Social Security

Social Security is one of the most controversial, yet constructive, programs the United States has ever established. Soon enough, it will reach its 70th year anniversary. During these 70 years, many elderly have benefited from this program through monthly payment. However, this program, due to increasing benefits and beneficiaries, is gradually failing. Social Security, once again, becomes a controversial topic.

Social Security, as its name suggests, is quite Socialist, and that is why when President Roosevelt started this program it was controversial. Classical Economics, which states that the economy will fix itself once contracting, had been the popular theory around that period. Laissez- faire government style is derived from Classical Economics theory. However, during the Depression era, this theory was challenged, and a new theory, Keynesian Economics, became more popular. This new theory suggests that the government should take an active role when the economy is bad. The government should create jobs, which pumps in money into the economy. President Roosevelt created his New Deal program based on Keynesian Economics theory. To finance such operation, the Roosevelt administration started Social Security, which imposed Social Security tax (which we call FICA nowadays) on the people. While the tax was used to finance the New Deal, the people were not having the benefits until they retired.

During the 1950s and 60s the young people in the 1930s retired, and they started using Social Security. The good thing was that the boomers, who were in their 20s, were paying for those who retired; therefore, more people were paying for one retiree. Since then, the government has increased the benefits for the retired. However, because the baby boomers start retiring, less people are supporting one retiree. That is where the problem comes from. In a decade, most of the baby boomers will retire. However, the shrinking workforce might not be able to sustain the increasing cost of Social Security. As of now, the U.S. government still collects enough in Social Security taxes to pay for Social Security. However, by 2018, economists have predicted the Social Security trust fund will be used. Then, by 2042, the trust fund will be totally spent and Social Security will be officially bankrupt.

There are a few emerging solutions to the problem. The first possible solution, or the most famous one, is privatizing Social Security. President Bush, after winning his reelection, is advocating this idea. The idea is that every citizen will be able to divert some of his income toward a private account. He basically invests the money in the stock market, and hopefully by the time he retires the account has enough money. President Bush believes that only by privatizing Social Security the system can be saved. His administration also argues that privatization, in the long run, will give citizens more benefits than Social Security is giving now.
However, critics are not buying this idea. Because of the volatile nature of the stock market, if the bad time comes, many, especially the citizens who are less educated, might not be swift enough to withdraw, thus losing their lifetime saving. Also, the wealthy can invest so much more than the poor and make so much more money. Ultimately, privatization would widen the gap between the rich and poor. Lastly, statistics shows that not many Americans view Social Security as an important issue compared to Medicare or education. Therefore, it is solely the President and the Republicans’ responsibility to capitalize the fear.

The second possible solution is to increase taxes and decrease benefit for the beneficiaries. This has been an idea advocated mainly by academics. The positive is that it is the most economically feasible alternative around. The negative is that it is not politically feasible. The main reason is that the baby boomers are one of the biggest constituencies of the politicians. If the politicians try to bring the idea to the public, the adversary nature of the media toward elected officials can completely jeopardize any politician’s future by sensationalizing the topic. It has become politically unwise to even discuss such recourse. However, this is probably the most logical option one can come up with.

The last possible solution is not to do anything. Many argued that Social Security is not a problem at all; thus, politicians opt not to solve it. In fact, some Democrats, including prominent Senator Edward Kennedy, accuse the administration of creating false fear. Also, the alternatives, such as privatization or increasing tax and decreasing benefits, either require restructuring the system or potentially jeopardizing the politicians’ career. In such situations, politicians would rather pass the problem to the later generation, similar to how our founders pushed the problem of slavery to the future, hoping the problem would solve itself.

I rank the second solution third, the first solution second, and the last solution first. Therefore, I believe not to do anything is the best solution to Social Security.

There are a few reasons why I support not doing anything. First, our country’s political system is famous for deliberation because of checks and balance. In such a political culture, an issue has to gain long-term momentum before the politicians realize that their constituents truly want to solve the problem. However, Social Security does not seem to be an issue that will gain momentum. There have been no major talks in the political arena about Social Security until President Bush brought up such problem and advocated privatization. After the election, the media concentrated on this problem for a few weeks, the time interval famously called the “honey-moon” period for elected presidents. However, after that, the president lost the momentum. Now, the media reports the Pope’s passing, the British royal marriage, etc. If the President does not have a Social Security bill passed by the mid-term election, he will be a “lame-duck” and can accomplish little. Tragically for the President, since the media begins to neglect Social Security, there is a high chance of political failure for his plan.

Second, a package of increased tax and decreased benefits is not politically attractive. Once there is benefit, no one wants to give it away. Increasing tax would anger those who are in workforce; decreasing benefits would anger those who are retired and going to retire. Even though this plan should be the most logical solution, it takes so much political courage to even advocate such idea. Because no politician wants to be thrown out of office, the plan dies even before it is discussed.

Therefore, the third solution is the most feasible solution both economically and politically. Because the American political system is famous for its deliberation, many ideas arise but no many are actually discussed. If Social Security is truly a problem, a few years later when most of the boomers retire, the politicians will know that it needs to be solved. Now, the idea is still at its infancy politically. Also, economists believe that the trust fund will not be used till 2018, and the trust fund will not be spent until 2042. By then, I will be 55 years old, not 17 anymore. And by 2042, most boomers will have passed away. The number of beneficiaries will decrease. In addition, economists’ predications are usually pessimistic. During the 90s, before the economy was expanding, economists predicted that the trust fund would be spent by 2029. Gradually, the economists changed their predictions, or assumptions, as the economy improved. Since 2001, the U.S. has been in an economic depression. Therefore, it is reasonable to think that once the economy gets better, the economists will change their prediction again. Hopefully, the prediction is not 2042 anymore but sometime later. Our fear is that the boomers will consume most of the trust fund. However, they cannot consume anymore once they pass away. And optimistically speaking, by 2042, many conscientious citizens will have pensions or retirement funds that they do not have to depend solely on Social Security for income after they retire.

Social Security has been working for the past 70 years. Many people benefit from such Socialist problem. There is a saying, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” The Social Security is alive and working. Therefore, the government should focus on problems that are more urgent and serious.

My future

Soon enough, we will all be out of high school. Some will go to college; some will be in service; some will work. Fortunately, I have four more years of relaxation by going to college. However, what do I want to do with my life? I mentioned before that I would like happiness. What is happiness for me?

Growing up in a Chinese family, I have a strong sense of materialism. So much of our normal conversation is money-related. And as a Chinese, sons and duaghters have to contribute to the parents' well-being. Therefore, they are investing on me. My dad is more materialistic, and since I was in 9th grade, he said, "you have to choose what you want to do, now," or "Science is good. do it." Unfortunately, I am a disgraceful son of his. I am never good at science. His pressure ultimately led to a series of confrontations between him and me. I could finally tell him directly, "I need time." Now, he still periodically bit.hes it. However, I ain't listening to him.

My mom is rather relaxed. Remember how she chose tailoring over accounting, which was popular in Hong Kong, she told me to choose what I want to do. "No one is forcing you to do anything," she said, "It is America. Choose what you want." Even though she is relatively relaxed, it doesn't mean I have infinite amount of time to choose. I am not from a wealthy family. time is money. College is money. I go there, get my degree, get the hell out and start working... all that nice 4-year experience crap isn't my parents' main concern.

Today, I was supposed to visit College Park. However, I could not get a ride. I didn't go eventually. For many students in the school, it seems like a big loss. "How can you not go there before you make your decision?" For me, it is not a big deal. My family didn't take it seriously too. My family cares more about the tuition than anything. My happiness in college isn't a big concern either.

It is really different at school and at home. At school, I feel more relaxed and comfortable. Students all talk about freedom and such. Once I go home, it is just so...jail-like. Yesterday, my dad and I had a big fight on car. He was accusing me of selfishness.... because I wanted to get a car for pursuit of freedom. He even said that as a 17-year-old, I have no qualification to be free, since I still have to depend on them. How different it is from the life in school, at which people take driving, thus freedom, for grant.... while I stay in the "jail" after 2:15.

Sometimes, I am just numb, and think the pursuit of happiness is stupid and childish. Or maybe I am just jealous of those who are happy and free. This is my life.

Will I pursue happiness in college? Or when I have a good job? Or later when I have money? Or when I have my family? Living in a Chinese family, it really seems as if happiness is a childish pursuit. However, what do I want? HAPPINESS.....

Psychology Speaker

Today after school I was able to listen to the psychology speaker. His style and content were pretty good, and I felt as if I learned a lot. While everything seemed to run well and he was about to end, he said, "Please give me five more minutes."

Since we were all happy, we didn't mind sitting for a bit more. However, what he did was totally unrelated to psychology. He was actually introducing us to the college he worked. It is a 2-year technology-based college. He was actually good at it, and I couldn't control myself and ask my Psychology teacher, "Is it poproganda?"

He was clearly addressing to the wrong people. Being in AP Psychology does not necessarily mean we will go to a good college. However, there is a high correlation that we will go to a 4-year college. Let's say he is selling his product to the wrong people.

I do agree that a 2-year college has advantages. It is cheap and you can take all your basic credits there. Speaking of that, I did have experience with 2-year college. It wasn't good~~

After my sophomore year, I wanted to take some college classes. I heard that there were programs at the local community college. Therefore, I signed up for them. I took a class in English and in Sociology. When I was in the classroom, I felt out of place.

There were many more mature people in the class. They all had to work during the day. Studying wasn't their main interest. Sometimes, the students didn't pay attention to the teacher. Some people didn't even come at all. Keep a long story story, I didn't like there.

I have a friend who is going there now. I hadn't talked to him since March. Apparently he had been busy. As I tried to see how he was doing, I heard that he planned to drop out of college and worked full time. I thought, "Oh my god! I hope he really isn't going to do that." I was worried for him, for whatever reason there was. Eventually, we talked Sunday. They were all rumors.... and i was happy that he stayed on course. For me, dropping out off college is too stupid. But in a community college, it is just all too common. I was glad he didn't assimilate to such environment.

I have to end my desperate attempt to bs something. In conclusion, if you are choosing between a 2-year college and a 4-year college, I will go for a 4-year college. the culture is different; the people are different. Lastly, the speaker really did do a good job, but he should not have advertised. That, i believe, destroyed his creditibility.

Bureaucracy

My government class started this topic a few days ago. When I was learning something in school, I used to think, "Darn, when do we actually get the apply it?" For bureaucracy, I don't think I have problem applying. Starting with my school.

A few days ago, I attended the funeral of someone I knew at school. The next day I had to submit a parent's note. When I was at the office at 7:00, you know what the secretary told me? She said, "You have to see the assistant principal at 7:30." "Ok, I shall return," I said to myself. At 7:30, I returned. There was a line in front of the counter. The secretary was working diligently..... Guess whom I saw there, the principal...... I haven't seen him in..... 3 years??? He was standing aside talking to a teacher comfortably with a cup of coffee. For a moment, I smelled the fragrance of coffee. It happened right when the secretary had to deal with a line of people. While I was looking at the chatting "couple," the teacher suddenly turned to me and asked, "What do you need?" I could only tell him why i was there. He then told me, "come back after second period, she (the assistant principal) would be back. I said ok and left with nothing accomplished. Then the principal continued his chatter with the teacher.

I eventually got to see her.. However, I am wondering, "can't the principal solve the problem with me?" Nah, he is too high-minded for that trivial matter. He had something more important, like drinking his cup of coffee and chattering with teachers, to do.. I guess it is really the sort of thing a principal should do to booster teachers' morale.

Let's talk about something more recent. Today, there was a power outage at my school at around 9:00. Certainly, the electricians arrived and tried to fix the system. Time rand fast, soon it was 9:30. The prospect of having a good school day was dim, and while all of us hoped to have school ended soon (just sitting wasn't the best thing to do), the school's principal had no authority to close the school. The school was actually calling the person in the county office who had the authority, yet he wasn't at his office. So we waited and waited, and light was on again.... While the kids were filled with immense sadness, the lights were off again....

We waited and played a few games in those boring period. Finally, at around 11:00, the school was back to normalcy, after 2 hours of nothingness. The classes ran on the 2-hour late schedule. Every class was about 25 minutes....

Bureaucracy can be good and bad, and many times it more likely exists in the government. Why? Because there is no competition. If an agency's job is privatized, different companies compete to do better to get the contract. Take NASA for example, it has a track record of failures and waste, and it is, not surprisingly, a government agency. If the job is privatized, different companies, which keep a check for one another, are inherently more efficient, because every one of them tries to keep the cost down while producing the best product. The problems of bureaucracy decrease....

When the government "sucks" at the task consistently, it becomes inevitable that it should privatize the task. Certainly, I believe that the government does have to take the initiatives on certain area, especially in scientific research, because if the government doesn't lead the effort no private company will lead the effort. For example, if the government doesn't say "ok" on stem cell research or actually fund the effort, it would be difficult for the private sector to do it unless the corporations see that the long-term benefit will be more than the short-term cost. However, for something like education, it is time for the government to..... (end the sentence for me, please.)

What I have learned at Friendly's

I have finally gotten a raise at Friendly's (woohoo). However, it will soon be lower than the new minimum wage (darn the Maryland Legistature). While I care about my low pay, I should not underestimate the lessons that place has taughtme . The experience it teaches can be practical and useful.

1: endurance. The path to success is a long and strenuous process. In order to succeed, one has to spend years and years on what he does, of course, depending on what he is trying to succeed. At Friendly's, my goal is mostly intrinsic, because the extrinsic value (pay) is pretty low. I wanted to do good icecream and become a good worker. The manager, when she hired me, probably never expected me to do well. However, as time progresses, I can show her, from my work, that I am good at it. Now, she gives me more responsbilities, and whenever I want to get off, she can manage that for me. I may not make good money, but endurance can be useful in the future, when I can use such value to make better money.

2: "You scratch my back; I scratch yours" This should be a very simple motto. However, I don't understand its true meaning till I experience it first hand. In order to have someone to help me, I have to give out something to him first. At my workplace, "something" is labor. When the manager knows that we work hard, she/he would let us take any food for free. However, after a day's work, everyone is exhausted. The chefs would do it for me, if I really want something. However, they sometimes show sign of discontent to me. What I would do is that I ask them, "Hey, want me to hook you up with some ice-cream?" tada...they would do my food; I will do their dessert, and all of us are happy. Sometimes, I take the dishes out for the dish-washer. Therefore, when I ask him to do the heavy work (he is just stronger), he would just do it quickly and happily.

3: Politics. Whenever there are people, there will be politics. People try to manipulate others to get some favors. If one does not ally with anyone, he can be easily pushed around. I try to be fast, diligent to the servers because time is money for them. For other lazy fountainers, I would do their share of work if they just leave irresponsibly. I have been doing more than I should from the very begining. I sometimes ask, "Why the hell am I doing it?" Some managers never see it, but some do. As long as some see it, in the long run, it will pay off. I almost got into trouble with a new worker last week, which i don't want to discuss, but I talked to the manager and I was out of the trouble. the new worker got punished. I believe that if I am not here for that long and I actually do work, I was also in trouble.

4: "Get the hell out of there as soon as I have a chance" Friendly's is not the best place in the work. And I am going to be honest with you. I work there because it is close to my house and I can literally walk to work (not depending on anyone is a great thing). However, I learn my lessons, and I endure the "hardships." As my school year comes to an end, I might actually get a car (woohoo again). If I do get one, I will say bye bye to Friendly's. The older people who work there never went to college. The younger people are mostly high school graduates. This is not the place for me. I want to go to college, get an education, and work in a better job. This is what probably Friendly's has taught me the most. "I hate this job, and whenever I have a chance, I will get the hell out of there." My mom and dad are blue-collar workers, and they had told me to advance myself. I would never learn what they are really saying only after I have worked in such place for 8 frigging months....

After The Fallen Leader

last Saturday, the Pope died. I have heard of his name a lot. However, I do not know his life that well. Many people praise him for his goodwill and achievement. But what does he really achieve? World Peace? Convertion of all pagans? I am really not sure.

Let's start with world peace. Speaking of such term, religion should not be involved at all. Humans do fight for survivial, but in many times, people fight for their belief. The Crusade is an example. Even though politics (defeating the Muslims) was the main reason, religion was used as a way to rally knights and Christians to embark on odyessy to conquer the evils.... Another example would be the Reformation. Christians fought against Christians. People called others Heretics when they believed in the same God, supposed there is a God. If you don't like my talking about history, let's talk about something more recent. The glodal terrorism fueled by Islamic extremism has confused the Church. The Church has no idea what to do with many innocent Muslims and how to deal with the terrorists. 9/11 is a terrorist act clearly fueled by religious fanaticism. The Church, for centuries, has not helped World Peace. Rather, it has created tragedies and causalties.

I have to question if convertion of the pagans is such a good idea. In World History class, I was taught how the priests tried to spread Christianity. They used force to bring Christianity the natives. They colonized the natives' lands, "convert" the natives, and exploited their labor. Sometimes, the good Christians shipped the natives from one continent to another continent and put the natives into perpetual slavery. I sometimes wonder if Christianity meant anything at all in their heart.

Nowaday, the Church does trading with the pagans. This is evident in some less well-off countries. The Christians don't invade them militarily anymore. Rather they give the natives food and help in exchange for their allegiance to the Christian God. When one is dying of hungar, of course one would say yes for food. It is good that they are doing goodwill, but at the end, the convertion is based on material trade. It might comfort those who work so hard to convert the natives. However, at the end, those new converts will die not knowing what they believe. Is it good?

I am not committed to any religion. However, I acknowledge the existence of God. In fact, I don't have to commit to any religion after I know he exists. Contact to Him should be direct from me to Him, not through ministers, rabbis, or priests. Organized religion can be dangerous and misleading. Hilter, during his reign, had created a religion called Nazism which still presists today. There are still hatreds between Muslims and Christian or between Muslims and Jewish or Jewish to Christians. Should there be religious institutions, which promotes one thing and means the other. Peace is one good example.

Many people mourn for the Pope's death. For the sake of his death, I believe I will mourn too. However, for the sake of the Church, why? Why do we believe in some institutions that is marred by hypocricy, conflicts, and politics? Shouldn't we get religion through one's contact with God rather than believing in an institution?

Tuition Cost

Thanks to scholarships and financial aids from the college, George Washington University now costs less than University of Maryland for me. I still remember vividly how I used to worry about high tuition. I believe for some time I did doubt the possibility of going to college. However, thanks to the emotional support from my family members, I kept on trying my best in school and did not give up on studying. Fortunately, it paid off well. Because of my academic record and my economic background, GW gave me a good deal and I am going to college. Sadly, it might not happen to every college-bound seniors.

A friend of mine is going to University of Maryland Baltimore County (UMBC). He is bright and focused on his studies. He takes hard classes, but he does not have the best grade others have. He is also not in the best financial situation in the world. Therefore, he has to pay around 20 Ks a year for his education. He told me that he would work, and his parents would take a loan from a bank. As of now, he is going to college.

But how many families can actually pay 20 Ks a year from their pocket? The bright and athletically strong students can get scholarships from the schools, but what about the mass majority who has no chance of getting any scholarships. Do they have to fall to the next category (going to a community college) or worse (go straight to the workforce)?

It is funny I mentioned UMBC. It is a public 4-year college. What does "public" mean? It means that it is serving the ordinary people, the mass majority who contribute the most. However, the souring cost of college has the possibility of forcing more teenagers to the workforce. University of Maryland, College Park gives me $1500 a year. If I don't have any outside help, I need to pay around 16 Ks myself.

I hope I am mistaken. In fact, there are good signs. Tuition at University of Virginia is still around 4 Ks a year. Tuition at University of California Los Angalses is around 6 K a year. But the trend still tells me that the cost is increasing exponentially.

What are the politicans doing? I suppose nothing but empty talks. Every politican says he/she is pro-education when he/she runs for election. However, what are the results? Nothing. We are spending more money on building a few more jet planes or "increasing" our national security. Speaking of national security, it is kind of funny. Our border to Mexico is still wide open. Or on Medicare or Social Security. Why? Because we, the students, the pillars of the future, are not the main constitutency to the politicans.

I am sad. I am sad because many of my friends have to worry about the cost of going to college. Not just for private colleges, but for public colleges too. Do something, the government. Do something, us!

College Debacle

Two days ago, I had one of the worst days in my life. And that day was the day when I knew the college decisions. Yale rejected me; Columbia and Hopkins waitlisted me. I entered the spring break with one college acceptance, and now with two days left, I still have only one college acceptance. I felt as if i was about to explode. I moarned and cursed the colleges, but that did not help me much.

I have worked hard for four years. As an immigrant, I think I did take as many chances as i could and strived to be the best. As I entered my senior year, I had confidence, perhaps too much of it, that I was wanted. I did not do much thinking on the other perspective, that i might be rejected by colleges, because I was too proud to believe so.

As I mentioned above, I did apply to many great schools, not believing that i would be rejected, though the odds were that I had a high probability of being rejected. Two days ago, I suffered from the consequence of my action.

However, yesterday at work, I realized that I wasn't that unlucky. My manager told me that why he works in Friendly's. Friendly's pays people lower than what other places pay, and he gets $9 an hour doing manager's work. He told me that he wanted to go to culinary art school. To do so, he needs about 26 Ks for tuition. I thought, "Oh my god, is it even possible?" Besides, he, at age 30, has 4 kids to take care. His plan is that he would work at Friendly's for 5 years, and then go to culinary art school for two years. After that, he can open a restaurant. "Wow, such a long shot," I thought. Fortunately, he had friends who are electrician, carpet cleaners, etc. Therefore, he would be covered. He also told me he had to save for his kids' college education and a life insurance of 1 million dollars in case he passes away.
Lastly, I asked him, "did you go to college?" He shook his head quickly and went back to his work.

I used to think that not going to college was regretful and tragic. I changed my mind a bit after that conversation with him. In the GT/AP environment, I am inclined to think that i have to go to college or I will be a failure. Friendly's has taught me that my thinking is mistaken. In America, one can do anything and still succeeds.

I know a chef at there who graduated from Franklin last year. He is in a community college because it gives him full ride to play socceer. He works at three places and makes around 1 K a week. and he is only a high school graduate.

My manager also told me that his friend, and electrician, gets paid $46 an hour at an army morgue. the only bad thing is that he saw dead soldiers' body and Nick Berg's.

I realized how childish and near-sighted I was. Yes, I did not get in the best colleges in America, but I am still going to college, however bad it is. After I graduate from college, I would have an edge in getting a better job, an office job, one that I don't have to make my hands all wet and dirty, or work till midnight everyday.

As I am writing my blog, I got the acceptance letter from the George Washington University. Finally, I am going to a college of my choice. :)

Speaking of sexism

Nowaday, if the ladies are still talking about sexism, I really don't know what to say to them. Even though I am from a culture in which males dominate (In fact, my dad favors me so much more than my sister, but my mom is fair), I am determined to be a non-sexist person because first i know the damage it does to women and second my sister yells at me when my dad favors me overly (:P). However non-sexist I try to be or am, I am not into the feminist furor (again, due to my sister's semi-feminist ferver). Therefore, I can only say that I am neutral. I am not a sexist, but I am not a feminist. However, maybe because of my neutrality and, persumably, my good pesonality, girls take advantage of me. First my sister and more evidently, the females workers yesterday at work.

I work at Friendly's, a low class American restaurant, where the food is dirty but the ice cream is yummy (because I make the ice-cream :) ). Today, I reported to work at 6:30. Then I saw my female coworker talking to other workers, not working. After a minute or so, she left without coming back the whole night again. I thought, "maybe she is just getting off from work." I did not put much thought and started working. There is another female coworker working with me.

While I was working, the female coworker constantly left her post and talked to the chef, the dish-washer, etc. I did not care much since it was raining (no one eats icem cream when it rains) and my manager (male) was helping me sometimes, besides feeling stressed from time to time.

Later on, I realized that one person was not at work (that's why I was stressed). There were originally three people working. Well, as i last counted, there were only two (me and the coworker). I finally knew why around 10 when my manager told me that the third worker wasn't able to work today and the girl who was gone at 6:30 was supposed to work for him.. Ouch, she just left without telling the manager. What is more angering was that she was supposed to close. With her gone, I, who got off the latest, had to close. However, the manager assured me that the female coworker who was working would help me do part of the job.

Speaking is always easy, and actual doing is hard. The girl knew that she neded to help me. But she didn't. I told her to refill the candies and nuts, and she told me, "Well, I have allegy to nuts." I thought "if you do, why are you working at icecream stand." I knew it was obviously a lie, but i sucked it up because the manager, who was nearby, did not say much. I told her to wipe the stand, which she did, for 5 seconds. Then she yelled, "The manager told me I could leave now." She then clocked out, at 10:45, when she was supposed to have stayed till 11:00.

The manager heard all that, and he did not approve that she leave early. Well, fortunately for me, he would share the work with me. And I did get to leave by 11:30.

As I am blogging this, my anger has abated. Friendly's is a dirty place, and there is no question about it. The girls, with their polished nails and shinny hairdo, of course do not want to do the cleaning when they barely want to do the ice-cream making. But hey, you are a worker here. so get to work. If you are getting paid, do something, at least work. I can't accept the behavior of the worker that left when she found out she had to close. She was covering for someone, and she could not suddenly leave. I know she likes to be clean, well, me too.... I am sure if she just told me, I could do some of the cleaning for her. She didn't, and she left the responsbility to me when the shop was extremely busy yesterday night (Friday is always busy)

The second worker was also so wrong. Sometimes, she left her station and left me completely by myself, with icecream to make. She had worked there for a while, so she knew all the rules at Friendly's and liked to chatter with others and got by the rules. Come on, I wanted to just chatter and make money at the same time too. And she did not do her share of work while the manager was watching her.

The ultimate problem is that all of the managers, except the one who was there last night, are females. And most of the workers there (at least for the ice cream section) are also females, social and talkative. Eventually, what happens is that they bullshit their way out of everything. They chatter and cajole the mangers when they are supposed to be working. Therefore, they gain favors, come late and leave early as they please, and leave the dirty work to the guys.....

In my opinion, they can't just say they are girls and they need to be clean and get out of every work. The place is dirty. and as a worker, suck that up. They got away because I did all the work without much complaint, since they still help me from time to time. However, tonight, the manager, who happens to be male, saw all this and decided to punish both of them. For the one who left without any notice, cleaning for tonight is her job.... for the other one, the manager will report her honestly. Gosh, I feel so much better after all those unfair working. :D