Our City Online

Messageboard - Everyday Chit Chat

NOTE: You are viewing an archived version of the Columbus Underground forums/messageboard. As of 05/22/16 they have been closed to new comments and replies, but will remain accessible for archived searches and reference. For more information CLICK HERE

Fast Food Workers Strike for Living Wage

Home Forums General Columbus Discussion Everyday Chit Chat Fast Food Workers Strike for Living Wage

  • This topic is empty.
Viewing 15 posts - 31 through 45 (of 49 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #547176

    kit444
    Participant

    Snarf said:
    Eesh, there’s a big mouthful of shit I didn’t say.

    Also the idea that wealth is generated through mere luck is both problematic and likely representative of the feelings of those fast food working strikers.

    [i]Oh woe is me, I’m just not lucky or something![/i]

    He might have been referring to this:

    Warren Buffett Ovarian Lottery Theory

    #547177

    joev
    Participant

    ctonn said:
    If you can’t survive on $7.25/hr, how do you expect to survive on $0/hr?

    I don’t believe in a minimum wage, because it is an unnecessary restraint on a businessperson’s right to run his/her business as they see fit.

    Pay the wage earner what they are worth. Let the market decide.

    When I was in high school, minimum wage was in the $5/hr range (mid-90’s). And many of my classmates took fast food jobs that paid right around there.

    But one business decided to start their wage at a higher rate, even for us 16 year olds. A whopping $7/hr. They were able to be a bit more selective and hire better workers, and we had less turnover.

    Market forces at work.

    Oh, so I see you live in the realm of reality. Have fun with that.

    #547178

    Pablo
    Participant

    oops

    #547179

    susank
    Member

    Graybeak said:
    Again, I am a bit fuzzy on the whole striking when you are not in a union.

    No call, no show, no job tomorrow.

    Believe it or not – they had strikes before they had unions.

    #547180

    joev
    Participant

    Pablo said:
    oops

    That was glorious.

    #547181

    Graybeak
    Participant

    susank said:
    Believe it or not – they had strikes before they had unions.

    Sure, and that is fine. But, I am saying, without the protection of a union and or contract of employment, what is to stop all these businesses from firing anyone who doesn’t come to work? (besides bad press)
    I mean, that is one of the arguments that the folks against raising the minimum wage are using. This is “unskilled” labor, and the turnover is very high.

    Just another item to think about when deciding if I want to take time off work to picket my employer.

    #547182

    kit444
    Participant

    Graybeak said:
    Sure, and that is fine. But, I am saying, without the protection of a union and or contract of employment, what is to stop all these businesses from firing anyone who doesn’t come to work? (besides bad press)
    I mean, that is one of the arguments that the folks against raising the minimum wage are using. This is “unskilled” labor, and the turnover is very high.

    Just another item to think about when deciding if I want to take time off work to picket my employer.

    Probably depends on how widespread the strike is. If it’s a handful of people, fire them. If it’s the entire staff, then it’s a pain in the ass to replace everyone.

    #547183

    groundrules
    Participant

    ctonn said:
    If you can’t survive on $7.25/hr, how do you expect to survive on $0/hr?

    I don’t believe in a minimum wage, because it is an unnecessary restraint on a businessperson’s right to run his/her business as they see fit.

    Pay the wage earner what they are worth. Let the market decide.

    When I was in high school, minimum wage was in the $5/hr range (mid-90’s). And many of my classmates took fast food jobs that paid right around there.

    But one business decided to start their wage at a higher rate, even for us 16 year olds. A whopping $7/hr. They were able to be a bit more selective and hire better workers, and we had less turnover.

    Market forces at work.

    hey, when you and your high school buddies were killin’ it at wendy’s, were you supporting a family? Or were you (are you) still livin’ at mom’s?

    #547184

    wygand
    Participant

    The true boon the the Mcdonalds of the world, is the way we as a society have picked up the tab on them not paying a living wage.

    i think it stands to reason, if the government (we the people) no longer supported low wage employees families with food stamps and medicare then this whole issue would have come to a head long ago. If people who make 18k a year, didn’t receive thousands more in medical and food support there would be rioting in the streets and there would be lines miles long at food pantries. Instead, we are paying for part of the salaries of these workers, and Mcdonalds makes the profits.

    I don’t think there is no place for government assistance, it is a huge help to some people, and i don’t blame Mcdonalds either, since businesses are in this game to make money.

    I just think it is worth pointing out that everyone who is paying taxes is paying the difference between what these people make and what it takes to live.

    I also can’t argue that all of these people have made the best life decisions, but that is hardly unique to people in low wage jobs. It is a gross generalization to say they don’t deserve a living wage. I for one am thankful that someone makes delicious burgers and fries and stays up late so i can stop in whenever i want, and i think the deserve a living wage for doing a job that i am very happy that i don’t have to do.

    Rant over.

    #547185

    InnerCore
    Participant

    ColumbusTime said:
    Still, get the experience, and get out for greener pastures. The wages are low because it is unskilled work.

    Here’s the thing that always baffles me about minimum wage arguments. You would think that the average hard working American would be for fair pay. But what I usually see is that the people who make more than minimum wage almost resent the people making minimum wage. For example lets say a guy makes $20/hr. Well he sees people arguing to raise the minimum wage for fast food workers and he thinks “there is no way a fast food worker should be making anywhere close to me”.

    But the reality is that it isn’t a minimum wage issue its a workers wage issue. If the minimum wage had kept pace with inflation then the minimum wage should be about $11/hr which is about $4 more than what it is. But here is the kicker, if the minimum wage had kept pace with inflation AND productivity then the minimum wage should be $17/hr.

    So you have a guy making $20/hr and he thinks his skilled job should be paying a lot more than an unskilled fast food worker. But what he isn’t realizing is that if his job would have also kept pace with inflation and productivity then he’s be making $30/hr.

    For decades as workers have become more productive, the money from that extra productivity has gone disproportionately to the employer and not the employee.

    So you think the guy making $20 would be more concerned about the wages of all workers but it seem usually he just worried about making more than the guy at the bottom.

    #547186

    buckette13
    Member

    Aren’t there productivity aids that account for a lot of that increase? Computers, telecommunications, various new machines and techniques, etc. The ‘office girls’ in Madmen might not have been as productive, but they were hindered by Olivetti’s and Selectrics and a narrow career path. We have been mixing Frederick Taylor with technology for a century we are bound to get better at it. Unfortunately the machine in the garden discriminates on who it pays.

    #547187

    InnerCore
    Participant

    buckette13 said:
    Aren’t there productivity aids that account for a lot of that increase? Computers, telecommunications, various new machines and techniques, etc. The ‘office girls’ in Madmen might not have been as productive, but they were hindered by Olivetti’s and Selectrics and a narrow career path. We have been mixing Frederick Taylor with technology for a century we are bound to get better at it. Unfortunately the machine in the garden discriminates on who it pays.

    Yes, the issue is that while these tools have allowed us to be more productive employers don’t simply back out the cost of the tools and provide workers with increases from the productivity, they keep it all for themselves. I’ll use my field as an example. Me and an old timer executive went through an exercise where he underwrote a deal they way he did 20 years ago and I did it today. It essentially took him 3 times as long even though he’s probably much better than me at it. So let’s say you have analyst underwriting deals all day. 20 years ago if you had 3 analyst underwriting deals non stop, today you would only need 1. So let’s say an analyst was paid $50k. Today an analyst would make about $90k which is about 3% increase each year for inflation.

    So 2o years ago you would be paying 3 guys $50k each. Without the increase in productivity you would today be paying the say 3 guys $90k each. But because of the increase in productivity you now only need one guy at $90k. So that’s an extra $180k the employer keeps. Now to be fair in order to get that productivity the employer is going to have to pay for a computer, software, a couple of monitors, printer, cell phone, internet, etc. So lets say about $5000 in equipment.

    So back the $5000 out of the $180k and you’re left with $175k. But then you’d need to factor in the health care he doesn’t have to pay for the 2 other guys, what about the fact that he now needs less office space, etc. So you’d think part of that extra profit would get split the worker considering he’s the one working more productively. Nope. 3% cost of living adjustments.

    Let’s take the internet. Because of the internet I can access vast amounts of information much faster than 20 years ago. I could see my employer not paying me for being more productive if he spend millions of dollars developing the internet that he now has to pay off. Nope, someone else invented it and the benefits of it go to him.

    Well maybe since he making all that extra profit, someone else will notice, open up a similar business and pay their employees a higher wage so he’ll have to be more competitive. Nope. Instead he uses a portion of that extra profit along with every other large employer who also likes keeping most of that extra profit and they lobby congress to change laws, regulations, etc. so that it’s harder for a smaller guy starting out. You want to be a smaller boutique guy, no problem. But you’ll have to pay more taxes so in the end you have to pay the same lower wages just to compete with the big boys. And since all the advantages go to the bigger companies we’ll essentially buy your little company anyway if you even get remotely close to competing.

    #547188

    InnerCore
    Participant

    I’m also surprised the fiscally conservative people aren’t arguing to make these companies pay a fair wage. Think about it. McD’s pays there employess a crappy wage that they can’t support them self on. In the process they rake in Billions in profit. Those people then go and apply for government money. So essentially we are subsidizing the executives at McD’s.

    They are getting higher revenue, operating margin and profit and yet none of that is flowing down to the worker. Meanwhile executives are making millions? For what. What inventive strategy are executives doing to generate all this extra profit other than by not paying workers fairly.

    McD’s has 1,800,000 employees. Here is a great ideal, let’s not give all those employees $1/hr increase that they deserve this year. If they work on average 20 hrs per week then that saves McD’s $1.8 BILLION each year. They split up a portion between the executives for coming up with this genius idea and give the rest to shareholders. Meanwhile these lowly paid workers are getting food stamps, housing assistance, etc.

    Now let’s say the government went to the millions and millions of fast food, walmart, etc. workers and said were not going to give you any assistance as long as you have a job at one of these companies. After all these are low skilled jobs for teenagers. How many millions of people wouldn’t be willing to work for minimum wage knowing that they wouldn’t be able to support themselves. You’d have a lot more people out in the street forcing the these companies to pay a better wage.

    Instead we’ll continue to subsidize their workers so that their executives and shareholders can make millions more.

    #547189

    pez
    Participant

    InnerCore said:
    Yes, the issue is that while these tools have allowed us to be more productive employers don’t simply back out the cost of the tools and provide workers with increases from the productivity, they keep it all for themselves. I’ll use my field as an example. Me and an old timer executive went through an exercise where he underwrote a deal they way he did 20 years ago and I did it today. It essentially took him 3 times as long even though he’s probably much better than me at it. So let’s say you have analyst underwriting deals all day. 20 years ago if you had 3 analyst underwriting deals non stop, today you would only need 1. So let’s say an analyst was paid $50k. Today an analyst would make about $90k which is about 3% increase each year for inflation.

    So 2o years ago you would be paying 3 guys $50k each. Without the increase in productivity you would today be paying the say 3 guys $90k each. But because of the increase in productivity you now only need one guy at $90k. So that’s an extra $180k the employer keeps. Now to be fair in order to get that productivity the employer is going to have to pay for a computer, software, a couple of monitors, printer, cell phone, internet, etc. So lets say about $5000 in equipment.

    So back the $5000 out of the $180k and you’re left with $175k. But then you’d need to factor in the health care he doesn’t have to pay for the 2 other guys, what about the fact that he now needs less office space, etc. So you’d think part of that extra profit would get split the worker considering he’s the one working more productively. Nope. 3% cost of living adjustments.

    Let’s take the internet. Because of the internet I can access vast amounts of information much faster than 20 years ago. I could see my employer not paying me for being more productive if he spend millions of dollars developing the internet that he now has to pay off. Nope, someone else invented it and the benefits of it go to him.

    Well maybe since he making all that extra profit, someone else will notice, open up a similar business and pay their employees a higher wage so he’ll have to be more competitive. Nope. Instead he uses a portion of that extra profit along with every other large employer who also likes keeping most of that extra profit and they lobby congress to change laws, regulations, etc. so that it’s harder for a smaller guy starting out. You want to be a smaller boutique guy, no problem. But you’ll have to pay more taxes so in the end you have to pay the same lower wages just to compete with the big boys. And since all the advantages go to the bigger companies we’ll essentially buy your little company anyway if you even get remotely close to competing.

    I think you’re discounting a couple of pretty important things in your analysis. As productivity tools become generally adopted across an industry there is a downward pressure prices. So the work that your employer would have been able to charge $180k for before the tools is probably worth much less once they are widely available as competitors adopt them or they begin enabling customers to effectively do the work themselves (think TurboTax, Quickbooks, Photoshop, etc.) The same enhancement can also reduce the skill level require to do work, thus widening the pool of people capable of doing the work.

    Workers in low skill, repetitive task jobs or those easily automated are not competing just with each other, but also with the march of technology and mechanization. Look how the formerly well paying mine industry jobs evaporated once the co of labor rose over the cost of mechanization. For a McDonalds franchisee, it may make sense to have an $8 an hour person in the store to take orders for the drive thru, but at $10/hr it might make sense to farm the work out to a centralized operation where they take orders for multiple stores. It may also make sense to pay additional for value added tasks to be done by your vendors rather than your own staff.

    I’m not advocating either way on the wage issue, but just mentioning that changing the costs of inputs can have some unintended consequences.

    #547190
    Coremodels
    Coremodels
    Participant

    Could be worse, they could be working 24 hour shifts in the thick of a raging wildfire.

    For a dollar an hour…

    http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/08/30/20232116-firefighting-felons-hundreds-of-inmates-battling-the-yosemite-blaze?lite

Viewing 15 posts - 31 through 45 (of 49 total)

The forum ‘Everyday Chit Chat’ is closed to new topics and replies.

The Columbus Coffee Festival Returns!

The 6th Annual Columbus Coffee Festival returns on Saturday September 25th and Sunday September 26th!

CLICK HERE FOR TICKETS & INFORMATION