SUBSIM Radio Room Forums - McDonald's workers: 'supersize my check'

SUBSIM Radio Room Forums (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/index.php)

- General Topics (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/forumdisplay.php?f=175)

- - McDonald's workers: 'supersize my check' (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=220266)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gargamel (Post 2315753)

Unless Omaha requires a graduate degree for medics, you got something amiss there. Medics usually require 2 years of training, but if you REALLY hustle, it can be done in one. 100-200 hour course for EMT, and then 800 for paramedic.

I got my IEMT at Creighton University which was, and probably still is, one of the more respected EMT training programs. When i was looking at getting my P, the program (in the 1990's) was a total of five years of class and field evaluations.

That's the only datapoint I know. I don't know how fast it can be done at other schools... and really don't want to think about people getting their I or P the fast way. Basic EMT, sure, but once you get in to ALS quick education is not what I am looking for... :nope:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oberon (Post 2315711)

....
Perhaps this is true, I've never worked in a fast-food joint so I couldn't say, but my job isn't exactly at the CEO side of the scale, and is probably only a few rungs away from Burger King, and honestly I couldn't say for certain if there is a job out there which I will do well at. I spent a lot of my youth working towards a job that I cannot take due to my eye-sight and since then I have absolutely no idea what my career goal is, I'm rather envious of those who do know if I'm honest.
Getting back to the matter at hand though, I think the problem is the difference between the minimum wage and the living wage.

When you were a burger flipper, what was your accommodation status? Did your job pay for your rent and living expenses? If not, then why not? Why should a job at the lowest end of the market not pay enough to live with?
Would it encourage people to just have a menial job and stick to it? Not really, because the social stigma of being a 'burger flipper' will mean that they will always want to advance up into jobs with less of a stigma, or perhaps they will be perfectly happy as a burger flipper for the rest of their lives. Surely it should be their choice, not a forced choice because of low pay.
Would it mean that the price of a McDonalds would go up? Perhaps, but it wouldn't go up very far because then the market law would indicate that if the price goes up too far then people will stop buying it, so instead they would absorb any damage through the profit margin, which was about $1.7b last year.
It would save the US government some money too, since the employees would not need to claim public assistance to help with their low income.
I do find it hard to sympathise with a company though which recommends to their employees that:

I can sympathise with you, when I was out of high school, I wasn't sure what I wanted to do as a career goal either. And here I am 340 years later and I still don't know :wah:

I made one good decision at 19, I wasn't committed to college, so I dropped out and campaigned until I got an operator job with a chemical plant. I knew if nothing else, I would have good pay, good insurance, and a real pension someday. Sure, the work was brutal, working nights and weekends around chemicals and equipment, but I managed.

When I was working for Jack in the Box, I was a high school student. Living with the folks. Again, let me stress, I do not believe a person should rely on that kind of job to support themselves, or to raise a family.

Yeah, if I was running a business, I would try to pay my employees the best wage I could, to get the best pick of the litter. But still, from my experience hiring people for a $9 an hour starting pay retail job, the pickings are slim. So many have records, or horrible credit and bad work history.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MGR1 (Post 2315733)

All very good points, Neil. Your last paragraph sums up my own observational experience over the last 15 years working in retail. I think it all boils down mentality, how people think and how they regard themselves. At the end of the day, to earn a reward, you have to work for it. If you aren't prepared to do that, your of no use in any employers book.

There is a caveat, and I think this is something that is specific to the UK, and that is the seriously poor worker/management relationship that bedevils this country.

To take an example, I work for one of the UK's largest supermarkets and have done for over 15 years. In that time I have noticed some distinct changes in the staff/management relationship. To be honest, it hasn't been for the better.

When I started, if you were an experienced worker, managers and team leaders would actually pay attention to any advice or observations you wished to share. You could even become what was called a "Role Specialist", receiving more advanced training so you could develop in your role. Quite often that led to the lower tiers of management. In other words you were a precious source of knowledge and talent.

Now, things have completely changed. Managers and team leaders will not listen to any advice that may be proffered, expecting you to "do as I say" with no questions asked or allowed. You no longer receive any advanced training only whats known as foundation, with any intermediate training depending on your role. Instead of being a person, you are literally just a set of hours on a schedule at best, at worst, a vacancy waiting to happen. This has happened across the retail sector, so it's not something that's specific to my employers.

I have considered having a go at retraining, and do something completely different, but I don't believe I would get a job as I'm now in my mid thirties and effectively considered as "too old" by the vast majority of employers. Indeed, I've given up trying to advance up the ladder where I am as they only seem to be interested in promoting people in their early twenties. Most of whom don't stay very long before leaving for a better job!

All in all, I think there is a deep malaise in British society which nobody seems to know how to fix. Indeed, even trying to identify the root cause appears to be beyond those in power.

Mike.

Hey Mike, I think you are right, there's a problem here too. 46 million people on food stamps. Can you imagine?

Like Oberon said, maybe the businesses would still succeed if they pared away some of their profits and "re-invested" them into their employees in the form of a more livable wage. But still, if a grown man can make $15 an hour handing me a bag of fries or mopping a floor, I sure as bleep expect to make more than him as a truck driver, or a lot more as a teacher or plant operator. It's all relative, there's bound to be some jobs that are on the bottom rung.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wolferz (Post 2315699)

And every other truck driver on the forums.
Have you broken down your pay as it pertains to the time you put in on the job? I would wager that you'll discover that you're making much less than minimum wage. :timeout:
I ran team expedited cargo which helped a little because while I was sleeping in the bunk, I was still making money but, I couldn't relax at home with a beer while I was doing it. Eight hours on duty driving and eight hours in the bunk sleeping for twenty-one days at a time gets old really quick.
Living on the road isn't cheap by any stretch of the imagination and our government in their infinite wisdom still chose to screw us over during our first year on the road by not allowing any per diem deductions on the yearly tax forms. Don't even get me started on the DOT regulations for drivers.:-? I was grossing $1000.00 a week on average as a junior team driver. I would suspect that a solo driver makes much less.

The burger flippers should thank their lucky stars that they get to go home every night.

Hey Wolferz, at least they let me sleep in the truck rent free! :D

Now as I figure my pay, I do not count hours I am not driving or working. That's part of job, like working offshore on a rig, or if I have a long commute like when I was a hotel manager. So, yeah, it comes out to about $23 an hour, I can live with that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens (Post 2316305)

Hey Wolferz, at least they let me sleep in the truck rent free! :D

Oh, next time my buddy is complaining I'm going to tell him we let him sleep in the truck rent free. :har: LOL

Quote:

Originally Posted by Platapus (Post 2315881)

This is US?

the NREMT (which is national) is (usually) limited to an 800 hour program, which is usually 2 semesters. This limit is applied by the firefighters Union and management. I've been in almost every aspect of EMS, and was working on getting my instructor when I walked away, I've never even heard of a program being longer than 2 years. I've seen 4 year Management degrees with a focus on EMS, but nothing longer for field work.

ALS can be easily taught within a two day program (I was an instructor for both BLS and ALS). It's rote memorization. The American Heart Association revises their research every 4-5 years and makes changes to the protocols that are taught. That's why there was a "no breathing" CPR version for a few years. The ALS program is insanely easy to learn, it's just rhythm recognition and algorithm following. If A, then do B. Both Prehospital (EMS) and ER ALS protocols are pretty much identical for the first 60 minutes or so. There is practically nothing an ER doc can do that a paramedic truck cannot. That is why we are trained to stay in the field and work the code rather than doing a "grab and go". It's only when you start looking into deep root causes or cryogenic resuscitation (which field units are getting into) can an ER go beyond a field unit.

I looked up their programs at Creighton. They do offer Associates, Bachelors, and Masters of science in EMS. But they also offer a standalone Paramedic program that is less than one year. It seems to be an amazing program at that, but that cost is insane (almost 10k!). The biggest problem with advanced EMS degrees is the return on investment. In my experience, the advanced degrees don't hold a huge advantage in the selection process for management positions. It's usually experience and maturity that get the promotions. These programs would most benefit somebody who already has copious field experience and is looking to advance their career farther. In the EMS field an EMS specific Bachelors degree (with field experience) is the equivalent of an advanced graduate degree.

But thanks for the headsup, if I ever do go back, I'll have to take another look at their programs......

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens (Post 2316305)

Once upon a time there used to be certain jobs that were known as 'jobs for life', the railways in the UK used to be one. You'd get into the role at school age, working as a cleaner and then work your way up to fire-starter/engine preparer, fireman, passed fireman, and onwards to driver, or you'd go into the engineering side of things. Either which way, you would go in at a young age and stay in until retirement or ill health took you out (and a lot of the time, if ill health took you off the main-line work, they'd put you on shunting work or something less stressful).
From what you have said the chemical industry sounds a little bit like that, once you're in there's good options for advancement and staying in, but it seems a lot like the old 'jobs for life' have dried up in this era and that job certainty is not as solid as it used to be. Which is a shame and does not do a lot for morale.
You do certainly have a point about sorting the wheat from the chaff though in regards to employing people, although it's always hard to tell who will stick it and who will not. Some people can really surprise you, and others can also surprise you in a negative fashion. I've seen quite a few people come into the hospitality trade and have dramatically underestimated the time commitment it involves, and they've bounced out pretty quickly, usually within the three month probation period.

Certainly though, payscales should be scaled accordingly and with the lowest scale meeting the requirements of a living wage, in my opinion at least, and I think that many of the big businesses could certainly afford such a thing. The biggest question mark though would be smaller businesses, because they would have to raise prices in order to cover overheads and that in turn would drive people to the bigger businesses who would be able to absorb the wage rise without raising prices.
The economic system, and capitalism, may be in some areas superior to many others, but boy is it swings and roundabouts trying to balance the thing. :dead:

When it comes to careers...

Many people achieve success and many only get as far as succ.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wolferz (Post 2316386)

Many people achieve success and many only get as far as succ.

http://bmsblogs.k12albemarle.org/jmj...n-Quotes-1.jpg

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens (Post 2316305)

Indeed. Simple fact is that people do different jobs requiring different levels of skill and knowledge and what they're paid reflects that. Want to earn more? Up skill.

Mike.

Here in Alberta, the PC's who had been in power for over 40 years got the boot and were replaced by the NDP. One of their election promises was to up the minimum wage to $15 by 2018. They seem determined to hold to that promise despite the dire warnings that many small businesses will go under since there's only so much that can be passed on to the consumer. Our province is already on the verge of a recession with the low price of oil. Could get interesting the next few years.

http://www.calgarysun.com/2015/06/30...ial-government

It is happening in Oregon too....

From the East Oregonian
"Supporters of an Oregon ballot measure that would increase the state's minimum wage to $15 per hour by 2019 have gathered enough petition signatures to qualify for a ballot title, the first step in getting the measure on next year's general election ballot.

SALEM — Disappointed with legislative inaction, labor and other advocates took the first step Tuesday toward a 2016 ballot measure proposing a $15 statewide minimum wage by 2019.

Oregon’s current statewide minimum is $9.25 per hour, second only to Washington’s $9.47 among the states. But several cities — Seattle, San Francisco and Los Angeles — are gradually raising their minimums to $15.

Advocates filed preliminary paperwork for the measure several weeks ago, but on Tuesday, they filed with state elections officials the 2,000 signatures that will trigger a ballot title from the attorney general. The title is an official summary required before advocates can collect the 88,184 signatures to qualify the measure for the November 2016 ballot.

Those petition signatures are due in about a year.

If voters approve it, Oregon’s minimum wage would go to $11.50 in 2017, $13.25 in 2018 and $15 in 2019. Afterward, annual increases would be linked to the Consumer Price Index, as has been the practice since voters approved it in 2002."

Quote:

Originally Posted by mako88sb (Post 2325665)

Our province is already on the verge of a recession with the low price of oil.

It makes no sense to me that Alberta is having trouble because of low oil prices and in BC premium petrol is over $1.50L (That is $6 per gallon for those of you in the US!) Something not right there.. :hmm2:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Highbury (Post 2326044)

I don't pretend to know how the economics of the oil industry work. I've worked in the natural gas industry for the last 30 years and it pretty well follows the ups and downs of oil prices. There has been a lot of talk about building more refineries here instead of shipping our crude abroad. This article might encourage them to do so:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articl...by-lower-crude

For the time being, there is a definite slowdown going on. Our company has weathered it better then most and I was starting to think the worst was behind us. However, after the NDP got in, I think the big oil companies are now in a holding pattern until they find out just how much impact the new government is going to have to their bottom line.

Now, here's one area where the Obama administration has it right.

Quote:

Most people don't know that many salaried workers, not just employees paid by the hour, are entitled to overtime pay when they work more than 40 hours in a week. The rules are complicated if you earn more than $23,660 a year, but below that threshold, it's simple: You're entitled to time-and-a-half pay for every hour past 40 in a week.

The new rule should end the charade of calling employees managers or administrators and then making them work 60 to 70 hours a week, doing the work of the people they supervise for no extra pay. Paying a modest salary doesn't justify overworking employees, denying them time with their families and endangering their health. A woman I know who was paid $35,000 as a manager worked 90 hours a week for four weeks at a stretch, without getting a dime of extra pay for those extra 50 hours of work. That shouldn't be legal, and the new rule would prohibit it.

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/econom...ors_picks=true

I remember when I was the Manager on Duty at the Crowne Plaza. I would work 60-70 hours a week, and there was no additional compensation for all the hours over 40. Seriously, that's messed up. Companies set up "managers" for additional time on the job as part of the job. I remember being told from day 1, "managers here are expected to put in at least 50 hours a week". And then I would spend half my time subbing for a front desk clerk or restaurant employee.

Pay people for their time, all their time.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens (Post 2316305)

the pickings are slim. So many have records, or horrible credit and bad work history.

:hmmm: I'm thinking if a bad credit history would prevent me from hiring someone, can't think of too many reasons. I mean I certainly wouldn't give the person any loan or advanced pay, but it's their choice how they handle their personal finances. Maybe a risk would be that they need some sick days, because they got roughed up by some loan sharks. :)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oberon (Post 2316356)

From what you have said the chemical industry sounds a little bit like that, once you're in there's good options for advancement and staying in, but it seems a lot like the old 'jobs for life' have dried up in this era and that job certainty is not as solid as it used to be. Which is a shame and does not do a lot for morale.

I knew a security guy from work who did a lot of studies for a degree in chemistry during night shifts. He got hired on the spot when he finished, despite having no previous experience and being an old geezer in his late 30s.
I find this interesting, as in Germany the 'job for life' mentality is still common among employers and our policy makers. Many of the decision makers are from economic times where working in the same industry or company your whole life was the normal. I think besides the creative field,starting a different career, especially at 'old age', is still regarded as weird.

If you should be so lucky to have a well paid job and a very good health then you are lucky. I hope it will be so the rest of your life.

If you haven't been so lucky and are stocked in a low paid job and perhaps your health ain't so good, you are unlucky in life. I hope the life will change to something better.

I saw a comment somewhere.

I want a 5 $ raise that's all and then it was something about billions of dollars to the shareholders and it would cost McDonalds...forgot the numbers.

Markus