Businesses negotiate with their suppliers and their customers on price all the time. This is a given. Businesses will even go so far as to withhold their product until they can get a higher price (which is no different than employees going on strike). But when it comes to labor, businesses claim that asking for a higher price is going to ruin business, lead to inflation and ruin the economy, cost jobs, you name it. Somehow their own lies and manipulations don't do that, only labor actions. Labor is a commodity like any other commodity. Businesses need it and labor has it and wants to control its price, just as businesses control the price of their products. But only labor is demonized for doing what it can to get the best price for their "product." Businesses are never demomized for doing what they can to get the best price for theirs, often resorting to creating shortages and creating fear in customers about the quality of their competition's products. Yet businesses, with a wink and a nudge, claim, "That's business." "What's good for business is good for the country." They use every trick in the book to make as much profit as possible, but when labor tries to get a better price for their product, suddenly all bets are off. Only labor is denigrated for their efforts, accused of all sorts of terrible tricks to get more, called greedy, called lazy, called criminal. The pot calls the kettle black. With any other commodity, the buyer alone does not set the price of the product. The buyer alone does not set the standards of how the product is made, certainly without offering anything more for extras. Selling something for whatever they can get for it, taking advantage of shortages or creating them is apparently only open to business, but not labor. Why should that be the case? Why is labor different than every other commodity? LoisIt's different with fast food though, because fast food labor is frankly, worthless; it's the lowest of the low. I disagree. A lot of people work in fast food and it's a multi-billion dollar business. Its employees are their life blood, even if you think they are the lowest of the low. Plenty of people spend a lot of money on fast food and the business is going to grow. In case you didn't notice, it's the most lowly employees who need unions the most. They are most vulnerable to exploitation, poor pay and bad treatment by employers. They are the perfect group for unionization--poorly paid, exploited and powerless. They need professionals to go to bat for them. The owners have no problem in hiring professionals to prevent unions from forming or to negotiate when they are formed (or to bust them). Why shouldn't the workers have professionals on their side, too? Maybe you just like unfair fights where one side is hobbled and has its hands tied behind its back and the other side has all the power? Lois
mid atlantic, I believe that the debate about what constitutes a fair, "living wage" could start a whole new thread. I don't have a simple criteria, but, for me, a simple test is to try to imagine having a neighbor, friendly regular sort of person, hard working, decent, with a child or two but not very able or intelligent . If your neighbor works a full time job, how should they be able to function in your community? I know it's not a very good test, you might be completely comfortable walking past uneducated, malnourished children, or sharing public facilities with an individual with drug resistant TB, guarding your home vigilantly from the starving masses, or perhaps, you can imagine some more efficacious final solution. And I, of course, might prefer giving them the opportunity to become some fat, lazy, parasite, irresponsibly popping out children, able to live in a mansion, drive a Jaguar and spend their days eating bob-bons and doing meth, sitting around their Olympic sized pool. But seriously, I'd bet we could pretty easily come to a pretty realistic agreement on what a decent living wage really is. I am not uncritical of labor unions. In my limited experience, unions sometimes seem to forget that they are providing a service. Unions which tolerate poor performance from their workers are not providing the service they claim to be able to deliver and may be as dishonest as any other form of commerce. Sometimes unions serve as a means to prevent competent workers access to good jobs. Good union leadership should bargain for the highest realistic wage possible, (that may entail asking for more than they expect to receive), and guarantee a high standard of labor by providing trained employees and policing their own ranks.Unions only became as powerful as they are because employers refused to negotiate and resorted to the dirtiest of tricks and manipulations. Powerful unions were the natural result. Unions knew they'd have to fight fire with fire to make any headway with the exploitation and dirty tricks of owners. If business owners hadn't fought so hard and so dirty to prevent the formation of unions, unions would never have become so powerful. Business owners have no one to blame but themselves for powerful unions.
Cap't Jack, you're a man after my own heart!What nobody has said yet, is in the food industry in most states where there are benefit laws that go into affect for full time workers, so most of the food industry will work a majority of the people at fast food places 20/hrs per week or less because of these laws. Even the U.S. Post Office does this in states with required benefits for full time workers.This is also a standard ploy for wholesale companies such as Walmart and its affiliate Sams Club. Often employees are allowed only 28-39 hours a week to avoid providing them benefits of any kind. They also have no sick leave nor vacation leave. Many underemployed workers are forced to seek a second part time job or ask for public assistance. This is a standard for restaurant workers who now face a further cut back in hours to "compensate" for Obama Care. There are presently over ten million workers currently employeed in the business with an average annual salary of below $20,000 with very little chance of advancement. Many fast food businesses force them out after six months of employment in order to purge the disgruntled and bored who wonder from restaurant to restaurant working menial, thankless jobs with no incentive to improve either the food or the service. Incidentally, they are divided into front of the house ( greeters and servers) and back of the house ( cooks, fry and broil, and cleaners, dish tank operaters). Those in the front make less than three dollars an hour and rely on gratuity to make up the difference, sometimes above but often below the minimum while the back are paid minimum wage. This is life for the restaurant worker, ten million American workers. Here's a breakdown of wages and salaries: http://www.foodservicewarehouse.com/restaurant-equipment-supply-marketing-articles/restaurant-management-and-operations/employee-wages-and-benefits/c28023.aspx And it hasn't changed for twenty years: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/02/minimum-wage-restaurant-workers_n_1515916.html Thank you Herman Caine. Lastly, believe in the power of a union, well organized and regulated with the ability to bring the corporate bosses to the bargaining table. it is the only protection and vehicle for advancement open to a collective body of workers and has been shown in the past to enable the workers both skilled and nonskilled to make a decent living for themselves and their families. Unions forced an end to child labor, guaranteed a 40 hour work week with extra pay for overtime, safer working conditions, and pensions to name a few. I fully recognize the excesses of some union organizations e.g. The Teamsters but the abuses by industrialists and corporate bosses far outway them. A little research on the Guilded Age in America will illustrate my point. Organizing a restaurant union will improve their wages and earn them the benefits they need. The restaurant industry pulls in over $600 billion annually and IMO can afford to share a pittance of the profits with their workers. Cap't Jack
Business owners have used that argument since unions were in their infancy. It hasn't happened yet.So you're telling me that you've never heard of people losing their jobs when the employer's expenses increase? You've never heard of employers laying off the lesser skilled or less valuable employees to make up for the losses, while transferring those responsibilities to the more skilled and highly capable worker? And before you respond, please hold the demagoguery, and just deal with the facts. Please don't try to make me seem immoral, or try it look as if I'm "for employee exploitation" or that I love it when the "mean guy beats up the little guy", or whatever way you want to word it. Just deal with the facts. What do business owners do (today) with the least valuable employees when the cost of keeping them around exceeds the value they put out?
Businesses negotiate with their suppliers and their customers on price all the time. This is a given. Businesses will even go so far as to withhold their product until they can get a higher price (which is no different than employees going on strike). But when it comes to labor, businesses claim that asking for a higher price is going to ruin business, lead to inflation and ruin the economy, cost jobs, you name it. Somehow their own lies and manipulations don't do that, only labor actions. Labor is a commodity like any other commodity. Businesses need it and labor has it and wants to control its price, just as businesses control the price of their products. But only labor is demonized for doing what it can to get the best price for their "product." Businesses are never demomized for doing what they can to get the best price for theirs, often resorting to creating shortages and creating fear in customers about the quality of their competition's products. Yet businesses, with a wink and a nudge, claim, "That's business." "What's good for business is good for the country." They use every trick in the book to make as much profit as possible, but when labor tries to get a better price for their product, suddenly all bets are off. Only labor is denigrated for their efforts, accused of all sorts of terrible tricks to get more, called greedy, called lazy, called criminal. The pot calls the kettle black. With any other commodity, the buyer alone does not set the price of the product. The buyer alone does not set the standards of how the product is made, certainly without offering anything more for extras. Selling something for whatever they can get for it, taking advantage of shortages or creating them is apparently only open to business, but not labor. Why should that be the case? Why is labor different than every other commodity? LoisIt's different with fast food though, because fast food labor is frankly, worthless; it's the lowest of the low. I disagree. A lot of people work in fast food and it's a multi-billion dollar business. Its employees are their life blood, even if you think they are the lowest of the low. Plenty of people spend a lot of money on fast food and the business is going to grow. In case you didn't notice, it's the most lowly employees who need unions the most. They are most vulnerable to exploitation, poor pay and bad treatment by employers. They are the perfect group for unionization--poorly paid, exploited and powerless. They need professionals to go to bat for them. The owners have no problem in hiring professionals to prevent unions from forming or to negotiate when they are formed (or to bust them). Why shouldn't the workers have professionals on their side, too? Maybe you just like unfair fights where one side is hobbled and has its hands tied behind its back and the other side has all the power? LoisNobody is claiming that fast food is not a huge business. However, the fact is that it's completely unskilled work, long term fast food employees are mostly individuals who can't do anything else in life, and there are always more people willing to fill out applications; including immigrants who will gladly accept minimum wage. You're right that they are easily exploitable, but a union will fleece them just as bad as the board members. The best solution for the non-mouth breathers among them is to get better jobs.
All workers are unionized or covered by laws that were created by unions to some level by state and federal laws that deal with hours, overtime, unemployment, safety in the work place, working environment, safety clothing, breathing atmosphere, lighting, sexual atmosphere, discrimination, age limits, pregnancy, days worked before needing to pay the employee. Items not covered are vacation, double time pay, holiday pay, retirement, severance pay, seniority and rate of pay over minimum wage unless it is Federal or State then prevailing wage laws go into effect. So all workers are a little bit unionized by the government.Mike the three biggest costs to a business are salaries, retirements benefits and one you left out, health insurance so the aspects that the government "unionizes" are relatively trivial compared to what they don't
There is no correct answer to this question; there are stances on the thinking of unions and employee wages.
I do not have enough information for me to pick one side or the other.
My thoughts if I was a fast food business owner.
Federal minimum wage is $7.25/hr they want $15.00/hr and will most likely settle closer to $9.50/hr.
So let’s look at the numbers per hour if the hour law was passed at $15.00/hr.
Wage $7.25
Fica $0.56
UI $0.29
WC $5.44 using 25% classification with a 300% mod factor.
Total $13.54/hr
Wage $15.00
Fica $1.15
UI $0.60
WC $11.25 using 25% classification with a 300% mod factor.
Total $28.00/hr
As a business owner I would fire all the workers and hire immigrant help thus lowering the Worker’s Compensation claims to a 0.70 modification factor rate.
Wage $15.00
Fica $1.15
UI $0.60
WC $2.63 using 25% classification with a 0.70% mod factor.
Total $19.38/hr
The reason I think the WC will drop that much is because with Unions you can require the use of good doctors thus lowering the overall medical costs.
There is no correct answer to this question; there are stances on the thinking of unions and employee wages. I do not have enough information for me to pick one side or the other. My thoughts if I was a fast food business owner. Federal minimum wage is $7.25/hr they want $15.00/hr and will most likely settle closer to $9.50/hr. So let’s look at the numbers per hour if the hour law was passed at $15.00/hr. Wage $7.25 Fica $0.56 UI $0.29 WC $5.44 using 25% classification with a 300% mod factor. Total $13.54/hr Wage $15.00 Fica $1.15 UI $0.60 WC $11.25 using 25% classification with a 300% mod factor. Total $28.00/hr As a business owner I would fire all the workers and hire immigrant help thus lowering the Worker’s Compensation claims to a 0.70 modification factor rate. Wage $15.00 Fica $1.15 UI $0.60 WC $2.63 using 25% classification with a 0.70% mod factor. Total $19.38/hr The reason I think the WC will drop that much is because with Unions you can require the use of good doctors thus lowering the overall medical costs.If you woukd do something so rash as to fire your employees and hire illegal immigrants, you would be subject to legal sanctions and your business would likely fail. But, go ahead, you wouldn't be the first person to cut off your nose to spite your face. However, I'm not in favor of raising the minimum wage. I'd rather see fast food workers unionize and then take it from there. Lois
Cap’t Jack, you’re a man after my own heart!Thanks Lois, I appreciate the compliment. My son has worked in the business for twenty years and he and his friends and coworkers have shared their stories with me, e.g. Last evening the restaurant he works for had three dine and dash tables. Not only were the servers knocked out of a tip but they, the servers are responsible for paying for the food, or risk being fired. These workers have NO protection either from the customers or the supervisors who may fire them over a trifle. Cap't Jack
What people do not understand is that forcing fast food restaurants to raise pay significantly will have unintended consequences, and many of the same people advocating for this are going to be the ones who ultimately lose out.And there Cloak is the crux of your argument. Keep your peasant head down, shut up and be happy with the job that we, the corporate bosses have provided for you. If not, well you'll be on the street begging for yet another dead end job and be happy to have one. What you advocate is exactly what caused the formation of unions in the first place. the restaurant lobbyists would like nothing more than to completely gut any government program meant to aid skilled and nonskilled workers and return to the halcyon days of lassez faire economy wherein the worker may be turned into a legal slave working longer hours with lower pay and hey why not return to chid labor? It would increase profits and the kids would need to work in order for the family to survive. Couple that with the ending the requirement for a general education and you have millions of unskilled and ignorant workers Ripe for the sweat shops who are consistently being told that they will lose out if they even attempt to improve their lives by begging the bosses for a pittance of the profits. You don't get anywhere by being complacent and living a "by your leave" existence. And as I stated before, yes there were unions whose leaders mishandled the money and power but they don't in any way hold a candle to the other side with their multimillionaire benefactors who buy votes and influence government legislation and their powerful lobbies who at one time actually ran the government, local, state and national, e.g. The railroad lobby. Want to know what it's like to be poor and powerless, find a restaurant job. Cap't Jack
July 21,2013 Detroit Thread-General Discussion:
VYAZMA-Let the myrmidons work at Wal-Mart. Perhaps people are starting to wake up. MidAtlantic-Damn, give the Wal-Mart workers a break, they don’t need to be called names.Fast Food... Thread:
McGeyver-There are lots of people who work in those positions who are hard working, good, intelligent people... MidAtlantic-Most are not, though. This is the problem
It’s different with fast food though, because fast food labor is frankly, worthless; it’s the lowest of the low.-and- The best solution for the non-mouth breathers among them is to get better jobs. -MidAtlanticIt's always refreshing to see Flip Floppers who have no real position here. They just like posting to hear themselves talk. Another worthless opinion....Arbitrary positions, vague viewpoints, no real grasp of the issues.
Lois
If you woukd do something so rash as to fire your employees and hire illegal immigrants,
I do not think you are seeing the whole picture. The reason a business would hire illegal immigrants is to stay in business. Otherwise the labor cost going from $13.94/hr to $28.00/hr would put you out of business.
you would be subject to legal sanctions and your business would likely fail
Depends on the state, if it has right to work laws then you can be replaced by lower waged workers. No business can legally hire illegal’s. All illegal’s have to present the proper legal paperwork to work. I guess calling them illegal was a poor choice of words, but probably closer to the real facts.
But, go ahead, you wouldn’t be the first person to cut off your nose to spite your face.
It is called survival in the business world. The business man has to work with the cards that are dealt to him, or get out of business. No business man wants a bunch of employees that speak a language that he does not understand.
However, I’m not in favor of raising the minimum wage. I’d rather see fast food workers unionize and then take it from there.
Understand.
Cap’t Jack
Not only were the servers knocked out of a tip but they, the servers are responsible for paying for the food, or risk being fired.
A union would not allow this to happen. And I am sure it is against the law.
One out of four businessmen is fined by the government each year.
Most businessmen are not educated or trained to be businessmen, they learn by making mistakes and paying fines. Their only friend is the insurance industry who makes them pay dearly for the friendship.
What does the businessman know about insurances and governmental bookkeeping?
Nothing going into business.
I operated a labor management company in California years back and had over 900 businesses as clients. One of my requirements was that the business owner be in his third business. I found that once a business man had been put out of business at least twice before he make a much better client to work with.
I’m am not defending the businessman for bad behavior, just saying that most businessmen started out as employees and went through all the stuff you are talking about and when they got their own business they were going to do thing right and not take advantage of the employees. But once they became a business the unforeseen pressures caused them to act out of character.
In the business structure of sharecropping, you do not have these problems because the employer and employees are both invested in product income.
If I was operating a fast food, I would implement profit sharing as a labor management method.
Mike-I’m am not defending the businessman for bad behavior, just saying that most businessmen started out as employees and went through all the stuff you are talking about and when they got their own business they were going to do thing right and not take advantage of the employees. But once they became a business the unforeseen pressures caused them to act out of character.Mike using this same scenario, which I think is relatively a fair one, I think it is also safe to say that the business owners previous experience as an employee taught him or her that they could probably be better off being the exploiter rather than the exploited. Look at Costco's business model. That guy pays his workers a decent wage. He's still a billionaire. Businesses do better when they invest in the whole package. I've never been to a Costco, but I hear the customers are satisfied. Now look at Wendy's or McDonald's, or Kentucky Fried Chicken. Disposable labor. Disposable plates and cups. Disposable quasi-food. High Labor turn around. Just like the drive-thrus they operate. Cheap, low quality food. Cheap low quality employment standards, wages and benefits. Giving the public a product that is dubious and highly contentious on many debatable angles. Junk food-Junk jobs! But it is a business that makes billions of dollars. Everything about these businesses says exploitation. They exploit their customers with gimmicks and unhealthy food. Why wouldn't they exploit their employees? It's a rotten business that makes billions. The employees want more of a stake in that business.
Vyazma
Now look at Wendy’s or McDonald’s, or Kentucky Fried Chicken.
The employees want more of a stake in that business.
There is something that not right here.
There are some unions that deal with fast food and they are connected with the restaurant and bar unions that have been around a long time. This one is not. I would guess that this is a movement by a group of lawyers.
There are a fair percentage of fast food workers that would lose income by getting a raise. Many are on relief and minimum wage and less than forty hours lets them qualify for relief. They might make say $560.00 a month more and take home $450.00 of that after taxes, but they would lose $600.00 a month in food stamps. So I do not see this movement coming from all the workers.
I started a union one time. And it’s not that hard. I did it for the reason that unions can get around most labor laws to a point. The state let injured workers go to these worker’s compensation medical clinics for treatment and spent six weeks before we could get them to a real doctor and heal the injury. These clinics were known as millionaire mills and were jointly run by the attorneys and doctors. When an employee is hurt the best thing you can do is get him to the best specialist and doctors you can find as quickly as possible. It will be cheaper in the long run and better for the employee.
The whole union thing here could be to solve a similar problem and could be backed by the big fast food chains to be able to lower their insurance costs and be able give the workers a raise at the same time, but not a 100% plus raise. In the fast food industry injury fraud runs rapped and most insurance companies will not touch fast food business.
And there Cloak is the crux of your argument. Keep your peasant head down, shut up and be happy with the job that we, the corporate bosses have provided for you. If not, well you'll be on the street begging for yet another dead end job and be happy to have one. What you advocate is exactly what caused the formation of unions in the first place. the restaurant lobbyists would like nothing more than to completely gut any government program meant to aid skilled and nonskilled workers and return to the halcyon days of lassez faire economy wherein the worker may be turned into a legal slave working longer hours with lower pay and hey why not return to chid labor? It would increase profits and the kids would need to work in order for the family to survive. Couple that with the ending the requirement for a general education and you have millions of unskilled and ignorant workers Ripe for the sweat shops who are consistently being told that they will lose out if they even attempt to improve their lives by begging the bosses for a pittance of the profits. You don't get anywhere by being complacent and living a "by your leave" existence. And as I stated before, yes there were unions whose leaders mishandled the money and power but they don't in any way hold a candle to the other side with their multimillionaire benefactors who buy votes and influence government legislation and their powerful lobbies who at one time actually ran the government, local, state and national, e.g. The railroad lobby. Want to know what it's like to be poor and powerless, find a restaurant job. Cap't JackThe bottom line is you have people who are doing tasks that require little to no skill, but want to be paid at the same level of someone who is doing tasks that require more skills. When you are doing a job that the general population can do with little to no training at all, demanding more money could simply mean losing your job to someone who is not asking for so much, such as a high school or college student who just needs some cash on the side. Or it could be someone who's been out of work for a very long time, and willing to do whatever is necessary to bring a little more cash in. Do I believe that they have an unfair situation? Sure. Do I believe that they have a right to unionize on the issue? Yes, they sure do. However, the facts are that we are living in an situation where there are a LOT of people looking for work right now who are willing to get paid less than what these people are fighting for. All I am saying is that if they even get what they want (not likely), then it may not bring the intended outcomes that they were hoping for. If I own a business, and I need someone to flip burgers all day long, then I'm going to reason that this job doesn't require much skill, so I'm going to pay the minimum. However, if I'm needing someone to flip burgers, manage the accounting system, organize and manage the inventory systems while distributing tasks among the other workers, I'm going to need someone who has the necessary skills to do all of that, so I'm going to pay them more. Why? Because someone like that is more valuable. Why is he valuable? Because there are less people that can effectively do all of that and still be efficient. So, if the guy who does nothing more than flip burgers, and let's say he's not even that good at flipping burgers, comes to me and demands that I pay him as much as the guy who does all of those other tasks, what real incentive would I have to meet such a demand? Good will? Perhaps, but that's up to me and nobody else. We can call this "unfair" all day long and whine and complain about it, but this is reality. We can use emotionally charged terminology like "peasants" or "sweatshops", but at the end of the day this is how the world really works.
Yes, I know. Food service is a job with almost no protections for the employees, and they've never been unionized as far as I know. It's long overdue. LoisCap’t Jack, you’re a man after my own heart!Thanks Lois, I appreciate the compliment. My son has worked in the business for twenty years and he and his friends and coworkers have shared their stories with me, e.g. Last evening the restaurant he works for had three dine and dash tables. Not only were the servers knocked out of a tip but they, the servers are responsible for paying for the food, or risk being fired. These workers have NO protection either from the customers or the supervisors who may fire them over a trifle. Cap't Jack
And there Cloak is the crux of your argument. Keep your peasant head down, shut up and be happy with the job that we, the corporate bosses have provided for you. If not, well you'll be on the street begging for yet another dead end job and be happy to have one. What you advocate is exactly what caused the formation of unions in the first place. the restaurant lobbyists would like nothing more than to completely gut any government program meant to aid skilled and nonskilled workers and return to the halcyon days of lassez faire economy wherein the worker may be turned into a legal slave working longer hours with lower pay and hey why not return to chid labor? It would increase profits and the kids would need to work in order for the family to survive. Couple that with the ending the requirement for a general education and you have millions of unskilled and ignorant workers Ripe for the sweat shops who are consistently being told that they will lose out if they even attempt to improve their lives by begging the bosses for a pittance of the profits. You don't get anywhere by being complacent and living a "by your leave" existence. And as I stated before, yes there were unions whose leaders mishandled the money and power but they don't in any way hold a candle to the other side with their multimillionaire benefactors who buy votes and influence government legislation and their powerful lobbies who at one time actually ran the government, local, state and national, e.g. The railroad lobby. Want to know what it's like to be poor and powerless, find a restaurant job. Cap't JackThe bottom line is you have people who are doing tasks that require little to no skill, but want to be paid at the same level of someone who is doing tasks that require more skills. When you are doing a job that the general population can do with little to no training at all, demanding more money could simply mean losing your job to someone who is not asking for so much, such as a high school or college student who just needs some cash on the side. Or it could be someone who's been out of work for a very long time, and willing to do whatever is necessary to bring a little more cash in. Do I believe that they have an unfair situation? Sure. Do I believe that they have a right to unionize on the issue? Yes, they sure do. However, the facts are that we are living in an situation where there are a LOT of people looking for work right now who are willing to get paid less than what these people are fighting for. All I am saying is that if they even get what they want (not likely), then it may not bring the intended outcomes that they were hoping for. If I own a business, and I need someone to flip burgers all day long, then I'm going to reason that this job doesn't require much skill, so I'm going to pay the minimum. However, if I'm needing someone to flip burgers, manage the accounting system, organize and manage the inventory systems while distributing tasks among the other workers, I'm going to need someone who has the necessary skills to do all of that, so I'm going to pay them more. Why? Because someone like that is more valuable. Why is he valuable? Because there are less people that can effectively do all of that and still be efficient. So, if the guy who does nothing more than flip burgers, and let's say he's not even that good at flipping burgers, comes to me and demands that I pay him as much as the guy who does all of those other tasks, what real incentive would I have to meet such a demand? Good will? Perhaps, but that's up to me and nobody else. We can call this "unfair" all day long and whine and complain about it, but this is reality. We can use emotionally charged terminology like "peasants" or "sweatshops", but at the end of the day this is how the world really works. To claim that fast food jobs or restaurant or catering requires no skills is wrong. Restaurant workers are at least as skilled as people in any retail operation, not the least of which is knowing how to deal with customers. Many retail operations are unionized. Restaurant workers are highly exploitable and exploited. I hope that with an attitude like yours you never go into food service. It's attitudes like yours that create the exploitation that goes on in the industry. Food service workers should be unionized because it's the only way for tgem to be treated fairly. Unfortunately, owners in the restaurant trade fight tooth and nail to be sure it doesn't happen. They apparently like treating their employees like chattel and claiming they have no skills. Not a lot different than the tactics business owners have used throughout history. I prefer having my food served by people who are treated well and who are paid fairly. Having people preparing and serving food who are barely making a living, who are working under intolerable conditions and who are being exploited and receiving the lowest pay possible, does nothing for the appetite. I am surprised that there isn't more food poisoning in restaurants than there appears to be. They should be unionized, for the sake of the employees and for the sake of the customers. Any business that can't make it with a unionized workforce should not be in business in the first place. Lois
To claim that fast food jobs or restaurant or catering requires no skills is wrong. Restaurant workers are at least as skilled as people in any retail operation, not the least of which is knowing how to deal with customers. Many retail operations are unionized. Restaurant workers are highly exploitable and exploited. I hope that with an attitude like yours you never go into food service. It's attitudes like yours that create the exploitation that goes on in the industry. Food service workers should be unionized because it's the only way for tgem to be treated fairly. Unfortunately, owners in the restaurant trade fight tooth and nail to be sure it doesn't happen. They apparently like treating their employees like chattel and claiming they have no skills. Not a lot different than the tactics business owners have used throughout history. I prefer having my food served by people who are treated well and who are paid fairly. Having people preparing and serving food who are barely making a living, who are working under intolerable conditions and who are being exploited and receiving the lowest pay possible, does nothing for the appetite. I am surprised that there isn't more food poisoning in restaurants than there appears to be. They should be unionized, for the sake of the employees and for the sake of the customers. Any business that can't make it with a unionized workforce should not be in business in the first place. LoisIt's basic economics, friend. If you want to be paid, for flipping burgers, the same as the guy who is 10 times more skilled than you, and has 10 times more responsibilities than you, then the owner is simply going to get someone who is willing to flip burgers for less. You can hate it as much as you want. I think it sucks for the little guy, sure. But that's life. The amount of value you bring to the transaction will determine how much you can demand. If everyone else in the world can do the same thing you are doing with little to no training, then you aren't bringing too much to the table, and your bargaining power is going to be low. You can call it evil. You can call it exploitation. Hell, you can call it a hot dog if it makes you feel better. But other people call it life. Sure, they have a right to unionize. Whatever. If someone tried to trade you a bottle of faucet water for your car, would you accept the transaction? Why or why not? What if they threatened to call you "unfair" or claim "exploitation" if you refused?
July 21,2013 Detroit Thread-General Discussion:I wasn't being serious about Wal-Mart employees. But, some Wal-Mart employees are more skilled then almost all fast food employees.VYAZMA-Let the myrmidons work at Wal-Mart. Perhaps people are starting to wake up. MidAtlantic-Damn, give the Wal-Mart workers a break, they don’t need to be called names.Fast Food... Thread:McGeyver-There are lots of people who work in those positions who are hard working, good, intelligent people... MidAtlantic-Most are not, though. This is the problemIt’s different with fast food though, because fast food labor is frankly, worthless; it’s the lowest of the low.-and- The best solution for the non-mouth breathers among them is to get better jobs. -MidAtlanticIt's always refreshing to see Flip Floppers who have no real position here. They just like posting to hear themselves talk. Another worthless opinion....Arbitrary positions, vague viewpoints, no real grasp of the issues.