Fast-food workers strike, seeking $15 wage, political muscle

[hadit]

And if we bumped it this time to $8.50/hr, the sky wouldn't fall either. That's not what you want, though, and what you want would be catastrophic. Some 62% of the workers in this country make less than $20/hr. Raise the MW to $15/hr and every one of them would either get a big raise or demand one when all of a sudden they were making just a little over MW. Where's that money going to come from?

McDonalds Workers aren't asking anything of Government. Their fight is with their Employer. It has nothing to do with the Minimum Wage. You have no dog in the fight. It's between them and their Employer.

The OP asked you what the source of the funding for these artificial increases in pay.

'artificial' increases in pay? Funny stuff. No one forces you to eat at McDonalds. If you disagree with paying a fellow American a livable wage, eat at home. Simple as that.

Yes..Artificial. As in violation of the marketplace.
And round we go....You keep insisting that low skill entry level work should be compensated as though it were a career choice. That type of work is referred to as entry level because that is what it is. You insist that wages are 'given'. Wrong . Wages are earned. Higher skill, means higher pay.
So you say no one forces anyone to eat fast food. That is correct. And that also applies to millions of people who would object to the higher prices and either cut back on fast food consumption or eliminate it altogether.
And you of course will attempt to convince others "they will get used to it an just pay up"....You'd be incorrect.
As you were previously told, unless you own a business, you do not have the right to demand business make you feel better.

If you hate the idea of a fellow American making a livable wage, don't eat at McDonalds. Eat somewhere where they treat their workers like shite. Enjoy your spit sandwich.

Brain's mindset is that if things go poorly, it's always management and never the workers but if things go well, it's never management but only the workers.

And keyboard courage here never blames the manager, it's the workers fault. Of course the manager did the hiring, training, and set the staffing schedule....

When the manager has idiots to work with, there's only so much he/she can do. You expect someone to do a miracle and make chicken salad out of chicken shit.

Who hired the idiots?

The manager who had a lot of work that really needed to get done and couldn't find qualified workers so he had to take what he could get.

And is doing a bad job if he/ she hired idiots. Some fast food restaurants have great service paying the same wages, the difference is good managers.

And good workers who recognize the true value of their work and don't insist on being paid inflated wages...

 

[Cecilie1200]

Speak for yourself. My pay has more than doubled in the last 10 years.

And you are statistically insignificant in a country of over 300 million.

What I am is just one example of a statistically significant number that have done the same. What I am is someone that has proven it can be done.

Poverty, Wages Remain Stagnant Despite Economic Recovery

What have those in poverty or who make low wages done to better what they have to offer? What effort have they made other than whine that someone should give them more for nothing?

Wages are stagnant, what they do won't make much of a difference for most.

Yes, there's always an excuse why everything is pointless and hopeless, and the only solution is to demand that others give you what they have, because you simply CAN'T make your life better yourself.

 

[Cecilie1200]

What I am is just one example of a statistically significant number that have done the same. What I am is someone that has proven it can be done.

Poverty, Wages Remain Stagnant Despite Economic Recovery

What have those in poverty or who make low wages done to better what they have to offer? What effort have they made other than whine that someone should give them more for nothing?

Wages are stagnant, what they do won't make much of a difference for most.

You just gave them an excuse to not try and continue to demand something just be handed to them. If they made half as much effort to do better as they did demanding something be given to them, you would be surprised just how much better things would be.

Although you didn't use the exact words, I suspect you consider me one of the lucky ones. To that I say: "I'm a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more of it I seem to have." - Coleman Cox

With stagnant wages they are most likely to be underemployed if they get skills. You seem to be living in a different economy.

I'm underemployed right now, as it happens. Should I demand that the government force my employer to either pay me more per hour or give me more hours? Or should I find other ways to make money myself?

Spoiler alert: I found a second job.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Wages don't go up if those doing the hiring can't find those qualified to do the job. They don't need to go up if there aren't enough offering what those hiring want in qualifications. If you think wages go up when more jobs that require higher qualifications can't be filled by highly qualified people, you should study.

Yes you clearly know nothing about economics. So you think having lots of qualified applicants makes wages go up?

Wages don't go up if people aren't qualified to do a job to the level the employer wants qualifications. A person may get hired but if they don't offer to the level the one hiring wants, they may still get hired but at a lower wage.

The best way to improve your wages is to offer something worth paying. In your mind, especially with the OP, wages should go up for no reason other than those wanting more demanding more.

So you don't know anything about supply and demand obviously. Go learn some economics.

Only in the world of politics could you hire a unqualified, inempt community organizer a position of leadership..

But Brian in the real world of the private sector you can not just hire a burger flipper to opperate a CNC say.just because you can not find anyone else.

Yes in the real world if you can't find a Cnc operator for the wages offered, you offer more. People see how much is offered and get the proper training. Right now wages are stagnant because there aren't lots of Cnc jobs going unfilled.

You keep chanting, "Wages are stagnant", like it's some talisman that excuses anything. We're talking about minimum wage, which is stagnant because those jobs aren't worth more, and because there's no shortage of people who can and will do them for what they pay right now. If someone is sitting around in one of those jobs much longer than they should, expecting it to someday become a well-paying career, that's HIS problem, not the employer's.

There are better jobs out there that don't have enough people to fill them, and they do pay better. Those people lagging in MW jobs could apply for them, if they bothered to become qualified for them. They don't, and that's not anyone's problem but theirs.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Yes you clearly know nothing about economics. So you think having lots of qualified applicants makes wages go up?

Wages don't go up if people aren't qualified to do a job to the level the employer wants qualifications. A person may get hired but if they don't offer to the level the one hiring wants, they may still get hired but at a lower wage.

The best way to improve your wages is to offer something worth paying. In your mind, especially with the OP, wages should go up for no reason other than those wanting more demanding more.

So you don't know anything about supply and demand obviously. Go learn some economics.

Only in the world of politics could you hire a unqualified, inempt community organizer a position of leadership..

But Brian in the real world of the private sector you can not just hire a burger flipper to opperate a CNC say.just because you can not find anyone else.

And only if his skin is black.

Problem is Brian wants that burger flipper to get what amounts to a 100+ % pay increase and has yet to say what that burger flipper has to do in addition to what he/she is doing now to earn it.

Ceos keep getting more and more increases to do the exact same job. You are ok with that I assume?

If the people whose money is going to pay them are, then why shouldn't people with no connection to that money at all be?

No company is going to overpay its CEO and remain profitable for long, whatever you ignorantly imagine.

 

[Cecilie1200]

So you don't know anything about supply and demand obviously. Go learn some economics.

Only in the world of politics could you hire a unqualified, inempt community organizer a position of leadership..

But Brian in the real world of the private sector you can not just hire a burger flipper to opperate a CNC say.just because you can not find anyone else.

And only if his skin is black.

Problem is Brian wants that burger flipper to get what amounts to a 100+ % pay increase and has yet to say what that burger flipper has to do in addition to what he/she is doing now to earn it.

Ceos keep getting more and more increases to do the exact same job. You are ok with that I assume?

They do? How many CEO's do you know well enough to know exactly what they do?

I'm OK with those doing the paying doing it the way they see fit. What I'm not OK with is people like you thinking it's your place to determine how much of someone else's money they should spend on what.

Ah so for them it is ok. The job of ceo hasn't changed, just the pay has increased dramatically. You seem to be a hypocrite, shocking.

I just LOVE the liberal inability to tell the difference between "we choose to pay more" and "the government forces us to pay more". If you don't object to ALL pay raises, you're a "hypocrite".

Well, leftists can't define the word "is", so there's no reason they should know the definition of "hypocrite", either.

 

[Cecilie1200]

And only if his skin is black.

Problem is Brian wants that burger flipper to get what amounts to a 100+ % pay increase and has yet to say what that burger flipper has to do in addition to what he/she is doing now to earn it.

Ceos keep getting more and more increases to do the exact same job. You are ok with that I assume?

They do? How many CEO's do you know well enough to know exactly what they do?

I'm OK with those doing the paying doing it the way they see fit. What I'm not OK with is people like you thinking it's your place to determine how much of someone else's money they should spend on what.

Ah so for them it is ok. The job of ceo hasn't changed, just the pay has increased dramatically. You seem to be a hypocrite, shocking.

Since those doing the paying determine who gets what, it's OK for that reason and none of my business.

I say the same thing for those you demand get a $15/hour wage. If the one paying wants to pay that much, fine. I won't say a word. It's their money. When the government mandates it, that's the problem. I have the same outlook for either end. It's not my business.

You keep saying the job of a ceo hasn't changed yet you've provide absolutely no examples or support to back it up.

Since there is no reason to believe it has changed and that was your claim, you need to support it. With no evidence we can assume it hasn't.

At what point do you assume that it's none of your business, because it's not your money?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Ceos actually get paid more for worse performance. That's ok though right?

The Highest-Paid CEOs Are The Worst Performers, New Study Says

Again, unless you're paying them, it's none of your business.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Only in the world of politics could you hire a unqualified, inempt community organizer a position of leadership..

But Brian in the real world of the private sector you can not just hire a burger flipper to opperate a CNC say.just because you can not find anyone else.

And only if his skin is black.

Problem is Brian wants that burger flipper to get what amounts to a 100+ % pay increase and has yet to say what that burger flipper has to do in addition to what he/she is doing now to earn it.

Ceos keep getting more and more increases to do the exact same job. You are ok with that I assume?

They do? How many CEO's do you know well enough to know exactly what they do?

I'm OK with those doing the paying doing it the way they see fit. What I'm not OK with is people like you thinking it's your place to determine how much of someone else's money they should spend on what.

The issue is that idiots like "Brain" (what a misnomer!) dont understand what CEOs do. They know what Beyonce does. Or some other actor. So they're fine with them getting paid millions of dollars a year. Because they look at them and think "I could never do that."
But they dont know what CEOs do. So they think "how hard can that be?"
As usual the problem is ignorance.

The problem is ceos keep giving themselves huge raises for bad performance. While they should be paid more than the average worker, they shouldn't continue to get huge increases while wages are stagnant for everyone else.

The problem is that you and your ilk don't understand the concept of minding your own business.

 

[Cecilie1200]

And only if his skin is black.

Problem is Brian wants that burger flipper to get what amounts to a 100+ % pay increase and has yet to say what that burger flipper has to do in addition to what he/she is doing now to earn it.

Ceos keep getting more and more increases to do the exact same job. You are ok with that I assume?

They do? How many CEO's do you know well enough to know exactly what they do?

I'm OK with those doing the paying doing it the way they see fit. What I'm not OK with is people like you thinking it's your place to determine how much of someone else's money they should spend on what.

The issue is that idiots like "Brain" (what a misnomer!) dont understand what CEOs do. They know what Beyonce does. Or some other actor. So they're fine with them getting paid millions of dollars a year. Because they look at them and think "I could never do that."
But they dont know what CEOs do. So they think "how hard can that be?"
As usual the problem is ignorance.

If their outlook about a CEO's job being easy was true, anyone could do it. I wonder if he thinks a burger flipper at McDonalds could do the job of a CEO.

Why is it ok for ceos to keep getting raises for bad performance?

Because the raises are voluntarily given by the people who own the money.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Ceos keep getting more and more increases to do the exact same job. You are ok with that I assume?

They do? How many CEO's do you know well enough to know exactly what they do?

I'm OK with those doing the paying doing it the way they see fit. What I'm not OK with is people like you thinking it's your place to determine how much of someone else's money they should spend on what.

The issue is that idiots like "Brain" (what a misnomer!) dont understand what CEOs do. They know what Beyonce does. Or some other actor. So they're fine with them getting paid millions of dollars a year. Because they look at them and think "I could never do that."
But they dont know what CEOs do. So they think "how hard can that be?"
As usual the problem is ignorance.

The problem is ceos keep giving themselves huge raises for bad performance. While they should be paid more than the average worker, they shouldn't continue to get huge increases while wages are stagnant for everyone else.

Let's just ask a gut check question here: Who sets wage and compensation levels for CEOs? This isnt a trick question or especially difficult. But if you cant answer it you have no seat at this conversation.

According to Brain, CEO's essentially determine their own raises and pay.

Well, this is because no one sane would trust Brain with a job more complicated than stocking a shelf, so he has no experience of what upper management does . . . other than being fired, one assumes.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

See quote.

Dude. I was an assistant manager of a sports bar that had 20 plus employees. Part of my job was to analyze costs. Our goal was to keep labor at 30% or lower.
No other expense made up a larger percentage of doing business. Not even close.

As much as your opinion doesn't matter, link?

Link to what? A just told you how my employers business operated.
Link....Go shit in your hat.
Here ya go ..Ya fuckin moron....Managing the Big Three Bar Cost Centers: Labor, Food and Beverage | Nightclub & Bar
Common Food & Labor Cost Percentages
...Dude don't ever think you can come on here and challenge me to a test of facts. Contrary to you, a knee jerk whiny ass liberal who just types with no aforethought, I do my homework before I render an opinion.....

So get you ass back on the porch where you belong....

Your second link agrees with me. Thank you for the support. I also enjoyed laughing at your crazy rant.

Certain fast food restaurants can achieve labor cost as low as 25 percent, while table service restaurants are more likely to see labor in the 30 percent to 35 percent range. Food costs (including beverages) for the restaurant industry run typically from the 25 percent to 38 percent range, depending upon the style of restaurant and the mix of sales.

I'm gonna eat at restaurants that pay their Workers a livable wage. If McDonalds does the right thing and helps its Workers out, i might just give it a shot again. If we all do that, Employers might be encouraged to treat their Workers better.

And besides, you gotta watch those restaurants that treat their Workers like shite. You might end up with a nasty ole phlegmy spit sandwich.

Why would a worker get even with a customer for something that is their own fault?

"We all" won't do it, and to be honest, most of us won't boycott a place that pays fair wages for the type of work that their employees do. And yes, minimum wage is a fair wage for people with no qualifications or experience at anything.

 

[Cecilie1200]

They do? How many CEO's do you know well enough to know exactly what they do?

I'm OK with those doing the paying doing it the way they see fit. What I'm not OK with is people like you thinking it's your place to determine how much of someone else's money they should spend on what.

The issue is that idiots like "Brain" (what a misnomer!) dont understand what CEOs do. They know what Beyonce does. Or some other actor. So they're fine with them getting paid millions of dollars a year. Because they look at them and think "I could never do that."
But they dont know what CEOs do. So they think "how hard can that be?"
As usual the problem is ignorance.

If their outlook about a CEO's job being easy was true, anyone could do it. I wonder if he thinks a burger flipper at McDonalds could do the job of a CEO.

Why is it ok for ceos to keep getting raises for bad performance?

Because those who choose to do so do so with THEIR money and can do whatever the hell they want with it. It's none of your business.

If a company has bad performance, should those minimum wage workers for that company be paid $15/hour?

Why is it only the fault of the CEO if a company has bad performance and only the credit of the workers if the company does well?

I see so the answer is its none of my business, that's cute. Is it hard to be such a hypocrite?

Ehrmagerd, being called names by someone whose opinion is viewed with utter contempt is SOOOOO distressing!

 

[Cecilie1200]

They do? How many CEO's do you know well enough to know exactly what they do?

I'm OK with those doing the paying doing it the way they see fit. What I'm not OK with is people like you thinking it's your place to determine how much of someone else's money they should spend on what.

The issue is that idiots like "Brain" (what a misnomer!) dont understand what CEOs do. They know what Beyonce does. Or some other actor. So they're fine with them getting paid millions of dollars a year. Because they look at them and think "I could never do that."
But they dont know what CEOs do. So they think "how hard can that be?"
As usual the problem is ignorance.

The problem is ceos keep giving themselves huge raises for bad performance. While they should be paid more than the average worker, they shouldn't continue to get huge increases while wages are stagnant for everyone else.

Let's just ask a gut check question here: Who sets wage and compensation levels for CEOs? This isnt a trick question or especially difficult. But if you cant answer it you have no seat at this conversation.

According to Brain, CEO's essentially determine their own raises and pay.

Yes they do. Who decides their pay?

Seriously? You seriously asked this where people could see it?

CEOs of public corporations get paid based on the recommendations of the board of directors. The pay package can include salary, bonus, stock options, and deferred compensation, along with use of the “company” jet to fly to the “company” villa in Tuscany or Aspen and a limo to drive you to an expense account lunch.

Who decides how much a CEO makes?

All snottiness about the lavish compensation aside, please note the highlighted words. And then understand that you just disqualified yourself from ever being anything but mocked, and shut your cakehole. You're an embarassment to bipeds.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Ceos keep getting more and more increases to do the exact same job. You are ok with that I assume?

They do? How many CEO's do you know well enough to know exactly what they do?

I'm OK with those doing the paying doing it the way they see fit. What I'm not OK with is people like you thinking it's your place to determine how much of someone else's money they should spend on what.

The issue is that idiots like "Brain" (what a misnomer!) dont understand what CEOs do. They know what Beyonce does. Or some other actor. So they're fine with them getting paid millions of dollars a year. Because they look at them and think "I could never do that."
But they dont know what CEOs do. So they think "how hard can that be?"
As usual the problem is ignorance.

The problem is ceos keep giving themselves huge raises for bad performance. While they should be paid more than the average worker, they shouldn't continue to get huge increases while wages are stagnant for everyone else.

Let's just ask a gut check question here: Who sets wage and compensation levels for CEOs? This isnt a trick question or especially difficult. But if you cant answer it you have no seat at this conversation.

The board. The board that is loaded with current and former ceos who obviously want ceo pay to increase.

Yes, they're DYING to give away more of their own money to someone for no good reason, just because.

You're a fucking idiot, and getting more so with every post.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The issue is that idiots like "Brain" (what a misnomer!) dont understand what CEOs do. They know what Beyonce does. Or some other actor. So they're fine with them getting paid millions of dollars a year. Because they look at them and think "I could never do that."
But they dont know what CEOs do. So they think "how hard can that be?"
As usual the problem is ignorance.

The problem is ceos keep giving themselves huge raises for bad performance. While they should be paid more than the average worker, they shouldn't continue to get huge increases while wages are stagnant for everyone else.

Let's just ask a gut check question here: Who sets wage and compensation levels for CEOs? This isnt a trick question or especially difficult. But if you cant answer it you have no seat at this conversation.

The board. The board that is loaded with current and former ceos who obviously want ceo pay to increase.

OK so CEOs do not essentially set their own compensation. They negotiate with a board for it.
Do you recant your earlier statement that CEOs set their own compensation, since by your own admission that is untrue?

Not at all. They essentially own the board. So yes they pretty much set their own compensation.

They "own the board"? Exactly how do you figure that?

 

[Cecilie1200]

The problem is ceos keep giving themselves huge raises for bad performance. While they should be paid more than the average worker, they shouldn't continue to get huge increases while wages are stagnant for everyone else.

Let's just ask a gut check question here: Who sets wage and compensation levels for CEOs? This isnt a trick question or especially difficult. But if you cant answer it you have no seat at this conversation.

The board. The board that is loaded with current and former ceos who obviously want ceo pay to increase.

OK so CEOs do not essentially set their own compensation. They negotiate with a board for it.
Do you recant your earlier statement that CEOs set their own compensation, since by your own admission that is untrue?

Not at all. They essentially own the board. So yes they pretty much set their own compensation.

Not unless they have a majority controlling interest in the company.

In which case, they're making far more money off their stock ownership than they are off of being CEO.

 

[Cecilie1200]

People voluntarily take these jobs. They aren't forced to take minimum wage jobs. Honor your commitment.If you want to make more, take a better paying job. Or work to get a promotion.

Or you greedy white Republican dudes could become decent people and pay a fellow American a livable wage. What do ya say??

Let me ask you: do you overpay the people you hire?

When your car needs repair, do you get it repaired at the higher priced garage or the lower priced garage?

When you need your lawn cut, do you hire the company that will cut it at $75.00 per cut or the company that cuts it for $35.00 per cut?

If you need an electrician, do you hire the electrician that charges $75.00 per hour or the one that charges $35.00 per hour?

Well unless you can tell me you overpay all the people you hire, why would you expect employers to do the same.

I pay based on reputation which almost always costs me more.

Nice dodge, but the question remains: of the service people with good reputations, do you go for the higher price, or the lower?

I don't know about you, but my city has many service people available with good reputations to choose from.

 

[Cecilie1200]

These people are being led by the nose showing they are not Reliable or smart enough to stand on their own two feet. and they want someone to pay them $15 bucks an hour for a job a monkey can be trained to do.

what a bunch of messed up people who we should no the UNIONS and the DNC are behind all this

A good time for Unions to make a big comeback in this country.

You don't have the numbers to increase union influence, and illegal fast food workers have no say regardless whether they unionize or not.

If the workers unionized and demanded higher wages the bosses would fire them and replace them with lower wage workers. Who would be happy for the job.
THey should fire these assholes and hire people who would be grateful for the chance to work and improve job skills.

In the future, when people enter a McDonald's or other fast food place, they will walk up to machines to order and there will be few people working in the restaurants.

People choose to take those starter jobs. Always sad when someone says they are relying on a minimum wage job to feed their family, but have to wonder why someone would claim to stay at a low paying job for ten years. I've seen fry cooks work their way through school and end up managing places for good wages.

The workers also qualify for welfare. Will they still qualify after a raise?

Word is that people in SeaTac that got their raise to $15 asked their employers to reduce their hours because it put them over the limit for government bennies they didn't want to lose, like Medicaid.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Let me ask you: do you overpay the people you hire?

When your car needs repair, do you get it repaired at the higher priced garage or the lower priced garage?

When you need your lawn cut, do you hire the company that will cut it at $75.00 per cut or the company that cuts it for $35.00 per cut?

If you need an electrician, do you hire the electrician that charges $75.00 per hour or the one that charges $35.00 per hour?

Well unless you can tell me you overpay all the people you hire, why would you expect employers to do the same.

I pay based on reputation which almost always costs me more.

Okay, but what if you can get the exact same work done for less? Do you still hire the most expensive?

I kept my American Lawn guy for 20 years and he was the most expensive; he retired.
I'm incapable of stabbing reliable people in the back to save $200.00/year.
I have to know the plumber and electrician will show up and complete the job...I pay more.
Cleaning ladies don't steal...I pay more.
I pay to eliminate aggravation.
I'm not rich.

Well then you're in the minority. Most Americans will do anything to save a buck even if it means less quality.

I ran into another gentleman earlier this week when the subject came up. We were talking about the good ole days and how much different fast food is today. Many people today don't know what a real Big Mac or Whopper tasted like as when they first came out. The years passed and these chains realized that people were more concerned about price than the quality of the food. So they all purchased cheaper and cheaper products to make their famous burgers.

A few years ago I went to my local KFC only to find out that they closed down. So I went to the next closest one in the neighboring suburb and was surprised to find them closed as well. Then I thought for a moment and remember that the KFC near where I work closed down a month or so earlier, but I never paid much attention because I never went there.

It was more than coincidence, so I went to the internet. What I found is that these closings were not a local thing, but a national one. They were closing outlets all over the country. The reason being that people opted for other cheaper chicken places like Popeye's or Church's. KFC was losing money on many of their restaurants.

I won't go to those cheaper chicken places, like you, I would rather pay more money for a better product. But again, I'm in the minority. Everybody else chooses cost over quality.

Price over value was once a regional thing. Mostly in the southeast. I saw a study about 20 odd years ago that at least in the sports apparel( uniforms and the like) business the southeast was the lowest profit margin region in the US. The reason was simple. Price over value.
With the advent of the so called discount retailer and the "outlet" shopping experience, people shop primarily on price. And this has become politically correct. For those who shop higher end retailers looking for value and product quality, they are made fun of. Ridiculed.
Meanwhile the low end spenders are in effect spending more because the products they buy wear out in a much shorter period of time and must be replaced more frequently.
As price over value became more widespread consumer mentality, manufacturers learned they could use lower quality materials or even move their operations to a lower quality( same label) contractor.

This is true, and it's why Walmart is number one today and has been for quite some time.

People don't care where their merchandise comes from, just as long as they pay the least for it. People don't mind throwing things out or wearing them thin. In fact, it's an advantage because they can go out and buy new stuff that's more in style.