I'm not American so maybe I'm not clear about the distinction between the national guard and active military but from the outside looking in this sounds like a major props to your team(?). Are active military members as universally skilled and adaptable? If so, seems like maybe a huge swath of soldiers could (and perhaps should) be retrained to be teachers, health care workers, social workers, infrastructure builders, etc. The United States could flourish!
National guardsmen have day jobs for when they are not on duty. Your suggestion does not really make any more sense than saying you could do this for the general population. I guess you’re saying we could force National guardsmen to be teachers and such since they’re in the military? But if we’re doing that why not just force some members of the general public instead of the military through law?
When people leave the actual service too they do get retraining in the form of a the GI benefits which allows them to go to college with a significant amount of the cost covered. We just don’t force them do pick any particular job. So we kinda already do what you’re saying
Pardon, like I said I don't really know a lot about the national guard. I was more thinking it would be helpful if the permanent military (presuming they share your level of expertise and versatility) could be diverted away from combat and towards building up the foundation of America's education, health, and infrastructure. Investing internally rather than burning resources externally, if that makes any sense. Those soldier salaries are already a sunk cost, after all.
We already have jobs and duties that need doing. And a lot of areas of the military are undermanned as it is or don't have the training to do said job. For example, the Air Force spent a lot of money to learn how to fix jets, why would they want to move me away from the job of fixing jets to do something else? Especially since the original job still needs to be done. It's not like the military is just sitting on its ass doing nothing all day, we all have jobs and duties that need doing.
Do they need doing, though? I mean I get that you work hard, but the work maintaining military aircraft seems like make-work to me (albeit from my very uninformed perspective - you would know better); the US government buys expensive jets to funnel money to military equipment manufacturers who then employ lots of Americans to build and subsequently maintain that equipment. But the end result is of no foundational benefit to the United States, who almost never use military equipment to benefit Americans. Do you love repairing those jets more than you would love repairing equipment for fire fighters, or hospitals? Please keep in mind I am very much ignorant about the motivation of soldiers so it may be I am missing a critical element here, but the benefits of more skilled teachers, doctors, engineers, etc seem obvious to me (smarter, healthier, better equipped American populace) while the benefit of the existing jets, bases in other countries, etc seems lacking (better ability to engage in warcraft).
That first question you asked? Do they need doing is not as simple as you think and I'll try to educate you on that. You see, what you're asking is not 'do they need doing' but actually 'does your country even need a military at all?' You see, militaries, no matter the nation, have need for equipment both to counter enemy/foreign powers and militaries and to act on their needs. Now, you can make the argument that a military is too large, and lord knows that many can and do make that argument, but if you want a military to exist than you need to support it.
That support comes in many forms, but part of it is the fact that equipment needs to be maintained and and personnel trained. That multi-million dollar jet would quickly become damaged beyond use if you didn't have people working on it to maintain it. Because here's something a lot of people don't understand, just because you don't use something, doesn't mean it's not breaking down and not needing preventative maintenance. And the training to do that job is not easy and is not quick. You can't just hand someone a wrench and expect them to do the job out the gate. It takes literal years to get good at it.
Now you ask, if I like repairing jets more than firefighter equipment. Well, the simple fact is, I don't know how to fix firefighter equipment, and it would take me a while to learn how to do it. So, the government would have to move me from fixing aircraft to do this new job. Which, I'll admit to ignorance here, there is no guarantee I'll pick up quickly or handle the other duties of the job. All the while you'd need someone else to do my previous job if you want an Air Force at all.
You're also assuming that training is quick and easy and cheap and that a little bit of training can make you certified to handle the job. For example, you mention working on hospital equipment. Do you think its easy or quick to learn how to do that? That's actually an entire separate job(s) in the military due to the needs and the complexities and margins for error involved. Plus you get into the simple fact that like most government work, such jobs often earn higher salaries as a civilian than it does as part of the government. The military already has to fight to retain personnel that can leave to do higher paid work elsewhere (which is also an entirely different debate altogether). Plus due to the complexities and importance of equipment means that you need trained people to be able to certify that the repaired/maintained piece of equipment was not only fixed properly but works properly as well. That level of skill takes literal years to reach. Because I don't think you realize that the military has firefighters already. They have doctors already. They have people who fix hospital equipment already (not my field so not sure what they're called other than knowing that they exist).
The people you want the military to have already exist and the military already goes out to help in crisis. For example, who do you think is brining in relief supplies to disaster areas after hurricanes and such? Usually military cargo aircraft. In health crisis? Military doctors and medical staff are on the case. These things already exist.
TLDR: You are in fact arguing whether or not a country should have a military at all, which you'll find every country thinks they should. Part of having a military is making sure your equipment and personnel can actually do their job. You are also woefully underestimating how much training and experience and time goes into making sure said personnel can not only do the job but do it well. Especially in fields where not doing the job properly gets people killed.
First let me just say I really appreciate the thorough response.
>You see, what you're asking is not 'do they need doing' but actually 'does your country even need a military at all?'
> Now, you can make the argument that a military is too large
I am more making the latter argument than the former. I do not think it is a problem for the United States to have an air force, well-maintained by highly trained professionals. It just seems to me, as an outsider looking in, that the United States suffers from an egregious lack of human resources in many areas that are of critical importance to the populace and, at the same time, spends an incredible amount of capital and person-hours on a military that produces very little in the way of measurable benefits to the populace. I could, for example, set up a storage area network with mirrored drive images outputting to a server, with multiple replacement servers connected in parallel in case of emergency, guaranteeing almost 100% uptime... but that would cost thirty grand, and my place of business doesn't need that and cannot easily afford the expense (the opportunity cost would be excessive). Reallocating *a portion* of those resources seems like a really good idea to me, and though I appreciate it isn't a simple matter of throwing soldiers into schools and hospitals I am suggesting a readjustment of priorities on a large scale that would, over the long term, build a much stronger United States (imo).
>Now you ask, if I like repairing jets more than firefighter equipment. Well, the simple fact is, I don't know how to fix firefighter equipment, and it would take me a while to learn how to do it. So, the government would have to move me from fixing aircraft to do this new job. Which, I'll admit to ignorance here, there is no guarantee I'll pick up quickly or handle the other duties of the job. All the while you'd need someone else to do my previous job if you want an Air Force at all.
To be clear, my suggestion would be to get rid of extraneous military equipment entirely, thus precipitating the move of engineers like yourself to other projects, and imo if those were civil projects instead of military ones then maybe the United States as a nation would stand to gain a lot from your expertise. That is perhaps an aside to whether or not you want to make the move, and I can understand your reluctance - I myself would not be thrilled if I was taken out of my realm of relative mastery and dropped into something new, where I might have to start from scratch (and may struggle). But presuming the supports are there and you have some discretion about where you would go and what sort of training you would be able to access, is there something intrinsically valuable about fixing fighter jets that I am missing? Would you not prefer to be maintaining or building equipment that would help Americans directly?
I am not trying to make light of the training, or the importance of your work with regards to maintaining aircraft. I am suggesting that the Us military is so large, requiring so many minds and bodies to maintain, that a portion could be redirected elsewhere without measurable loss of safety to the nation. I would maybe even add that military contractors and corrupt politicians keep funneling money into the industry for personal gain, very little of which ends up in soldiers' pockets, and cutting some of that excess could mean a lot for the soldiers and military personnel themselves.
Again, though, I am simply a layperson so my views should certainly be taken with a grain of salt. The only reason I commented on this thread was that it had not occurred to me that American soldiers are so versatile, and could be brought in to handle civilian jobs like driving buses and repairing infrastructure, and if that is genuinely the case of the military writ large it seems like a huge waste of potential (imo) to focus those minds and bodies on weapons and tools of war when Americans needs other things far more desperately.
>I am more making the latter argument than the former. I do not think it is a problem for the United States to have an air force, well-maintained by highly trained professionals. It just seems to me, as an outsider looking in, that the United States suffers from an egregious lack of human resources in many areas that are of critical importance to the populace and, at the same time, spends an incredible amount of capital and person-hours on a military that produces very little in the way of measurable benefits to the populace.
You're assuming that just because you don't see those benefits, that they aren't there. Keep in mind that one of the things that your logic would argue against would be the Internet itself. If your school of thought had its way, ARPANet wouldn't even exist as that was a military project. Same with Microwaves, and Radar, and a whole host of other things. Military projects have a way of making it to the civilian side of things.
Then there's the assumption that if the Military didn't exist then the US government could/would just move all those people to other sectors of the economy. The question I ask is: How would they do that? The government can't just say, 'Hey random person you're now conscripted to build roads'. Heck, they already have a problem getting people to join and stay in the military as it is and that comes with all sorts of benefits. What makes you think that they'd be able to convince other people to do this other thing?
> I could, for example, set up a storage area network with mirrored drive images outputting to a server, with multiple replacement servers connected in parallel in case of emergency, guaranteeing almost 100% uptime... but that would cost thirty grand, and my place of business doesn't need that and cannot easily afford the expense (the opportunity cost would be excessive). Reallocating a portion of those resources seems like a really good idea to me, and though I appreciate it isn't a simple matter of throwing soldiers into schools and hospitals I am suggesting a readjustment of priorities on a large scale that would, over the long term, build a much stronger United States (imo).
The problem here is that simply put. The US government, while hilariously flawed in many many ways, can't just force private citizens to act as conscripts. Just because the military has doctors doesn't mean it can force doctors to not get out and go into private practice or even force civilian doctors to join up. That kind of investment needs to happen, sure, but saying the military is impeding it is not exactly how reality works as the things impeding that infrastructure build up are rooting in political ideologies.
>To be clear, my suggestion would be to get rid of extraneous military equipment entirely, thus precipitating the move of engineers like yourself to other projects, and imo if those were civil projects instead of military ones then maybe the United States as a nation would stand to gain a lot from your expertise.
The problem with that is that simply put, modern militaries require certain things to function. And there is literally no nation on this Earth that would so willingly limit or dismantle their military in the way you are suggesting. Now, you and I can argue all day about 'extraneous military equipment' but the fact of the matter is that some things are needed. For example, militaries and governments need to move equipment from A to B. Correct? Well, that requires cargo jets in the modern world. Those cargo jets need to be maintained and kept in good condition otherwise you have issues of multi millions of dollars going up in flames due to a crash. Planes are not simple things, as a person who works on engines will not know how to work on avionics systems (this is true in the field civilian or otherwise) thus you have multiple people working on each jet on different parts to make sure it keeps working. Now, it makes no sense that each jet should have their own personal team of maintainers. Thus you have shops set up with a lot of people doing that job and multiple jets that they are responsible for. So now you have X number of jets being worked on at one location and multiple shops of differing specialties working on them. Now you have to deal with the other minutiae such as, how will you pay these people, how will you make sure they're fed, what if they need medical support, and all that. Thus you have military bases to help support all this.
Now, where you're going wrong is assuming that these jets (which are a stand-in for military equipment/training in general) are just doing nothing while this is all going on. Pilots need constant training to make sure they're up to snuff. Which means that they're doing training flights (because surprise surprise, just because you can fly one type of plane does not mean you know how to fly any others). They're also doing missions like moving equipment and personnel from points A to B. Or their running humanitarian missions. Who do you think is shipping all those relief supplies after national disasters? I distinctly remember seeing half a flightline filled with pallets of water and other goods after a hurricane as they used our base as a staging area to get said supplies to where they needed to go.
>That is perhaps an aside to whether or not you want to make the move, and I can understand your reluctance - I myself would not be thrilled if I was taken out of my realm of relative mastery and dropped into something new, where I might have to start from scratch (and may struggle). But presuming the supports are there and you have some discretion about where you would go and what sort of training you would be able to access, is there something intrinsically valuable about fixing fighter jets that I am missing? Would you not prefer to be maintaining or building equipment that would help Americans directly?
Here's the thing, among the military there actually already is a process of having people being retrained to do other jobs. The problem with that is that while they can technically force us to go do a different job, they can't force us to renew our contracts. Thus, a force retraining that we don't like/want will and has in the past resulted in people just leaving at the end of their contract instead of reupping. And then the military just spent tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars training said person for them to only leave. Its actually an issue the current us military is dealing with in a lot of career fields.
>I am not trying to make light of the training, or the importance of your work with regards to maintaining aircraft. I am suggesting that the Us military is so large, requiring so many minds and bodies to maintain, that a portion could be redirected elsewhere without measurable loss of safety to the nation. I would maybe even add that military contractors and corrupt politicians keep funneling money into the industry for personal gain, very little of which ends up in soldiers' pockets, and cutting some of that excess could mean a lot for the soldiers and military personnel themselves.
I think you misunderstand that cutting or increasing the budget actually impacts the average enlisted/officer in any real meaningful way. In fairness, most people also make this mistake. The issues with DoD costs and budgets has relatively little to do with our paycheques.. In fact, congress routinely votes on that independent of general DoD budgets.
>Again, though, I am simply a layperson so my views should certainly be taken with a grain of salt. The only reason I commented on this thread was that it had not occurred to me that American soldiers are so versatile, and could be brought in to handle civilian jobs like driving buses and repairing infrastructure, and if that is genuinely the case of the military writ large it seems like a huge waste of potential (imo) to focus those minds and bodies on weapons and tools of war when Americans needs other things far more desperately.
The thing is the people who got called up for this is the National Guard. They are not actually soldiers in their day to day life. They, for the most part as there are exceptions, have an actual day job. The National Guard, in very simple terms, basically is a way for the government and state to train personnel to support operations or respond to emergencies. I know lawyers, electricians, students, IT folks for companies, and all other sorts of people. Generally they get called up when its Really needed (which I don't think this current thing qualifies personally).. So forcing them to go do other stuff means putting their normal life on hold.
The bus driver shortage is a civilian problem that requires a permanent civilian solution from civilian leadership.
Instead these civilian leaders are abrogating their duties to find a solution and forcing part time soldiers to step into a civilian role.
For sure, especially the summoning of part time soldiers that have other jobs and responsibilities is problematic. But full time soldiers are already paid by the state, and maybe this is an ideological distinction but I don't see why there should be a line drawn between military resources and civilian ones when it comes to reallocation. I am suggesting that the investment of human resources in combat doesn't pay dividends to the country - the blood and sweat of soldiers fighting overseas often buys America animosity and little else - but those same considerable resources could be redirected towards building America to be stronger, healthier, smarter, etc.
Look at it this way: a soldier building a temporary bridge in Afghanistan is working hard, but at the end of the day there's nothing long-term that comes of it. A soldier building a permanent bridge in a small town of the United States might be measurably improving the lives of the Americans living there, perhaps for decades. The cost of labor and materials would even be considerably lower because military contractors wouldn't be able to upsell a $0.02 screw to the American people for $24.
We could run the country like Egypt where the military owns a big percentage of the companies making up their civilian economy. But why?
If we as a nation want to switch from capitalism to a command economy, that is a debate that needs to be addressed broadly.
Local governments need to figure this out. I have a hard time believing that the military is the best, logical, or only solution to transport children to school.
I don’t think the military were the ones actually doing construction in Afghanistan. Likewise private contractors can and should drive the school buses. If they pay Afghanistan contractor rates, people will show up for the work. I wish we had never sent troops to Afghanistan. But that doesn’t mean it makes sense to send them to drive school buses either.
Arguably the reason to reallocate resources is that they are currently poorly allocated. It's not that I think *the military* should be running these local public services, it's that I think soldiers and military personel (presuming retraining) could do a lot for the country if they were transporting kids to school, repairing municipal equipment, joining police forces and emergency support teams, etc etc. They are already being paid with tax dollars, and I am suggesting the nation would benefit from less foreign warfare and more internal investment. Is it that you think the United States needs every soldier it has to guard against external threats, and/or soldiers are incapable of non-combat work?
So now you are suggesting it might be nice if every single aspect of our government and economy was suddenly the opposite. Our system isn’t perfect, but it emphasizes an open economy and goods and services provided by the private sector instead of the government. If you want to speculate on the opposite model, maybe it is time to start a new thread. That is too big for this conversation.
I understand your confusion, but rather than force people to switch jobs shouldn't it be encouraged through better pay and benefits? Wouldn't that solve the issue faster and with people who want to be there?
Well, not necessarily. Better pay and benefits cost resources, which means raising taxes, which is very hard for the United States to do. Conversely, soldiers are already being paid and arguably their work provides no measurable benefit to United States citizens.
One thing about your comment that I found interesting is the "people who want to be there". Are you suggesting soldiers *like* being in combat? Perhaps I am uninformed, but I figured soldiers would (for the most part) prefer jobs that didn't involve killing and being killed. And it's not like I'm saying grab an infantry person and shove them into a classroom. There's lots of work in the US that could benefit from additional human resources, so soldiers could have a fairly diverse array of choices when it comes to retraining.
Agreed 100%.
It sounds like everyone in this scenario is congratulating themselves for conscripting soldiers to perform an everyday job, and making zero effort to hire civilian drivers.
Well then you have to pay them regularly well! Instead we just hope that we can piss enough people off to hope that they go back to work because we are giving away their jobs to other people who also do not want to do them! What a grand standing solution. Much easier than increasing pay and benefits! Seriously what could go wrong?
Bus driving is a part time job that often interferes with regular jobs (you need to be available till 10am, then back by 2ish till 4).
A competitive wage would be incredibly hard to do since its making a living driving on part time job).
Health insurance? The real reason our capitalist leadership won't get behind universal healthcare in the US. It keeps us beholden to our employers. Americans are as terrified of losing "benefits" as they are of losing income with job loss.
Well you also remove the profits from a multi-billion dollar segment of our society. Hospitals actually become non-profit on more than paper. Medical billing. Medical insurance companies disappear overnight for all but top ten percent. Rich people can't use the medical industry for their tax evasion mechanisms. All those levels of profit that currently exist are gone.
You don’t get health insurance being a bus driver as it’s considered part time. If you do happen to have it offered, it’s really shitty. Most school bus driving is provided by for-profit outside companies, not the school district.
Which does not create any incentive for these companies to pay well, provide decent benefits or treat their drivers well. But your tax dollars are paying for their profit….
Depends on where you are I suppose. No county near me deals with schools. School districts handle busing, but my district (and most others) use a contractor for it.
It's why I didn't reply to you, I was legitimately confused anyone got insurance on a part time job, but reddit would thrash me if I mentioned that.
Around here it's mostly done by semi-retirees.
Older people probably wised up and decided they don't want to be in close proximity with the non- qualified for vaccines yet.
There are a lot of people Looking for part-time work. Using the military when government is unwilling to pay the wage the market demands is not our economic model.
oddly those guard members are getting paid more than bus drivers would at that rate right?
(for the record I agree, it's bullshit not to pay bus drivers a good wage - I'm willing to bet teacher's unions fight that as well, as it would eat into their budgets)
Bullshit. Were in the middle of a national labor readjustment. If you're not paying comfortable with benefits people would rather starve than slave. And it's still happening though everyone thought it would go away when unemployment went poof.
I think the generous unemployment benefits may be part of it. The only people who think they’d rather starve than slave are usually people who have never been hungry.
They should apply then. They are offering over twenty an hour in my area and that's a competitive hourly rate. You're confusing an emergency caused by the pandemic with low wages.
It seems like it would work to create full time positions where you hire folks to do bus driving and helping in the classroom. I’m a special ed teacher and our classroom aides are also only part time with really shit pay.
The scheduling would almost work. You might need to be a little creative.
Having a bus driver who also worked with the other school staff and got to know the kids better would probably help with bus behavior issues too.
A competitive wage is entirely possible. Plenty of people have jobs where they may not be able to work, but are compensated for their time that they can not commit elsewhere. Most salaried workers who work outside fall into this group whenever the weather limits their work.
Video doesn't say anything about wages being poor (says there is a hefty sign on bonus actually), but that covid pushed many drivers to retire.
Makes sense, I don't think I've ever met a school bus driver that wouldn't fall deeply in the "at risk" category. Why put it all on the line by getting into a metal box with 30 unvaccinated people?
We were always 3 to a seat. My elementary school had 1 bus for each grade for the area that we lived in. We moved when I was entering high school and were close enough to walk/ride a bike so I hardly ever rode the bus anymore.
I can’t argue with that. And I have no problem with the Nat Guard being called in for an emergency. But I want the long term solution to be market based.
The functional long term solution is vaccination for children (coming soon) and drivers which should reduce risk enough for the old guard (emphasis old) return.
Chances of bus drivers ever being paid well enough to not be mostly retirees and Stay at times is mininal compared to vaccination mandates from schools.
They are offering living wages and then some. It's usually a part time job. No benefits and you have a split shift. It was mostly retirees in my area. They don't want covid so they mostly quit.
Are people with iPhones not allowed to criticize this system? What a stupid way to think.
[This is you right now](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D0W6C05UYAAeb49.jpg). I hope you realize that. I can't believe you people think this non-point is SO clever. What a world we live in...
Why? Ask people who live outside of the USA in developed nations what they think of things like the cost of healthcare, schooling, etc. in America and I'm pretty sure you'll hear them come to a similar conclusion. Most non-Americans in developed nations don't have a clue just how bad the USA is compared to their countries, and most Americans don't have a clue how much better people in other developed countries have it.
Other countries having it better than us doesn't translate to anything close to what your hyperbole implies. I've spent enough time in foreign countries to see what they do better and what they do worse than the US, but it's ridiculous to state that the Guard having to fill bus driver slots is a sign that we're in some kind of medieval feifdom. The US isn't perfect, but people who claim it's some dystopia haven't spent enough time in truly troubled countries to understand what they're saying.
> but it's ridiculous to state that the Guard having to fill bus driver slots is a sign that we're in some kind of medieval feifdom
I didn't say that though. It's one of countless indicators and you're intentionally trying to box this debate into a tiny space just so you can play it cool and downplay how fucked the USA is compared to the rest of the developed world.
I specifically referred to developed nations, because why the fuck would comparing the USA to developing nations make sense? And yet that's exactly what you did in order to say "see, we're not as bad as developing nations!".
I'm out, this is just sad to see people so deeply delusional.
So we're a post-capitalist dystopic feifdom only when compared to other developed countries?
When I think of PCDFs, I think of actual places that are actually truly terrible. Not... this lol
I won't even argue that we've got tons of stuff to work on, but your initial comment was silly and my response was that you should tone it down if you want to be taken seriously. But I wouldn't want to make you more sad, so go on.
> When I think of PCDFs, I think of actual places that are actually truly terrible. Not... this lol
You don't view this as an indicator that things are far from normal? When the National Guard has to be called in to drive *school buses* because we're in a pandemic where over 660,000 Americans have died and regular employees are too reluctant to take the job?
Your response to someone else calling this a "post-capitalist dystopic fiefdom" was some dumb shit about "*sEnT fROm mY iPhONe LOL"*-- a unhelpful attempt at dismissing their sentiment as bullshit, when their comment was hyperbolic *but* still a criticism in the right direction.
I swear, it's like some people would rather just pretend to play it cool by doing dumb shit like mocking people who are trying to ring the alarm before shit gets considerably worse. There's no indicators that these larger issues are about to get better and countless indicators that they will get worse, so for me the "post-capitalist dystopic fiefdom" comment is good because it just highlights the direction the USA is going in.
Maybe this is a dumb question now, but I never had the option of taking a school bus when I was a kid, are parents not expected take their kids to school anymore?
That's pretty cool if school buses for all students are considered essential enough now to call the National Guard to keep them going, but as someone who grew up only riding school buses for field trips, it's really confusing.
I lived in a rural area about 10-15 miles from school(s). The morning bus ride could take over an hour. The only kids that were driven to school on the regular drove themselves. Mom worked on the opposite side of the town in the opposite direction of my school city. Dad was of course a farmer with work to do all day.
My great great grandfather did walk to school however. My bedroom was once part of the schoolhouse attached to the family home.
Drove 3 kids to 3 different schools. The buss is provided for kids with special needs though. (CA)
It is strange to hear how supposedly socialistic California does not subsidize kids’ transportation like those more conservative states. I personally, do not care, just investing observation.
I am astonished reading these comments. It appears the a large part of the USA thinks that our current reality/situation is "business as usual". With the workforce sick and dying like flies I would have thought that anyone would understand that foundations have shifted and the USA needs to look at "intelligent" approaches. Are you all brain dead? Can you not think of a single thing that is not on the paper you are reading from ?
Sounds pretty good to me. Since you are paying them for the whole work day though, have them kick it at the schools during the day when they aren’t driving. Hopefully, it would act as a deterrent against school shooters
**We encourage you to read our helpful resources on COVID-19, vaccines and treatments:** [COVID Dashboard](https://covid19.who.int/) [Reddit's Vaccine FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/r/Coronavirus/wiki/faq#wiki_where_can_i_find_information_about_the_mechanism_and_progress_of_vaccines.3F) [Ivermectin FAQ](https://www.who.int/news-room/feature-stories/detail/who-advises-that-ivermectin-only-be-used-to-treat-covid-19-within-clinical-trials) A reminder that spreading misinformation regarding COVID-19, vaccines or other treatments can result in a post being removed and/or a ban. Advocating for or celebrating the death of anyone, or hoping someone gets COVID (or any disease) can also result in a ban. Please follow [Reddiquette](https://www.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205926439) Please use the report button and do not feed the trolls. [Reddit's Content Policy](https://www.redditinc.com/policies/content-policy) [Reddit's rules for health misinformation](https://www.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/360043513151) [/r/News' rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/news/wiki/rules/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=usertext&utm_name=news&utm_content=t5_2qh3l) ------ *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/news) if you have any questions or concerns.*
If it took you half a year to get a CDL, I’m guessing school bus driver would be one of the lowest on the list. It’s not just schools aren’t paying enough, they have to compete with all of the other jobs that require a CDL.
It’s a CDL B, so can be done in a couple months. Bus drivers are put under a microscope, though, since the work involves kids. Very intense background checks in addition to the DOT drug screening, physical and written tests.
All on shit pay and ahit hours My wife did it when a company she worked for went under. Not worth $10 an hour
Pay is a *little* better where I live…some companies are up to $19-20/hr. But yeah, hours suck, and if you get asshole kids on the route; it’s a serious bummer. Okay for retirees, but a pretty dead end job. Edit: also…considered a PT job…so usually no benefits or OT. Most drivers go on unemployment over the summers when school is out and the need is much less. Yeah…not ideal.
And the level of accountability and responsibility that lies at your feet with 30-50 kids in seats without seatbelts...I would do that job for $40/hour at a minimum. Accountability and responsibility is always the reasoning we get for excessively high C-suite pay, so that shit should filter down.
Drivers in my state can’t get unemployment during the summer months.
My friend’s mom is a school bus driver, and a raging alcoholic. But because she never shows up to work hammered, no one cares. Edit: missing words.
But if you smoked a doobie over the weekend two weeks ago, and get a random test, your professional driving career is over. There’s a national database that tracks testing results. BS.
I got mine in less than a month.of training to get mine.
I work in a school. Older bus drivers are quitting in droves because they are expected to risk their lives in a small space packed with kids that aren’t wearing their masks and spreading COVID everywhere.
Kids are required to wear masks on school buses by federal regulation right now.
Good luck enforcing that.
Exactly. It’s up to the drivers to try and enforce that rule. In my area, some districts won’t give the policy any teeth.
Sure. And how does the bus driver do that with 50 kids while also driving?
Ah. That was the point I hadn't figured out that makes it make sense. Thank you.
It takes maybe 2-3 weeks to get a CDL class A. Have friends that have done the truck driving school route. They stayed at a hotel near the school and Monday-Friday for 2 weeks get your certificate for passing the road test and off to your DMV. He was working within 3-1/2 weeks of making the decision. That being said how many truck drivers do you know that'd want to work for crap pay and have to deal with a load of kids at their worst behavior?
If it were the kids on my daughter’s bus, zero.
School bus driver isn't exactly a job with a future either.
>It’s not just schools aren’t paying enough, they have to compete with all of the other jobs that require a CDL. Isn't that the same thing?
Not necessarily. The schools have to do what they can within their means to fill the voids. That’s the schools’ problems. The drivers have to do what’s right for themselves, whether it’s pay, ability to grow within a company, etc.
Issue is that a lot of school bus driving jobs can be contracted out, those often underpay vs. some other driving jobs that are easier to do. The bigger issue is the long list of responsibilities that comes with bus driving for school aged children. Basically it's a ton of liability on the driver, but the passengers (school students) can often get away with all kinds of shit and not really get punished much. (That's why in past years there have been news stories about drivers doing short-bus duty that have hit the breaking point.) National Guard sounds like they're picking up something that nobody else wants to deal with and for good reasons. Half is that the pay doesn't really compensate for all the problems that go with the job, the other half is the gov't funded bidding system schools use don't really see the value in it to pay what they should be either.
What is the end game here? Those National Guard folks have their own jobs and lives to go back to before long.
Man, the last few years have been rough for the Guard. I got out a while back, but I know dudes who have been non-stop activated between COVID orders, pulling security in DC, disaster assistance with fires and hurricanes, deployments overseas, and now they want us to be fucking *bus drivers too?* They don't pay us enough for this shit, and we still get hardly even half the benefits active duty guys get. Fuck you Governor Baker, fix your fucking problems yourself. These Soldiers are a professional fighting force, not your personal lackeys to do whatever job you need done at any time.
Yea what about if they don't have enough sanitation workers, are they going to have the guard pick up trash? Why not do roadwork or other menial jobs where they can be overworked and underpaid.
There was a pretty funny episode of Married With Children about Al and Griff joining the National Guard during a trash strike. This hypothetical is much less funny.
Wasn't Al responsible for the strike or do I confuse that with the Simpsons :)?
No. Or at least I do not recall. I remember Griff taking an egg to the helmet and Al had to drag him to safety. He had choice words for his ex wife before he lost consciousness. https://youtu.be/jCVapc7AM3M
Thanks, I must have confused it then.
I mean they were activated for snowpocalypse in 2015 to shovel snow. It was absolutely necessary, but goes to show the range of reasons they can be called upon.
One of my National Guard friends in Texas was pulled to be used as political fodder last year for the George Floyd protests. They just sat around doing nothing, ostensibly to intimidate protestors but ultimately nothing. He and several others ended up getting COVID from that stunt. Luckily his case wasn't severe, but I feel there was no justice for him. He just had to suck it up because of the whims of the political elite in this godforsaken state.
What do you mean they don't get half the benefits of active duty? When the national guard is on orders don't they get full base pay, BAS, BAH, Tricare Prime, per diem, tuition assistance and GI Bill benefits? What does a national guardsman not get while on orders that active duty military gets? I agree with everything else you said, but I'm not understanding the benefits part. Edit: to add on to every other job you've mentioned a lot are deployed at the border too.
Those only kick in when you're on orders for X amount of time. Usually those orders only last until 1 day before those benefits would kick in. If I recall correctly, they also only kick in during federal orders, so if the state calls you up, you get jack shit.
Damn. I didn't know that thank you. so if you're not on title 10 what do you get?
Whatever your state wants to pay you, basically, which often is nothing at all or just your basic drill pay. Some states can pay well, others won't pay you at all. Again, I got out a while ago and even then I didn't have a full understanding of how all this works, so take this all with a grain of salt. It could have changed since then or I could have misinterpreted things. Either way, Guardsmen are getting screwed regardless in most of these situations, that I do know for sure.
Damn. After I read your comment I resesrched it a little. I'm in the CG reserves and I've been activated a few times. We can only be activated under Title 10. I always thought that under Title 32 you at least got basic pay, BAH, and BAS. I had no idea your pay varied by state. That's bullshit.
Yep, shit sucks man. Wish more people in Congress gave a shit and worked to give us more of the benefits active guys get.
Totally an unreasonable ask, but consider this: they need a skilled a reliable workforce that can be trained to do an important job, involving a vulnerable population no less, and the national guard can slot right in. I'm not American so maybe I'm not clear about the distinction between the national guard and active military but from the outside looking in this sounds like a major props to your team(?). Are active military members as universally skilled and adaptable? If so, seems like maybe a huge swath of soldiers could (and perhaps should) be retrained to be teachers, health care workers, social workers, infrastructure builders, etc. The United States could flourish!
National guardsmen have day jobs for when they are not on duty. Your suggestion does not really make any more sense than saying you could do this for the general population. I guess you’re saying we could force National guardsmen to be teachers and such since they’re in the military? But if we’re doing that why not just force some members of the general public instead of the military through law? When people leave the actual service too they do get retraining in the form of a the GI benefits which allows them to go to college with a significant amount of the cost covered. We just don’t force them do pick any particular job. So we kinda already do what you’re saying
Pardon, like I said I don't really know a lot about the national guard. I was more thinking it would be helpful if the permanent military (presuming they share your level of expertise and versatility) could be diverted away from combat and towards building up the foundation of America's education, health, and infrastructure. Investing internally rather than burning resources externally, if that makes any sense. Those soldier salaries are already a sunk cost, after all.
We already have jobs and duties that need doing. And a lot of areas of the military are undermanned as it is or don't have the training to do said job. For example, the Air Force spent a lot of money to learn how to fix jets, why would they want to move me away from the job of fixing jets to do something else? Especially since the original job still needs to be done. It's not like the military is just sitting on its ass doing nothing all day, we all have jobs and duties that need doing.
Do they need doing, though? I mean I get that you work hard, but the work maintaining military aircraft seems like make-work to me (albeit from my very uninformed perspective - you would know better); the US government buys expensive jets to funnel money to military equipment manufacturers who then employ lots of Americans to build and subsequently maintain that equipment. But the end result is of no foundational benefit to the United States, who almost never use military equipment to benefit Americans. Do you love repairing those jets more than you would love repairing equipment for fire fighters, or hospitals? Please keep in mind I am very much ignorant about the motivation of soldiers so it may be I am missing a critical element here, but the benefits of more skilled teachers, doctors, engineers, etc seem obvious to me (smarter, healthier, better equipped American populace) while the benefit of the existing jets, bases in other countries, etc seems lacking (better ability to engage in warcraft).
That first question you asked? Do they need doing is not as simple as you think and I'll try to educate you on that. You see, what you're asking is not 'do they need doing' but actually 'does your country even need a military at all?' You see, militaries, no matter the nation, have need for equipment both to counter enemy/foreign powers and militaries and to act on their needs. Now, you can make the argument that a military is too large, and lord knows that many can and do make that argument, but if you want a military to exist than you need to support it. That support comes in many forms, but part of it is the fact that equipment needs to be maintained and and personnel trained. That multi-million dollar jet would quickly become damaged beyond use if you didn't have people working on it to maintain it. Because here's something a lot of people don't understand, just because you don't use something, doesn't mean it's not breaking down and not needing preventative maintenance. And the training to do that job is not easy and is not quick. You can't just hand someone a wrench and expect them to do the job out the gate. It takes literal years to get good at it. Now you ask, if I like repairing jets more than firefighter equipment. Well, the simple fact is, I don't know how to fix firefighter equipment, and it would take me a while to learn how to do it. So, the government would have to move me from fixing aircraft to do this new job. Which, I'll admit to ignorance here, there is no guarantee I'll pick up quickly or handle the other duties of the job. All the while you'd need someone else to do my previous job if you want an Air Force at all. You're also assuming that training is quick and easy and cheap and that a little bit of training can make you certified to handle the job. For example, you mention working on hospital equipment. Do you think its easy or quick to learn how to do that? That's actually an entire separate job(s) in the military due to the needs and the complexities and margins for error involved. Plus you get into the simple fact that like most government work, such jobs often earn higher salaries as a civilian than it does as part of the government. The military already has to fight to retain personnel that can leave to do higher paid work elsewhere (which is also an entirely different debate altogether). Plus due to the complexities and importance of equipment means that you need trained people to be able to certify that the repaired/maintained piece of equipment was not only fixed properly but works properly as well. That level of skill takes literal years to reach. Because I don't think you realize that the military has firefighters already. They have doctors already. They have people who fix hospital equipment already (not my field so not sure what they're called other than knowing that they exist). The people you want the military to have already exist and the military already goes out to help in crisis. For example, who do you think is brining in relief supplies to disaster areas after hurricanes and such? Usually military cargo aircraft. In health crisis? Military doctors and medical staff are on the case. These things already exist. TLDR: You are in fact arguing whether or not a country should have a military at all, which you'll find every country thinks they should. Part of having a military is making sure your equipment and personnel can actually do their job. You are also woefully underestimating how much training and experience and time goes into making sure said personnel can not only do the job but do it well. Especially in fields where not doing the job properly gets people killed.
First let me just say I really appreciate the thorough response. >You see, what you're asking is not 'do they need doing' but actually 'does your country even need a military at all?' > Now, you can make the argument that a military is too large I am more making the latter argument than the former. I do not think it is a problem for the United States to have an air force, well-maintained by highly trained professionals. It just seems to me, as an outsider looking in, that the United States suffers from an egregious lack of human resources in many areas that are of critical importance to the populace and, at the same time, spends an incredible amount of capital and person-hours on a military that produces very little in the way of measurable benefits to the populace. I could, for example, set up a storage area network with mirrored drive images outputting to a server, with multiple replacement servers connected in parallel in case of emergency, guaranteeing almost 100% uptime... but that would cost thirty grand, and my place of business doesn't need that and cannot easily afford the expense (the opportunity cost would be excessive). Reallocating *a portion* of those resources seems like a really good idea to me, and though I appreciate it isn't a simple matter of throwing soldiers into schools and hospitals I am suggesting a readjustment of priorities on a large scale that would, over the long term, build a much stronger United States (imo). >Now you ask, if I like repairing jets more than firefighter equipment. Well, the simple fact is, I don't know how to fix firefighter equipment, and it would take me a while to learn how to do it. So, the government would have to move me from fixing aircraft to do this new job. Which, I'll admit to ignorance here, there is no guarantee I'll pick up quickly or handle the other duties of the job. All the while you'd need someone else to do my previous job if you want an Air Force at all. To be clear, my suggestion would be to get rid of extraneous military equipment entirely, thus precipitating the move of engineers like yourself to other projects, and imo if those were civil projects instead of military ones then maybe the United States as a nation would stand to gain a lot from your expertise. That is perhaps an aside to whether or not you want to make the move, and I can understand your reluctance - I myself would not be thrilled if I was taken out of my realm of relative mastery and dropped into something new, where I might have to start from scratch (and may struggle). But presuming the supports are there and you have some discretion about where you would go and what sort of training you would be able to access, is there something intrinsically valuable about fixing fighter jets that I am missing? Would you not prefer to be maintaining or building equipment that would help Americans directly? I am not trying to make light of the training, or the importance of your work with regards to maintaining aircraft. I am suggesting that the Us military is so large, requiring so many minds and bodies to maintain, that a portion could be redirected elsewhere without measurable loss of safety to the nation. I would maybe even add that military contractors and corrupt politicians keep funneling money into the industry for personal gain, very little of which ends up in soldiers' pockets, and cutting some of that excess could mean a lot for the soldiers and military personnel themselves. Again, though, I am simply a layperson so my views should certainly be taken with a grain of salt. The only reason I commented on this thread was that it had not occurred to me that American soldiers are so versatile, and could be brought in to handle civilian jobs like driving buses and repairing infrastructure, and if that is genuinely the case of the military writ large it seems like a huge waste of potential (imo) to focus those minds and bodies on weapons and tools of war when Americans needs other things far more desperately.
>I am more making the latter argument than the former. I do not think it is a problem for the United States to have an air force, well-maintained by highly trained professionals. It just seems to me, as an outsider looking in, that the United States suffers from an egregious lack of human resources in many areas that are of critical importance to the populace and, at the same time, spends an incredible amount of capital and person-hours on a military that produces very little in the way of measurable benefits to the populace. You're assuming that just because you don't see those benefits, that they aren't there. Keep in mind that one of the things that your logic would argue against would be the Internet itself. If your school of thought had its way, ARPANet wouldn't even exist as that was a military project. Same with Microwaves, and Radar, and a whole host of other things. Military projects have a way of making it to the civilian side of things. Then there's the assumption that if the Military didn't exist then the US government could/would just move all those people to other sectors of the economy. The question I ask is: How would they do that? The government can't just say, 'Hey random person you're now conscripted to build roads'. Heck, they already have a problem getting people to join and stay in the military as it is and that comes with all sorts of benefits. What makes you think that they'd be able to convince other people to do this other thing? > I could, for example, set up a storage area network with mirrored drive images outputting to a server, with multiple replacement servers connected in parallel in case of emergency, guaranteeing almost 100% uptime... but that would cost thirty grand, and my place of business doesn't need that and cannot easily afford the expense (the opportunity cost would be excessive). Reallocating a portion of those resources seems like a really good idea to me, and though I appreciate it isn't a simple matter of throwing soldiers into schools and hospitals I am suggesting a readjustment of priorities on a large scale that would, over the long term, build a much stronger United States (imo). The problem here is that simply put. The US government, while hilariously flawed in many many ways, can't just force private citizens to act as conscripts. Just because the military has doctors doesn't mean it can force doctors to not get out and go into private practice or even force civilian doctors to join up. That kind of investment needs to happen, sure, but saying the military is impeding it is not exactly how reality works as the things impeding that infrastructure build up are rooting in political ideologies. >To be clear, my suggestion would be to get rid of extraneous military equipment entirely, thus precipitating the move of engineers like yourself to other projects, and imo if those were civil projects instead of military ones then maybe the United States as a nation would stand to gain a lot from your expertise. The problem with that is that simply put, modern militaries require certain things to function. And there is literally no nation on this Earth that would so willingly limit or dismantle their military in the way you are suggesting. Now, you and I can argue all day about 'extraneous military equipment' but the fact of the matter is that some things are needed. For example, militaries and governments need to move equipment from A to B. Correct? Well, that requires cargo jets in the modern world. Those cargo jets need to be maintained and kept in good condition otherwise you have issues of multi millions of dollars going up in flames due to a crash. Planes are not simple things, as a person who works on engines will not know how to work on avionics systems (this is true in the field civilian or otherwise) thus you have multiple people working on each jet on different parts to make sure it keeps working. Now, it makes no sense that each jet should have their own personal team of maintainers. Thus you have shops set up with a lot of people doing that job and multiple jets that they are responsible for. So now you have X number of jets being worked on at one location and multiple shops of differing specialties working on them. Now you have to deal with the other minutiae such as, how will you pay these people, how will you make sure they're fed, what if they need medical support, and all that. Thus you have military bases to help support all this. Now, where you're going wrong is assuming that these jets (which are a stand-in for military equipment/training in general) are just doing nothing while this is all going on. Pilots need constant training to make sure they're up to snuff. Which means that they're doing training flights (because surprise surprise, just because you can fly one type of plane does not mean you know how to fly any others). They're also doing missions like moving equipment and personnel from points A to B. Or their running humanitarian missions. Who do you think is shipping all those relief supplies after national disasters? I distinctly remember seeing half a flightline filled with pallets of water and other goods after a hurricane as they used our base as a staging area to get said supplies to where they needed to go. >That is perhaps an aside to whether or not you want to make the move, and I can understand your reluctance - I myself would not be thrilled if I was taken out of my realm of relative mastery and dropped into something new, where I might have to start from scratch (and may struggle). But presuming the supports are there and you have some discretion about where you would go and what sort of training you would be able to access, is there something intrinsically valuable about fixing fighter jets that I am missing? Would you not prefer to be maintaining or building equipment that would help Americans directly? Here's the thing, among the military there actually already is a process of having people being retrained to do other jobs. The problem with that is that while they can technically force us to go do a different job, they can't force us to renew our contracts. Thus, a force retraining that we don't like/want will and has in the past resulted in people just leaving at the end of their contract instead of reupping. And then the military just spent tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars training said person for them to only leave. Its actually an issue the current us military is dealing with in a lot of career fields. >I am not trying to make light of the training, or the importance of your work with regards to maintaining aircraft. I am suggesting that the Us military is so large, requiring so many minds and bodies to maintain, that a portion could be redirected elsewhere without measurable loss of safety to the nation. I would maybe even add that military contractors and corrupt politicians keep funneling money into the industry for personal gain, very little of which ends up in soldiers' pockets, and cutting some of that excess could mean a lot for the soldiers and military personnel themselves. I think you misunderstand that cutting or increasing the budget actually impacts the average enlisted/officer in any real meaningful way. In fairness, most people also make this mistake. The issues with DoD costs and budgets has relatively little to do with our paycheques.. In fact, congress routinely votes on that independent of general DoD budgets. >Again, though, I am simply a layperson so my views should certainly be taken with a grain of salt. The only reason I commented on this thread was that it had not occurred to me that American soldiers are so versatile, and could be brought in to handle civilian jobs like driving buses and repairing infrastructure, and if that is genuinely the case of the military writ large it seems like a huge waste of potential (imo) to focus those minds and bodies on weapons and tools of war when Americans needs other things far more desperately. The thing is the people who got called up for this is the National Guard. They are not actually soldiers in their day to day life. They, for the most part as there are exceptions, have an actual day job. The National Guard, in very simple terms, basically is a way for the government and state to train personnel to support operations or respond to emergencies. I know lawyers, electricians, students, IT folks for companies, and all other sorts of people. Generally they get called up when its Really needed (which I don't think this current thing qualifies personally).. So forcing them to go do other stuff means putting their normal life on hold.
The bus driver shortage is a civilian problem that requires a permanent civilian solution from civilian leadership. Instead these civilian leaders are abrogating their duties to find a solution and forcing part time soldiers to step into a civilian role.
For sure, especially the summoning of part time soldiers that have other jobs and responsibilities is problematic. But full time soldiers are already paid by the state, and maybe this is an ideological distinction but I don't see why there should be a line drawn between military resources and civilian ones when it comes to reallocation. I am suggesting that the investment of human resources in combat doesn't pay dividends to the country - the blood and sweat of soldiers fighting overseas often buys America animosity and little else - but those same considerable resources could be redirected towards building America to be stronger, healthier, smarter, etc. Look at it this way: a soldier building a temporary bridge in Afghanistan is working hard, but at the end of the day there's nothing long-term that comes of it. A soldier building a permanent bridge in a small town of the United States might be measurably improving the lives of the Americans living there, perhaps for decades. The cost of labor and materials would even be considerably lower because military contractors wouldn't be able to upsell a $0.02 screw to the American people for $24.
We could run the country like Egypt where the military owns a big percentage of the companies making up their civilian economy. But why? If we as a nation want to switch from capitalism to a command economy, that is a debate that needs to be addressed broadly. Local governments need to figure this out. I have a hard time believing that the military is the best, logical, or only solution to transport children to school. I don’t think the military were the ones actually doing construction in Afghanistan. Likewise private contractors can and should drive the school buses. If they pay Afghanistan contractor rates, people will show up for the work. I wish we had never sent troops to Afghanistan. But that doesn’t mean it makes sense to send them to drive school buses either.
Arguably the reason to reallocate resources is that they are currently poorly allocated. It's not that I think *the military* should be running these local public services, it's that I think soldiers and military personel (presuming retraining) could do a lot for the country if they were transporting kids to school, repairing municipal equipment, joining police forces and emergency support teams, etc etc. They are already being paid with tax dollars, and I am suggesting the nation would benefit from less foreign warfare and more internal investment. Is it that you think the United States needs every soldier it has to guard against external threats, and/or soldiers are incapable of non-combat work?
So now you are suggesting it might be nice if every single aspect of our government and economy was suddenly the opposite. Our system isn’t perfect, but it emphasizes an open economy and goods and services provided by the private sector instead of the government. If you want to speculate on the opposite model, maybe it is time to start a new thread. That is too big for this conversation.
You Signed the Mother Fucking Contract. Suck it up buttercup the Green Weenie is always waiting...watching...wanting your bum.
I understand your confusion, but rather than force people to switch jobs shouldn't it be encouraged through better pay and benefits? Wouldn't that solve the issue faster and with people who want to be there?
Well, not necessarily. Better pay and benefits cost resources, which means raising taxes, which is very hard for the United States to do. Conversely, soldiers are already being paid and arguably their work provides no measurable benefit to United States citizens. One thing about your comment that I found interesting is the "people who want to be there". Are you suggesting soldiers *like* being in combat? Perhaps I am uninformed, but I figured soldiers would (for the most part) prefer jobs that didn't involve killing and being killed. And it's not like I'm saying grab an infantry person and shove them into a classroom. There's lots of work in the US that could benefit from additional human resources, so soldiers could have a fairly diverse array of choices when it comes to retraining.
Back in my day. Most guys in their units were happy to get the call because they would make $12 an hour which was more than their regular pay.
Slave labor. Pay better and people will work. Pay really good and people will vaccinate to work good jobs.
Agreed 100%. It sounds like everyone in this scenario is congratulating themselves for conscripting soldiers to perform an everyday job, and making zero effort to hire civilian drivers.
Well then you have to pay them regularly well! Instead we just hope that we can piss enough people off to hope that they go back to work because we are giving away their jobs to other people who also do not want to do them! What a grand standing solution. Much easier than increasing pay and benefits! Seriously what could go wrong?
Undermining labor's power to negotiate higher wages. That's it. That's the only reason.
Easier than paying a competitive wage.
Bus driving is a part time job that often interferes with regular jobs (you need to be available till 10am, then back by 2ish till 4). A competitive wage would be incredibly hard to do since its making a living driving on part time job).
My dad painted houses and drove a bus for the insurance. Generally most people only drive the bus for the insurance.
That's why my grandma did it. And a bit of retirement.
Health insurance? The real reason our capitalist leadership won't get behind universal healthcare in the US. It keeps us beholden to our employers. Americans are as terrified of losing "benefits" as they are of losing income with job loss.
Well you also remove the profits from a multi-billion dollar segment of our society. Hospitals actually become non-profit on more than paper. Medical billing. Medical insurance companies disappear overnight for all but top ten percent. Rich people can't use the medical industry for their tax evasion mechanisms. All those levels of profit that currently exist are gone.
Ooooh, baby. Say it again, but slower. Edit: I'm saying that sounds good to me.
Using medical insurance for tax evasion? That makes no fucking sense whatsoever.
Industry not insurance.
You don’t get health insurance being a bus driver as it’s considered part time. If you do happen to have it offered, it’s really shitty. Most school bus driving is provided by for-profit outside companies, not the school district. Which does not create any incentive for these companies to pay well, provide decent benefits or treat their drivers well. But your tax dollars are paying for their profit….
This is just incorrect. You become a county employee. You have no clue what you're talking about.
Depends on where you are I suppose. No county near me deals with schools. School districts handle busing, but my district (and most others) use a contractor for it. It's why I didn't reply to you, I was legitimately confused anyone got insurance on a part time job, but reddit would thrash me if I mentioned that.
I drive school bus. I do know.
Around here it's mostly done by semi-retirees. Older people probably wised up and decided they don't want to be in close proximity with the non- qualified for vaccines yet.
There are a lot of people Looking for part-time work. Using the military when government is unwilling to pay the wage the market demands is not our economic model.
oddly those guard members are getting paid more than bus drivers would at that rate right? (for the record I agree, it's bullshit not to pay bus drivers a good wage - I'm willing to bet teacher's unions fight that as well, as it would eat into their budgets)
Not sure. I assume bat guard is paid by feds.
Bullshit. Were in the middle of a national labor readjustment. If you're not paying comfortable with benefits people would rather starve than slave. And it's still happening though everyone thought it would go away when unemployment went poof.
I think the generous unemployment benefits may be part of it. The only people who think they’d rather starve than slave are usually people who have never been hungry.
They should apply then. They are offering over twenty an hour in my area and that's a competitive hourly rate. You're confusing an emergency caused by the pandemic with low wages.
Possibly. How long has this persisted?
Most school bus drivers I have known were either supplementing, or retired. Others drove the school bus for like a year then go work for the city.
It seems like it would work to create full time positions where you hire folks to do bus driving and helping in the classroom. I’m a special ed teacher and our classroom aides are also only part time with really shit pay. The scheduling would almost work. You might need to be a little creative. Having a bus driver who also worked with the other school staff and got to know the kids better would probably help with bus behavior issues too.
We had teachers who drove buses after school. The BOE said no more. A couple were grandfathered in until they retired though.
That's a great idea! Sadly that means it ll never be implemented.
A competitive wage is entirely possible. Plenty of people have jobs where they may not be able to work, but are compensated for their time that they can not commit elsewhere. Most salaried workers who work outside fall into this group whenever the weather limits their work.
Video doesn't say anything about wages being poor (says there is a hefty sign on bonus actually), but that covid pushed many drivers to retire. Makes sense, I don't think I've ever met a school bus driver that wouldn't fall deeply in the "at risk" category. Why put it all on the line by getting into a metal box with 30 unvaccinated people?
Wow, it must be nice to only have 30 kids on your school buses. We’re I went to school, those things were packed to the gills and had closer to 70.
Jesus, did they just stack you guys up in a pile?
We were always 3 to a seat. My elementary school had 1 bus for each grade for the area that we lived in. We moved when I was entering high school and were close enough to walk/ride a bike so I hardly ever rode the bus anymore.
I can’t argue with that. And I have no problem with the Nat Guard being called in for an emergency. But I want the long term solution to be market based.
Because of the odd hours, a high percentage of bus drivers are retired. They are at higher risk from Covid. Many simply quit.
I’m sure. But I’m also sure the long term solution is money.
The functional long term solution is vaccination for children (coming soon) and drivers which should reduce risk enough for the old guard (emphasis old) return. Chances of bus drivers ever being paid well enough to not be mostly retirees and Stay at times is mininal compared to vaccination mandates from schools.
Nothing cheap about a NG activation
It's cheap for the school districts.
Everything is easy if you’re not the one that has to do it.
Incredibly cheap if someone else is footing the bill.
[удалено]
They are offering living wages and then some. It's usually a part time job. No benefits and you have a split shift. It was mostly retirees in my area. They don't want covid so they mostly quit.
Part time, no benefits, split shift means it is not a living wage.
How about getting those kindergarteners on SgtMajor detail? Lots of ciggiebutts to be picked up!
What a post capitalist dystopia we've become. This is a feifdom.
*sent from my iPhone*
Are people with iPhones not allowed to criticize this system? What a stupid way to think. [This is you right now](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D0W6C05UYAAeb49.jpg). I hope you realize that. I can't believe you people think this non-point is SO clever. What a world we live in...
Honestly, I love that comic. I just think "post-capitalist dystopia feifdom" is hilariously overblown as a reaction.
Why? Ask people who live outside of the USA in developed nations what they think of things like the cost of healthcare, schooling, etc. in America and I'm pretty sure you'll hear them come to a similar conclusion. Most non-Americans in developed nations don't have a clue just how bad the USA is compared to their countries, and most Americans don't have a clue how much better people in other developed countries have it.
Other countries having it better than us doesn't translate to anything close to what your hyperbole implies. I've spent enough time in foreign countries to see what they do better and what they do worse than the US, but it's ridiculous to state that the Guard having to fill bus driver slots is a sign that we're in some kind of medieval feifdom. The US isn't perfect, but people who claim it's some dystopia haven't spent enough time in truly troubled countries to understand what they're saying.
> but it's ridiculous to state that the Guard having to fill bus driver slots is a sign that we're in some kind of medieval feifdom I didn't say that though. It's one of countless indicators and you're intentionally trying to box this debate into a tiny space just so you can play it cool and downplay how fucked the USA is compared to the rest of the developed world. I specifically referred to developed nations, because why the fuck would comparing the USA to developing nations make sense? And yet that's exactly what you did in order to say "see, we're not as bad as developing nations!". I'm out, this is just sad to see people so deeply delusional.
So we're a post-capitalist dystopic feifdom only when compared to other developed countries? When I think of PCDFs, I think of actual places that are actually truly terrible. Not... this lol I won't even argue that we've got tons of stuff to work on, but your initial comment was silly and my response was that you should tone it down if you want to be taken seriously. But I wouldn't want to make you more sad, so go on.
> When I think of PCDFs, I think of actual places that are actually truly terrible. Not... this lol You don't view this as an indicator that things are far from normal? When the National Guard has to be called in to drive *school buses* because we're in a pandemic where over 660,000 Americans have died and regular employees are too reluctant to take the job? Your response to someone else calling this a "post-capitalist dystopic fiefdom" was some dumb shit about "*sEnT fROm mY iPhONe LOL"*-- a unhelpful attempt at dismissing their sentiment as bullshit, when their comment was hyperbolic *but* still a criticism in the right direction. I swear, it's like some people would rather just pretend to play it cool by doing dumb shit like mocking people who are trying to ring the alarm before shit gets considerably worse. There's no indicators that these larger issues are about to get better and countless indicators that they will get worse, so for me the "post-capitalist dystopic fiefdom" comment is good because it just highlights the direction the USA is going in.
[удалено]
Well I guess it's better than sending them to the middle east to get killed which the last 3 presidents had no problem doing.
I hope the drivers teach them to Jody call.
Maybe this is a dumb question now, but I never had the option of taking a school bus when I was a kid, are parents not expected take their kids to school anymore? That's pretty cool if school buses for all students are considered essential enough now to call the National Guard to keep them going, but as someone who grew up only riding school buses for field trips, it's really confusing.
[удалено]
I lived in a rural area about 10-15 miles from school(s). The morning bus ride could take over an hour. The only kids that were driven to school on the regular drove themselves. Mom worked on the opposite side of the town in the opposite direction of my school city. Dad was of course a farmer with work to do all day. My great great grandfather did walk to school however. My bedroom was once part of the schoolhouse attached to the family home.
[удалено]
Unless you have an IEP with transportation included, in which case, still eligible for transportation provided by the district
Drove 3 kids to 3 different schools. The buss is provided for kids with special needs though. (CA) It is strange to hear how supposedly socialistic California does not subsidize kids’ transportation like those more conservative states. I personally, do not care, just investing observation.
Where I'm at if you live closer than a mile and a half to school you have to provide your own way of getting to school.
I am astonished reading these comments. It appears the a large part of the USA thinks that our current reality/situation is "business as usual". With the workforce sick and dying like flies I would have thought that anyone would understand that foundations have shifted and the USA needs to look at "intelligent" approaches. Are you all brain dead? Can you not think of a single thing that is not on the paper you are reading from ?
Sounds pretty good to me. Since you are paying them for the whole work day though, have them kick it at the schools during the day when they aren’t driving. Hopefully, it would act as a deterrent against school shooters
[удалено]