Seems to me like “skilled labor” is some job that cannot be quickly and easily learned by new workers. (Build me a shed is a little less intuitive than grill me a hamburger)
Some jobs need education to do and certain qualifications to know overall what needs to be done and when . Either way getting mad at someone for not having the same qualifications but getting paid a living wage is not an ethical basis for a grudge. And the most unethical person in the mix is ignored.
A legal definition stating that special training/experience/certifications is required for that job, vs “routine” job functions.
For the guy at Amazon this could be fork lift certs, equipment certs, etc For the McDobalds worker this could be hazardous job training for chemicals, hot work, food prep/food handling training/culinary training, and maintaining the equipment.
Note, both could have job responsibilities “beyond the normal range”.
That is what is intended by the “skilled” description.
In a similar position, I’d consider myself a skilled worker in an unskilled role. I do work with hazardous stuff though, so maybe it is defined as skilled even though I didn’t have to go through hours of training.
In my case the role was considered formally as skilled, but demonstration of aptitude on the site and from past engagements was accepted at evidence of my having acquired the skill.
Speaking of which, why is some waged labor characterized as “skilled”, and other not?
How has such a construct become entrenched, and in what context has it been utilized?
Seems to me like “skilled labor” is some job that cannot be quickly and easily learned by new workers. (Build me a shed is a little less intuitive than grill me a hamburger)
Is there value in characterizing certain kinds of labor as “unskilled”, and if so, who realizes the value, and who imposes the distinction?
Some jobs need education to do and certain qualifications to know overall what needs to be done and when . Either way getting mad at someone for not having the same qualifications but getting paid a living wage is not an ethical basis for a grudge. And the most unethical person in the mix is ignored.
All jobs may be described as you have done.
Again, who imposes such distinctions, and who benefits from such distinctions being imposed?
Sounds like you already know the answer to the questions your asking.
Some have considered such questions more carefully than others.
I am only suggesting everyone consider them personally, before anchoring to any strong opinions.
A legal definition stating that special training/experience/certifications is required for that job, vs “routine” job functions.
For the guy at Amazon this could be fork lift certs, equipment certs, etc For the McDobalds worker this could be hazardous job training for chemicals, hot work, food prep/food handling training/culinary training, and maintaining the equipment.
Note, both could have job responsibilities “beyond the normal range”.
That is what is intended by the “skilled” description.
I have provided labor to employers using specialized and advanced skills, though I had no formal credentials or training.
Was I an “unskilled worker”?
In a similar position, I’d consider myself a skilled worker in an unskilled role. I do work with hazardous stuff though, so maybe it is defined as skilled even though I didn’t have to go through hours of training.
In my case the role was considered formally as skilled, but demonstration of aptitude on the site and from past engagements was accepted at evidence of my having acquired the skill.
So long as you get hung up on the catch phrases, those will be the easiest goal posts that get switched.
Just watch, tomorrow it’ll be defined by ‘how much more dangerous’ a job is to create the same infighting rift.
I am only adding that it may be worth considering how particular catch phrases are utilized and become entrenched.