Fast Food Workers Go On Strike For Higher Pay From The Business Men

Hence the 60% turnover rate in the fast food industry and the 150% turnover rate at McDonald's.

And people wonder why those guys can't get your order right...

Yeah, but this is just 1 guy making that much at McDonald's. There are many more executives at McDonald's that make millions that could stand to give a little to the lower end employees that do all the physical work. And they would still be making millions.

 

They do a shoddy job because they have no stake in what they make, they're wage workers. It's the same problem as the USSR had imo, workers get the same pay no matter what so they don't care if they do a shoddy job. Maybe if their employer paid them more, or better yet implemented a profit sharing system, they would bother to do a better job. Don't blame the workers for the way they act in the dysfunctional environment their bosses set up.

 

You are dead wrong. Someone making $9.00 per hour at 40 hours a week would easily qualify for food stamps. (Even with no dependants)

http://dfcs.dhs.georgia.gov/caps-income-requirements

 

Enjoy your $9 Big Mac!

 

Which is why Chikfila is such a wonderful company. Working there you DO have a stake and guess what, the quality of employee is much, much higher. Going there is a pleasure. Every worker is kind & polite. But Liberals hate Chikfila=)

 

McDonalds has 1.8 million employees. The top paid executive of McDonalds was paid 8.8 million. If you took every penny he made, the employees would see less than a dollar a MONTH in increased pay. The other executives make less, and there aren't very many that earn more than a million a year. If you took all the pay from every executive at McDonalds, it would increase the pay of the rest of the employees by less than a dollar a day.

People read the propaganda which only shows the pay disparity between the part time minimum wage employees and the top paid executive. Those stories are designed to imply that if executive pay was reduced, the company could afford to pay the other employees far more. Those stories prey on people's envy for the money of the rich and their sympathy for the little guy, but such stories only convince people who are unable or unwilling to do simple math. If you just do the math, you can clearly see that what the propaganda implies just isn't true. There isn't enough money in all of the corporate salaries to make a tangible difference in the pay of the average McDonalds employee. The numbers just don't add up. The same is true in nearly every corporation that is vilified by such propaganda. The numbers sound big, they make great sensational news articles, they incite anger in the gullible, but the implications just aren't true. The words they use are true, but what they imply and what the gullible readers are led to believe isn't.

 

natural rates of unemployment have no bearing on whether or not a 30 y.o. highschool dropout deserves a 50% raise for flipping burgers

 

I don't understand what you're saying there. people in poverty is a result of personal choices made by the individual at some point in their life.

Sorry you made a poor choice back when you were a teenager and got knocked up and had to drop out of school..... but a choice was made that had a consequence. While you were out partying and having unprotected sex, I was studying..... you believed the "here and now" was more important than the future.

Choices


I now have my degree and working in a job I like for a decent wage.
You are now STILL flipping burgers for minimum wage levels and complaining that the rich elite are holding you down and should come off some of their wealth because YOU made poor choices.


(all the "you" statements are general statements, not YOU specifically)

 

It can only be individual to a certain extent, just as it must be Institutional to a certain extent since corporate welfare even has paid multimillion dollar bonuses for "poor life choices" on the part of artificial persons of wealth.

 

I have agreed with corporate welfare being bad on this thread til I'm blue in the face.... But McDonalds (which this thread is about) has not recieved the GM style bailout by .gov so that simply does not apply in this situation. If we were talking about the auto industry bailout, and how THOSE execs were raking in millions in bonuses, while the company was bankrupt and laying off employees, I'd be right there with you complaining about the worker getting screwed over... because in that instance... they did get screwed over.


mcDonalds, however, needs lots of unskilled, part time help. So they hire it at the rate it demands. It's not the exec's fault that people choose to STAY in those entry level jobs for 30 years.

a 30 year vet is no more valuable than a pimply faced 16 y.o. when it comes to flipping a big mac. Maybe this should be a lesson to the 16 y.o. to get his education so he doesn't remain there into his 40s. I know I used it as motivation when I saw Della, the 36 y.o. woman who thought she was an integral cog in the Wendy's machine yet, only made .25 cents more than I did.

 

Would we have this same social dilemma, if employers were required to have an extra-legal employment ethic in a manner analogous to the extra-legal work ethic required of labor?

 

What good is a strike if nobody honors your picket line?

 

I am not referring to a strike, but a remedy for that social injustice.

 

What "remedy" does a union have beyond a strike?

What is unjust about low wages for low-skill work?

 

Unions may be considered "artificial" Persons of greater wealth than real and Individual, Persons.

 

Sure, dividing it evenly among everyone would not have an effect. But giving $67 million to these 8 people but not paying these million employees enough live without government assistance is just wrong. I'm not suggesting a robion hood solution or any solution at all for that matter. I see a foul and I am calling it.

I feel like very little of it is due to choices. If you are born poor, you are likely to stay that way and if you are born rich, you are likely to stay that way. It is difficult to transverse the class barrier in either direction.

How many McDonald's employees do you think have to get government assistance to pay their bills.

When McDonalds doesn't pay their employees enough to live, where do you think they turn to?

That's right, the government tit. We are subsidizing their salary with tax dollars while the execs live like kings miking millions for doing office work.

 

So you just want to cut the pay of these executives, knowing that doing so can't bring a tangible increase in the rest of the employees' pay? Or you just want to whine because you don't think it is fair?

What is the point of complaining about the pay disparity, when you know that reducing the executives' pay won't do anything to increase the pay of the rank and file?

 

So, why complain about labor using its resources to obtain better pay?

 

You didn't seem to notice that you were only talking about 1 person and $8.8 million. There is more than 1 executive at McDonald's...

In addition to that, 1.8 million people work for McDonald's, some of which make a decent wage. To act like it would need to all be taken from one person, and be distributed among all the remaining 1.799999 million employees is a rather simplifying it. The people that work there that are salary employees for instance, they don't make an hourly wage and would need the hourly minimum increased.

[video=youtube;QPKKQnijnsM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQnijnsM[/video]

You seem to be asking me why problems should be pointed out even if we don't already know how to solve them.

Is that your question?

 

Even mid-level managers at McDonalds fall into a low-wage category and in many cases would be impacted by a minimum wage hike like is currently being considered.

But show me I'm wrong with actual numbers, not propaganda. How many employees would be affected by an increased wage like the striking employees are demanding? How many executives make so much money that you feel that their salaries should be cut to help pay these increased wages? Based on that, how much of the increased wage cost would actually be covered by raiding these executive salaries, and how much would either have to come out of the already weak profit margin at McDonalds, or be passed on to consumers as increased prices?

Show that I'm wrong using actual numbers, not just emotional pleas.

 

I believe most labor would not feel any need to go on strike for better pay if they had full recourse to laws regarding employment at will, since they would be able to merely quit and apply for unemployment compensation if they feel they are being "exploited" by capitalism.

 

You realize that there were actual numbers included in that video, right?

 

How is labor going on strike to try to obtain better wages any better than corporate CEOs using their wealth to obtain multimillion dollar corporate welfare bonuses?

 

What is wrong is subsiding the useless with funds stolen from other taxpayers.

Here's an idea....if those people couldn't live on the wages they earned from Mickey-D's alone, and they couldn't mooch off the useful people in America....they'd have to refuse to work for such low wages...which would force companies to offer more money to attract workers....

As usual, the imbalance in the market is driven by the socialists in government who hate America and Americans.

In America, people born poor have choices and opportunities, and for the most part people do not stay on the bottom of the economic ladder. If they choose to follow a life-path that keeps them on the bottom, that's their problem, not the taxpayers'.

Too many. None of them should be eligible for taxpayer subsidies that can't constitutionally exist.

Burger King?

King Obama, Fascist and Traitor?

Stealing from the taxpayers?

Yeah, those people managed to get off the bottom of the economic ladder quite nicely. They're impressive role models the useless poor should follow.

Life just ain't fair, is it?

Guess what? It never was, it never will be.

And guess what else?

The United States isn't predicated on the concept of "fairness", but on the concept of equality before the law.

- - - Updated - - -

People who voluntarily quit not only aren't eligible for unemployment, but shouldn't get it.

 

Why do you believe in being immoral, illegal, and repugnant to our own laws?