More than a million Florida voters want to see a recreational marijuana legalization initiative appear on the ballot for the 2024 general election, according to data from the state Division of Elections.
In June, state officials revealed that the adult-use cannabis legalization proposal from Smart & Safe Florida had received enough signatures to qualify for the ballot. With the current count at more than 1 million verified signatures, the proposed initiative has more than 120,000 signatures beyond the approximately 891,000 needed. But before the proposal is approved for the ballot, it must first pass muster with the Florida Supreme Court, which is tasked with verifying that the measure is limited to a single issue and is not likely to confuse voters. In 2021, the Florida Supreme Court invalidated marijuana legalization bids on two separate occasions.
…
Late last month, Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody filed a challenge to the proposed ballot measure with the state Supreme Court, arguing that Smart & Safe Florida’s marijuana legalization initiative should not appear before voters in next year’s general election. Kylie Mason, the communications director for Moody’s office, said that the ballot measure is likely to confuse voters.
“When voters decide whether to amend the Florida Constitution, it is essential that they know what they are voting for,” Mason in a statement. “It is the duty of our office to address the validity of an initiative petition before it appears on a ballot. It is incumbent upon us to inform the Court when a ballot summary misleads voters about the effects of the proposed constitutional change.”
For those in Florida, make sure to join a local Florida club/caucus. You can find a list of them here.
Late last month, Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody filed a challenge to the proposed ballot measure with the state Supreme Court, arguing that Smart & Safe Florida’s marijuana legalization initiative should not appear before voters in next year’s general election. Kylie Mason, the communications director for Moody’s office, said that the ballot measure is likely to confuse voters.
For context, these same #fascists fucks allowed an #FPL initiative on the ballot in either the most recent election or the previous one, that was explicitly designed to be confusing.
CLASSROOMS? Plural? I was dimly aware of this happening a little bit, but did not realize the extent. Effing yikes, man, just big yikes. At least most of these kids will probably grow up and rebel against obvious propaganda.
For the record, I’ve never worked anywhere that this was the case. I mean, yes, if you get hammered and act stupid, that’s obviously going to impact your job (probably, unless you work in the kind of place where your boss is right there with you), but pretty much everywhere I’ve ever worked, people came if they felt like it, had a drink or two and some snacks, and not one person ever gave it another thought.
Caveat: I’ve worked for the government for my entire career. It might be different in more sociopathic industries.
In my 20s, I always skipped the office holiday party. I love partying. I enjoy drinking. And a lot of my coworkers were young and attractive. I simply never heard of anything good coming out of that mix. Like: The risks (doing something foolish, losing respect) FAR outweigh the potential gains (flirting with someone? Or, maybe hooking up with them if you’re really really discrete, but that felt unlikely in any of the places where our offices had parties.)
My wife and I skyrocketed in our careers. How? Between 1997 and 2008 we did exactly the opposite of what our parents recommended and kept hopping jobs. My longest stint at any one place was 18 months and hers was two years. When we realized that our skill sets were too expensive and rare to waste at a single project, we started our own consulting firm and continue to cycle through projects regularly.
Remember, whether you are self-employed or employed by someone else, you ultimately work for yourself. Act accordingly and guard your self-interests.
But it's also in one's self interest to have a stable relationship with colleagues, being used to an environment, not changing things drastically so frequently.
There is a big, non-monetary cost to job hopping. If life outside of work is not stable, than changing the one constant is suddenly not appealing, even if more money is the reward.
I found that to be the opposite. All of our clients have come to us via word of mouth and all of our initial clients were referrals from past colleagues. Because we jumped around so much we ended up with a very large network of ex colleagues that came to us for help once they knew we were available. As. those colleagues also switched jobs they knew to call us if they needed our help in their new place of employment.
They key is not to stay at one place for a long time but to make an impact during the time you spend there.
It's your Rolodex/LinkedIn, not the company's. Also, the relationship between company and employee doesn't have to be adversarial. A lot of people, and companies forget that.
It doesnt have to be adversarial, but if either party decideds to make it so, it is. For larger companies in particular its pretty much institutionalised to be adverserial from day one.
I appreciate that it worked for you. I don't want to invalidate your experience. I just want to say that there is a good reason such a large gap exists between the evidence that job hopping is beneficial, and people actually doing it.
I want to point out that a) you have a skillset and job area that is conducive to freelancing and b) that building a network requires networking, which again is something that costs energy and social and communication skills.
These are not a given and should not be treated as a no-cost activity. Especially your last sentence implies a required focus on impact- again, your reward is more money, but there is a cost to doing this at work.
Yeah, I did a double-take when I got to the part about expected wage increases for 2014. I suspect it's much worse now, and was interested to see what Forbes was printing about that as at least these days they're notorious for posting stuff with an anti-labour focus. I can't imagine they'd post an article like this these days.
That said, I'm sure this article is more relevant than ever now and it's a damn travesty that this is what the labour market has come to since the 70s/80s.
I'm on the executive team for a small business that my family bought almost two years ago. Many of us had worked there for years beforehand and absolutely weren't paid what we were worth. As soon as we took over, we started to raise wages across the board (other than sales, who are our own little 1% due to the structure we inherited). Wages are still far from where we'd like them to be, but we're trying our best with the resources at hand while we navigate these first few years of ownership. Shit's not easy for a lot of small businesses and I get that many small business owners are outright taking advantage of their staff. We actively try not to (granted, in the Marxist sense we inherently are) but I realize that most of our staff deserve more than we can currently afford to pay them.
I used to be one of the “loyal” ones but around covid time I decided to see where I could get by doing this. Since then, and three jobs later, my salary went from around 66k to now 105k. Current gig seems cool and a cake walk, so may stick around a bit.
Same! There was a shortage in IT for a little while and I took advantage of it and got a $30k increase! With same benefits and paid vacation.
Now even a 2% pay raise is significant on the salary I make. I feel like I'm finally being appreciated and paid what I'm really worth after a decade of struggling.
It's funny when I put in my notice in my last job and why, they magically had money to counter. Like where was this cash when I was closing difficult tickets and completing projects?
I made the mistake of becoming a manager about 4 years ago. This is one of the most frustrating parts of the job. If you have a good relationship with your team they’ll usually tell you something like “I’ve been getting contacted about other offers, here’s what they’re offering.”
It’s usually about a 20% bump. I’ve not once been able to convince the company I’m at to match it. Usually the best I’m allowed to do is something like a 5-6% raise in the next salary increase cycle.
I’ll usually know for 2-3 months a team member is leaving before it actually happens because of this. Of course, if I’m allowed to hire a replacement they’ll let me pay market value.
Job hopping is definitely the best way to get a pay increase.
And even if that guy they hire is really good, there is still a large period of time where that person has to learn the ropes and is most likely less useful than the person who already knew the ins and outs. Also, most of the time, they are never as good...
Well the goal of an ideal CEO is to pull more money into the company and give as little out as possible. If we saw more AI CEOs we would just have further wealth disparity in our society and workers at those companies would be paid less as the AI would optimize their pay for maximum company profits. It would be everything we hate about capitalism but amplified, and the person who owned the AI would get paid even more for doing even less.
Correct, but often the actions of CEOs are performative and don't actually support the goal of bringing money in. They like to put on a show of being ruthless, and often behave more psychopathic than an "optimal" business AI would.
For example, it's been proven that employee retention is one of the #1 ways to boost productivity. Costco is one of the few companies with a CEO which truly believes in this and despite paying higher wages than any other grocer they are one of the top performers in my investment portfolio.
Remote work? Totally profitable and AI would maximize it instead of forcing workers back to the office to "put them in their place"
4-day week? Also proven to be a net gain as workers are rested and motivated.
A "cold and calculating" AI would be far more likely to make reforms that benefit both the company and the employees, as it isn't motivated by power structures or the need to look ruthless. Cutting pay is a losing move as it loses talent more than it saves money, and deep learning algorithms would realize this easily.
Also the "person who owns the AI" would actually be the shareholders, who are often ordinary investors. Rather than funneling money to bloated C-suites, the money would be more likely to circulate in the economy through dividends.
At this point it would be most likely to be an LLM which just emulates what it has seen CEOs do in its training data and would do the same sort of thing.
Remember that Star Trek where they go to the evil mirror universe and the baddies come to the Enterprise? The bad versions get caught because it's hard for someone with no empathy to fake it.
It's a bit messy for the employer. You can't just hand out 20% raises every time someone threatens to leave. Then everyone would be threatening to leave. And that's a hefty cost to add to what's likely your largest operating expense. Also, that's not just 20% in the employee's pocket, there are additional costs like unemployment insurance and the like.
OTOH, unless your employee plain sucks or the job is simple, it's almost always better to keep them than train a replacement. Tribal knowledge is valuable knowledge.
And no, only very small-time employers expect loyalty. They understand the game, and we should as well.
Funny that lemmy whines and moans about capitalism all day, without realizing they can play as well. Jumping jobs over the last 11 years got me $14 > $22 > $39. Been at this place 5-years, thinking about jumping ship again. Probably put me over $100K with a little luck. Oh, and I've never had such fat benefits or worked less. From home to boot.
Related: When we first moved here, a friend started at an oil change place, well below his skill set and previous pay. Kept job hopping and stacking his resume, now he's the top service manager at the largest auto dealer group. He quit moving, guess he's fat and happy. Sure drags in the $.
Fine. They all claim to have offers. It's not like employers don't track turnover and market rates. Some of them just decide it's cheaper to allow high turnover. Not like they can't work an Excel sheet.
Having said that, I've found many employers wholly ignorant of metrics that aren't easily tracked. For example, 2 jobs ago I was a key player at my shitty little shop. Kept the customers rolling in, despite their aggravations with the company. You can't put a solid number on that. (And many told me they left for the competition when I quit.)
Last job, I quit for an offer doubling my pay and benefits. They loved me, wouldn't go for it. The next year they paid far more in IT costs than it would have cost to keep me.
Back to my point, work hard, achieve something to be proud of on your resume, jump ship. The game is only rigged for the employer is you're in a shit job that requires almost no skills. As to that, see the example I talked about with my oil change buddy.
Do you think employers are stone ignorant of market rates? Who said anything about mass quitting? The people not moving on are the people who can't. Hell, that's where I'm at. Pretty sure I've attained the Peter Principle for now.
We cope by saying they hire a replacement who asked for more. The reality is they generally don’t. They either offload the work to the rest of the dept and go “oh look at that we didn’t need them!” as the group drowns OR they find a wide eyed, younger professional who will take a crap - or at least lower - salary.
This varies from industry to industry but it’s very common.
We cope by saying they hire a replacement who asked for more. The reality is they generally don’t. They either offload the work to the rest of the dept and go “oh look at that we didn’t need them!” as the group drowns OR they find a wide eyed, younger professional who will take a crap - or at least lower - salary.
Which doesnt seem to be common, seeing how you have shit like the report that OP posted that job hopping massively increases income.
I keep waiting for someone to lay it out and explain how the companies are actually benefiting in some subtle way from this arrangement. As far as I can tell, no, this is just what they decided to do.
Maybe an advantage of this setup is that you ensure that your bus factor is high and you're constantly testing it to make sure it stays high? Kind of like how Netflix uses ChaosMonkey.
It all makes "business" sense for those who see employees as "commodities", i.e. all kinda equivalent and hence easilly replaceable with nothing lost when they're switched.
It's basically the MBA thinking of employees as just another "raw material" or "supplier".
The reality, more so in complex domains, is that employees have an adaptation and learning period when they arrive (unlike engineered devices, companies aren't standardized machines using standardized parts, so you a new "part" won't just seamlessly fit and start delivering full performance) and often never written institutional knowledge that goes with them when they leave.
However as those things are not easilly quantified and measurable, MBA types - being unable to add it to their spreadsheets - will simply ignore them rather than trying to balance such costs against salary costs: giving a decent salary increase (a guaranteed cost) will always look like a worse option in an accounting spreadsheet if its only counter is a sub-100% possibility that they might lose that employee (and, remember, since they don't count adaption and loss of institutional knowledge costs, that's listed there as costing nothing) and replace it with somebody else who might even be possible to get with a less "decent" salary (so, more than the current employees but less that a fair salary for the current employee).
Such approach works well if all companies are doing it and the probability that people will leave if they don't get a decent salary is low enough (which it probably is, since the majority of human beings favour stability over change).
forbes.com
Oldest