Support the fast food workers

[BobPlumb]

I had breakfast at the golden arches this morning. I got to say hello to a lady that graduated high school the same year I did many years ago who was working there. As far as I know she has always worked in some kind of food service. As many years as she has worked in the fast food industry, I would think that she could at least be an assistant manager or a shift supervisor; however, she is not.

I am sure she would like to earn more $$$$$$. She could be earning more if she had a better education or perhaps if she would have tried to be in management. We each have to make our own futures.

 

[SteadyMercury]

Those who are against people being paid a living wage have no idea of this but going to college/tech school takes money

Fail, my wife and I both paid our way thru college by working and taking on student loans. We both worked our share of shit jobs.

Those who want to see people punished for being poor also want to see those people and their children hungry and homeless.

Nobody is being punished, and I submit the people flipping burgers are neither hungry nor homeless.

Who is more important, the workers or the employers? We can live without employers but not without workers.

This is profoundly stupid. Without employers there is nobody to work for, thus no workers.

 

[DarkLion]

Yeah, get rid of the phones, cable, fancy TVs, and other stuff you don't know you can't afford and see how much farther that paycheck goes.

Not very. When I was putting myself through college I had no cable or cell phone, the only way to contact me was through emails which I checked via wi-fi hotspots. I made anywhere from $4-600 per month working fast food, and my rent was $400. If I got a lot of hours in one month I had to put back the extra money because I might not get enough hours to cover rent the next.

You've obviously never had to rely on low wages

 

[Katzndogz]

I had breakfast at the golden arches this morning. I got to say hello to a lady that graduated high school the same year I did many years ago who was working there. As far as I know she has always worked in some kind of food service. As many years as she has worked in the fast food industry, I would think that she could at least be an assistant manager or a shift supervisor; however, she is not.

I am sure she would like to earn more $$$$$$. She could be earning more if she had a better education or perhaps if she would have tried to be in management. We each have to make our own futures.

For whatever reason, this woman has made a decision to stay at that position. It is her choice.

Many people make a decision not to advance. Some don't want responsibility. Some want flexibility where they can trade off shifts as they decide. Their decision does not obligate the employer to meet their salary requirements.

 

[Katzndogz]

There are some jobs that by their very nature do not pay a living wage. They are designed for workers who don't need a living wage but a supplementary wage.

Start paying your babysitter a living wage so you can go to a movie on Saturday night.

No job is "designed for workers."

The job is designed to produce a good or service that (outside of government and charity) will generate a profit.

No Profit: No Job

Of course, with govenment jobs, you actually want to show an economic loss (rather than profit), so you can justify spending more in the future.

Who is more important, the workers or the employers? We can live without employers but not without workers. Our country was founded by farmers.
This is basic chicken or egg stuff.

Why don't you trot on down to the unemployment office and tell all those out of work, that they don't need an employer to hire them. It's chicken and egg stuff. Employers aren't necessary.

 

[squeeze berry]

It isn't the workers. It's the unions. Fast food service should be turned into a career choice. Can you imagine turning fast food service into the same kind of catastrophes unions have done to public school?

link to unions ruining public schools

 

[Samson]

There are some jobs that by their very nature do not pay a living wage. They are designed for workers who don't need a living wage but a supplementary wage.

Start paying your babysitter a living wage so you can go to a movie on Saturday night.

No job is "designed for workers."

The job is designed to produce a good or service that (outside of government and charity) will generate a profit.

No Profit: No Job

Of course, with govenment jobs, you actually want to show an economic loss (rather than profit), so you can justify spending more in the future.

Who is more important, the workers or the employers? We can live without employers but not without workers. Our country was founded by farmers.
This is basic chicken or egg stuff.

Weird analogy between Emloyers or Workers and Chicken or Egg concludes that we can "live without employers" and that chickens do not lay eggs....

Pretty much destroys what little credability you ever had as a Management/Labor authority....

 

[DarkLion]

Why don't you trot on down to the unemployment office and tell all those out of work, that they don't need an employer to hire them. It's chicken and egg stuff. Employers aren't necessary.

I think it's fair to say both need each other. Workers need someone to employ them, and employers need employees once their business reaches a certain size.

 

[Katzndogz]

Why don't you trot on down to the unemployment office and tell all those out of work, that they don't need an employer to hire them. It's chicken and egg stuff. Employers aren't necessary.

I think it's fair to say both need each other. Workers need someone to employ them, and employers need employees once their business reaches a certain size.

When a business expands sufficiently to require workers it becomes a contract between a worker selling his labor and an employer buying that labor. It is no different than selling matchsticks that the employee made in his kitchen. It is negotiation based on what the unit of labor provides and what the business owner needs. That's where it should stay.

 

[Samson]

Why don't you trot on down to the unemployment office and tell all those out of work, that they don't need an employer to hire them. It's chicken and egg stuff. Employers aren't necessary.

I think it's fair to say both need each other. Workers need someone to employ them, and employers need employees once their business reaches a certain size.

Are you sure eggs come from chickens?

 

[Samson]

When a business expands sufficiently to require workers it becomes a contract between a worker selling his labor and an employer buying that labor. It is no different than selling matchsticks that the employee made in his kitchen. It is negotiation based on what the unit of labor provides and what the business owner needs. That's where it should stay.

There is no requirement that the business expand.

 

[DarkLion]

When a business expands sufficiently to require workers it becomes a contract between a worker selling his labor and an employer buying that labor. It is no different than selling matchsticks that the employee made in his kitchen. It is negotiation based on what the unit of labor provides and what the business owner needs. That's where it should stay.

Indeed, but valuable workers should be rewarded. When I managed a kennel I was in charge of hiring people, but I could not give raises. That was up to the owner. As a result people would work there a maximum of 6 months and then quit for jobs they felt had a better chance of rewarding them. A good way to incur the owner's wrath was to ask for a raise. She'd find a reason to get rid of you then. It was very bad for morale.

Finally I convinced her to begin properly rewarding good employees. It was small, the highest I ever saw her go at one time was 35 cents, but it sent a message to the employee that we appreciated their contributions. As a result people stayed longer and we were able to really streamline the operation.

She never admitted it, but I could tell that she knew giving raises and paying people a living wage made her company better off in the long run.

 

[percysunshine]

We are all Canadian today;

"Labor Day, like Obamacare and much else that is distasteful about American public life today, is a product of American liberals’ desire to be Canadians. The ’Nucks started celebrating labor on the first Monday in September in the 1880s; this holiday grew out of a parade celebrating a typographical workers’ strike in 1872. Soon, U.S. labor bosses, especially the Marxist Central Labor Union, wanted a holiday of their own. If there is anything we learned from the 20th century, it is that Communists love a parade. President Cleveland, feeling a bit of political pressure after having dispatched Brigadier General Nelson Miles to crush the Pullman strike and chucking Eugene Debs in the hoosegow, calculated that an end-of-summer barbecue for the riffraff might be just the tonic for his ailing administration.

The Canadian typographical workers had been demanding a 58-hour work week and the repeal of anti-union laws. Parliament obliged, and of course the unions’ immediate response was to press for a 54-hour work week, and then a still shorter one, and so on, until everybody was French. The French 35-hour work week is the current object of envy among our naïve Europhiles, and it has been an object of curiosity among economists: Contrary to their indolent reputation, French workers are, on paper, among the world’s most productive, outperforming U.S. workers on a GDP-per-work-hour basis. There are many possible explanations for that, the most likely of which is lying. It is probable that French people work more hours than they claim and Americans less, with work spilling over the borders of those official 35-hour French weeks and Internet-fueled leisure time infiltrating American weeks. Research suggests that in reality the French put in more hours than the Germans, though rather less than 19th-century Canadian typographers."

Red Monday | National Review Online

 

[Snookie]

No job is "designed for workers."

The job is designed to produce a good or service that (outside of government and charity) will generate a profit.

No Profit: No Job

Of course, with govenment jobs, you actually want to show an economic loss (rather than profit), so you can justify spending more in the future.

Who is more important, the workers or the employers? We can live without employers but not without workers. Our country was founded by farmers.
This is basic chicken or egg stuff.

Weird analogy between Emloyers or Workers and Chicken or Egg concludes that we can "live without employers" and that chickens do not lay eggs....

Pretty much destroys what little credability you ever had as a Management/Labor authority....

Fuck managers. I was always self employed.

 

[Samson]

Who is more important, the workers or the employers? We can live without employers but not without workers. Our country was founded by farmers.
This is basic chicken or egg stuff.

Weird analogy between Emloyers or Workers and Chicken or Egg concludes that we can "live without employers" and that chickens do not lay eggs....

Pretty much destroys what little credability you ever had as a Management/Labor authority....

Fuck managers. I was always self employed.

You were the Chicken AND the EGG!!



Also explains why you don't know shit about labor costs.

 

[Snookie]

Weird analogy between Emloyers or Workers and Chicken or Egg concludes that we can "live without employers" and that chickens do not lay eggs....

Pretty much destroys what little credability you ever had as a Management/Labor authority....

Fuck managers. I was always self employed.

You were the Chicken AND the EGG!!



Also explains why you don't know shit about labor costs.

You have egg on your face. Now, quit egging me on before I get testy.

 

[Samson]

Fuck managers. I was always self employed.

You were the Chicken AND the EGG!!



Also explains why you don't know shit about labor costs.

You have egg on your face. Now, quit egging me on before I get testy.

Since "were always self employed," but not profess to know the evils of "Management," the only one with a credability deficite is you.


The fact that you've never worked for minimum wage doesn't help much either.

But please, get "testy;" The combination of your moral outrage and inexperience is amusing.

 

[Katzndogz]

When a business expands sufficiently to require workers it becomes a contract between a worker selling his labor and an employer buying that labor. It is no different than selling matchsticks that the employee made in his kitchen. It is negotiation based on what the unit of labor provides and what the business owner needs. That's where it should stay.

Indeed, but valuable workers should be rewarded. When I managed a kennel I was in charge of hiring people, but I could not give raises. That was up to the owner. As a result people would work there a maximum of 6 months and then quit for jobs they felt had a better chance of rewarding them. A good way to incur the owner's wrath was to ask for a raise. She'd find a reason to get rid of you then. It was very bad for morale.

Finally I convinced her to begin properly rewarding good employees. It was small, the highest I ever saw her go at one time was 35 cents, but it sent a message to the employee that we appreciated their contributions. As a result people stayed longer and we were able to really streamline the operation.

She never admitted it, but I could tell that she knew giving raises and paying people a living wage made her company better off in the long run.

When my office was open I never gave raises. When an employee asked for a raise I asked them if they wanted to take on more responsibility. I gave promotions but no raises. One secretary asked for a raise and said she had been offered more money somewhere else. I told her to clean out her desk right then. Immediately.

After I closed my law office, I went back to school and trained to be a dog groomer so I know something about kennel work. When someone wanted to advance beyond cleaning cages (that anyone could do) I offered to teach them grooming. No raises for cleaning up shit and vomit. They are supposed to work only six months and then move on to something else. That's the whole point of entry level work. They become more valuable, to me or to someone else. Up or out. A lot of people opted for out.

 

[DarkLion]

I had to work with these people, and when we brought out the portables on holidays we could hold over 200 dogs. I don't want some half-wit working beside me, especially when I have to do office work on top of it. After dealing with people hurting dogs, and so incompetent they get themselves bitten, when you find people capable of handling the worst kinds of dogs there's no replacing them.

My boss had your attitude, and when I convinced her otherwise we were able to streamline the place to the point to where even at full capacity all of the dogs went out 3 times in 6 hours. Very little shit to clean up inside the building, and dogs went home looking and smelling good.

Sorry, but employers like you are part of the problem. People should hold themselves to a higher standard.

 

[Jarlaxle]

I never said anything at all about CEO pay.
I stated what is going to happen when low wage earners get more pay. That's facts.

How many low wage earners can run many companies of which thousands of workers are making a very decent wage. None.
You can not compare large companies to fast food franchises. The two are very different and totally run differently.

Watch the movie "Changing Places".

McDonalds is a corporation.

McDonald's is a franchiser, shitforbrains. Don't you think you should know that one simple fact before you go shooting off your piehole about other people "knowing nothing"?

McD's is both. They have franchises AND corporate-owned restaurants.