Talk:Laborer

Untitled

Laborer = Working class? Reindra (talk) 08:09, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Untitled

Not necessarilyGranite07 (talk) 15:44, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Too many inappropriate redirects to this page

Check the number of words and phrases that go to this page. Either, this page needs rewriting to include the material that is is missing, or, some of the redirects need to go to new pages.

For example Unskilled redirects here, but just because someone is unskilled it doesn't mean they work outdoors on building sites which is what this article seems to imply. Check blue collar for instance which talks about both skilled and unskilled labour. Perhaps some of the redirects should go there instead.

Unskilled labour would be for example; shelf stacking, fruit or vegetable picking, data entry, basic assembly line work, etc. These roles require very little or basic training and can often be learnt in minutes.

Skilled labour requires training, usually in the form of an apprenticeship or training programme which can take months or even years to complete. Examples would be plumbing, carpentry, bricklayer.

Now days many Construction Laborers are considered skilled. http://www.chicagolaborers.org/training/courseList.asp

We do have a United States Dept. of Labor Apprenticeship program.

http://www.chicagolaborers.org/apprentice/index.asp

The references to us as unskilled, have been a way to keep us down, in life and on the job site.

The OSHA 30 course was originally intended for Superintendents. Here in modern times, many Superintendents have college degrees in areas such as construction management. Currently in Chicago, there are more Construction

Laborers with the OSHA 30 card than superintendents and foremen.66.87.4.2 (talk) 15:03, 18 January 2013 (UTC)Sco77 The term labourer by itself usually means someone with physical ability who will perform some kind of lifting, or carrying as they help someone else who is skilled and in that way it suites the article without a problem. But, the redirects don't seem to fit.Scottonsocks (talk) 02:07, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like you have a good argument to change those links if you want to. In this case 'Laborer' does not have the usual meaning you describe of "someone with physical ability who will perform some kind of lifting, or carrying as they help someone else who is skilled." The Laborer is a trade itself that may have someone with physical ability perform some kind of lifting or carrying for them, perhaps an unskilled laborer. On a job site the newer,and less familiar will bear a good portion of the dirty and heavy work. At least initially. The new guys have to be worn down and broken. We wouldn't call the person un skilled.66.87.4.2 (talk) 15:03, 18 January 2013 (UTC)Sco77. It is a misperception, a purpose of this page is to inform the reader about the difference. Traditionally, within construction the Laborer is considered unskilled but are actually very skilled and have long-standing tacit trade specific traditions that likley (I do not know of anyone that has seriously studied this topic) go back many centuries. I think the page is written with sufficient generality that it covers the domain of both skilled Laborers and unskilled laborers. In my opinion, the links to unskilled laborers correctly goto this page. You correctly have pointed out that a separate page for "labor (unskilled)" is needed; laborer (unskilled) and the other occupations you listed should be presented there. Appreciate your interest in this page to post a discussion. Granite07 (talk) 21:41, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

"Drudgery"?

Why does "Drudgery" redirect here? I guarantee nobody entering that term into the search box is looking for a basic description of manual labour.58.84.237.200 (talk) 10:34, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Have you ever completed a 16-hour day of laboring in 105°F heat or 15°F cold - it is synonymous with laboring and so this page is the correct redirect until a suitable page is written.Granite07 (talk) 15:44, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think drudgery should redirect here. Jeffreyjoh (talk) 00:33, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Objectivity

"Patience with supervisory staff selected by nepotism not skill" - Does this sound objective? "Underground laborers - note the unsafe condition caused by a visiting politico not wearing a hardhat - and should be listening not talking." I don't understand what this sentence means. Does it mean the laborer should be listening, or the politico should be listening?

Much of this article sounds like it has been written by a disgruntled laborer. Jeffreyjoh (talk) 00:33, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Have you ever worked and daily risked your life as a laborer supervised by someone selected solely based on his sister's relationship with the general superintendent? Go try it on and then see what you think of objectivity. Also, the scenario is more common than you seem to appreciate - so it should be easy for you to find this type of supervisor to work with. Not disgruntled, just realistic about things. I agree that the grammar is off, it was written by a laborer after all Granite07 (talk) 22:59, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Laborers in mining

There should be something in the article about mining laborers. Volcanoguy 21:27, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Labourer = (unskilled) construction worker?

I've always thought a "labourer" was someone who did unskilled manual labour in general, rather than specifically in the construction industry (including for example farm labourers), and the last dictionary I checked agreed. Is this a specifically American definition? Iapetus (talk) 14:09, 23 February 2015 (UTC) i think labourers are all unskilled manual workers(not just construction workers)but Maybe in the states it is different-Albert einstein 1110 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Albert einstein 1110 (talk • contribs) 10:05, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

a laborer is just that a laborer nothing more...

Someone needs to get the facts right on this page I take offense to some of the writing here. The laborer does not operate any equipment and an operator would never give a laborer a job just because we were short an apprentice or didn't want to do it. So please make changes to this page since I am unable too.. if you want some facts call an operating engineer union hall and ask them if a laborer use heavy equipment... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eviltire128 (talk • contribs) 15:30, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Provide references to support your removal of content. Because you say so just doesn't cut it. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 15:34, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Profession

I don't agree with the link to the Wikipedia article Profession in the Infobox. Profession in that article is defined as "A profession is a vocation founded upon specialized educational training, the purpose of which is to supply objective counsel and service to others, for a direct and definite compensation, wholly apart from expectation of other business gain" - doesn't sound like the right kind of occupation to me Sisterwoman (talk) 07:35, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Its not just the lead section, this whole entire article is poorly written, confusing and full of irrelevant information.

This article has a myriad of issues and is rather poorly written.

For example tools, someone can have nothing but a shovel and still be referred to as a laborer, laborers is generally defined as doing unskilled and physical work and I see no connection as to how its limited to the construction industry.

Also it should be noted that its not a universal term as some jobs that fall under labor are referred to as Tradies in Australia and might have different definitions elsewhere. Also it goes on to talk about a ton of information that has very little to do with the universal term as is almost completely related to the US even though its not titled as US relevant information.

Also I've never heard of DDD in Australia and Marijuana is also not relevant it might not be relevant in many other English speaking countries.

I propose this whole entire article needs to be rewritten from the ground up as it has major issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HankKits (talk • contribs) 09:59, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Laborer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080312180836/http://www.laborerslocal185.com/scope_of_work.htm to http://www.laborerslocal185.com/scope_of_work.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:40, 15 December 2017 (UTC)