McDonald's workers: 'supersize my check'

[Onkel Neal]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/...test/27705321/

McDonald's CEO Steve Easterbrook told shareholders on Thursday that he was "incredibly proud" of the company's recent efforts to increase its workers pay as thousands of protesters calling for a $15 an hour minimum wage gathered outside the fast food company's headquarters.

The demonstrators – chanting for McDonald's to "supersize my check" – came to Oak Brook this week to call McDonald's out for insufficient pay, drawing negative attention to the fast food giant two weeks after Easterbrook's announced turnaround plan failed to impress investors. The annual shareholders meeting marked Easterbrook's first as the company's CEO.

Easterbrook pushed back that McDonald's has been on the industry's cutting edge on the issue, when it announced earlier this year that it would start paying workers $1 per hour above the local minimum wage. The hike, however, only applies to company-owned McDonald's which account for about 10% of stores in the USA.

"I am incredibly proud of the announcement we made around minimum wage," Easterbrook said of the $1 per hour hike. "We voluntarily took a leadership position on this."

$15 an hour for flipping burgers.... man, I don't know what to say. Do they think that kind of work is worth $15 an hour? What do they think will happen if these these entry-level jobs get up to $15 an hour? The price of fast food will stay the same? No, everything will go up along with their pay, the companies cannot pull the money out of the air, and they are not going to reduce profits, duh, that's what they are running a business for.

So, if burger flippers and coffee makers get $15 an hour, teachers and managers will go up to $35 an hour, truck drivers will get $50 an hour, plant operators will be at $75 an hour, and so on. Let's bring on the inflation.

[Torplexed]

While I can see the pros and cons of $15 an hour, I sense that due to these wage demands a technological trend that is already underway will accelerate.

[Onkel Neal]

While I agree there needs to be a set minimum wage, how did they decide it should be $15?

[Torplexed]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

While I agree there needs to be a set minimum wage, how did they decide it should be $15?

There is a radio talk show host here in Seattle who pressed the proponents of the $15.00 minimum wage on this issue. Why not $20.00--$30.00--$50.00 an hour?

They simply dodged his questions, changed the subject or tried to laugh them off. At some point they just refused his calls to be on the show. I think they sense they can only push the issue so far.

Anyway, we have a $15.00 per hour minimum wage being phased into place here in Seattle now. I guess we will see.

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

While I agree there needs to be a set minimum wage, how did they decide it should be $15?

I got to agree, at face value, $15 is daft, our current minimum wage is $10.18.
Honestly though, a minimum wage should be tied to the current cost of living in the nation that it is applied to, or the 'living wage' as it's called over here, which is $12.28. I'm not sure what it is in the US, I expect it varies from state to state and to each persons condition.
Ah, it looks like MIT has done the number crunching (they're good at that), and for you, Neal, as a single person in Texas it's $10.13.
http://livingwage.mit.edu/states/48

Honestly though, companies have a responsibility for the well being of their employees, and that includes, to an extent, their fiscal well-being, and if that's not being met by the wages they are providing then the employee will suffer.
Ultimately, what a company wants is a person who is fit and healthy, both mentally and physically, and who will perform to their best. A person who is struggling to make ends meet will not do this, they will work long hours and be tired at their job, they will possibly put off medical conditions to avoid costs, thus reducing their overall effectiveness. You can only push the human body so far before it breaks down, and these days companies will push their staff as far as they can in order to get the maximum about of use out of them for the minimum about of input.
I know it's basic economics, exploit what you have to the most that you can with as little effort as possible, but at some point along the line you have to realise that what you have will go further if you look after it well, rather than discarding it and getting fresh recruits.
Some companies realise this, and they tend to have a pretty loyal and dedicated staff base, Virgin and Google are two that come to mind immediately, although I am sure there are others. Obviously in any corporation you get exceptions to the rule, but generally speaking they are very forward thinking when it comes to employee treatment, and it tends to pay off.

Generally speaking though, I find the trend of the widening gap between the top and bottom portions of society to be incredibly concerning, and something I suspect that will bite society in the arse in the future...but that's another story entirely.

[Torplexed]

Originally Posted by Oberon

Honestly though, companies have a responsibility for the well being of their employees, and that includes, to an extent, their fiscal well-being, and if that's not being met by the wages they are providing then the employee will suffer.
Ultimately, what a company wants is a person who is fit and healthy, both mentally and physically, and who will perform to their best. A person who is struggling to make ends meet will not do this, they will work long hours and be tired at their job, they will possibly put off medical conditions to avoid costs, thus reducing their overall effectiveness. You can only push the human body so far before it breaks down, and these days companies will push their staff as far as they can in order to get the maximum about of use out of them for the minimum about of input.
I know it's basic economics, exploit what you have to the most that you can with as little effort as possible, but at some point along the line you have to realise that what you have will go further if you look after it well, rather than discarding it and getting fresh recruits.
Some companies realise this, and they tend to have a pretty loyal and dedicated staff base, Virgin and Google are two that come to mind immediately, although I am sure there are others. Obviously in any corporation you get exceptions to the rule, but generally speaking they are very forward thinking when it comes to employee treatment, and it tends to pay off.

I did enjoy this satirical summation from The Onion--

As cities around the country, including Los Angeles, New York, Chicago, and Seattle, pass or propose legislation to substantially increase the minimum wage for workers, debate has raged over the potential economic, social, and fiscal impact. Here are some of the pros and cons of raising the minimum wage:

PROS

• Lifts workers out of poverty to brink of poverty
• One less thing to feel guilty about when leaving Chick-fil-A
• Shorter lines at pawn shops
• Higher morale among workers who aren’t casualties of cost-cutting layoffs
• Gets picketers out of pathway to Big Mac
• Bargain compared to cost of creating actual social safety net

CONS

• Workers will grow complacent and lazy if they can afford basic human needs
• Still just as insulting that your boss pays you lowest amount he or she legally allowed to
• Awkwardness of being served by cashiers wearing top hats and monocles
• 16-year-old cashier set to live like a freaking king for rest of summer
• Employee benefits like paid vacation, gym membership, and yoga sessions could be slashed for thousands of line cooks and convenience store clerks
• Increases expense of exploiting workers

http://www.theonion.com/graphic/pros...mum-wage-50476

[Oberon]

Ah, The Onion, the hammer that never misses the head of the nail.

[em2nought]

Originally Posted by Oberon

I know it's basic economics, exploit what you have to the most that you can with as little effort as possible

I'm trying to picture the last fast food employee that was working so hard that I thought they were being exploited.

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by em2nought

I'm trying to picture the last fast food employee that was working so hard that I thought they were being exploited.

That's exactly my point, money is, after all, the greatest motivator. You give someone a good job environment and good pay and they should reflect that.
Of course, you're still going to get people who are unmotivated even in the best working environments, if you didn't then Human Resources and middle management wouldn't have a role to play. However, giving a person a living wage should go a long way. If that person decides to spend that wage on drink and drugs rather than living then that is their choice and it will reflect in their work ability (showing up hung-over, stealing from work to buy more drugs) and they will likely wind up either fired or warned into behaving appropriately.

It's by no means a one shot solution, no solution is perfect, but I think that it would go a long way.

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

While I agree there needs to be a set minimum wage, how did they decide it should be $15?

One of the problems is that the government is reluctant to explain, clearly, what the purpose/goal of the minimum wage is.

Is a single person expected to maintain their life based solely on a minimum wage rate? Dunno. The government does not state that.

That has always been my question about the minimum wage -- what is it intended to do. Without knowing that, it is impossible to evaluate what the minimum wage should nor should not be.

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Platapus

One of the problems is that the government is reluctant to explain, clearly, what the purpose/goal of the minimum wage is.

Is a single person expected to maintain their life based solely on a minimum wage rate? Dunno. The government does not state that.

That has always been my question about the minimum wage -- what is it intended to do. Without knowing that, it is impossible to evaluate what the minimum wage should nor should not be.

I can't really confirm for the US government (sadly I'm not employed by them), but I think the goal of the minimum wage in general is either to meet the living wage of a nations employees, or to be a compromise between the living wage and what industries can afford. It depends on nation to nation, really. In the UK it's the latter, in other nations it's the former.

[Wolferz]

Give the Micky D's folks their pound of worm burgers.

Taco Bell will thank you for making them a reservation only restaurant chain.

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

Never try to discuss economics with those at the low end of the wage scale.