Fast-food walkout U.S. workers strike in several cities to call attention to low wages.

Originally posted by vtcajun
reply to post by HanzHenry

 

I'm sorry. Did you actually mean to bring anything to this conversation? Not even sure what you are getting at other than just supplying a little gibberish. Learn to communicate in a meaningful way.

weak pathetic redirect.. I proposed numerous questions.. NONE of which you can refute..


HURRY... come up with some snide little cowardly remark.

Originally posted by vtcajun
reply to post by oblvion

 

what hole have you been living in? I had more sleepless night, less time with my family and a lifetime of savings tied up from hard work sacrificing wages so I could pay my employees. Anyone with a sense of pride and a desire to improve will not stay in a minimum wage job. I had several good employees I hated losing move on to something better. I still stay in touch with some of them and they have thanked me for the opportunity to earn while they made improvements on their own. As a boss, I only owe my workers what I have promised them when they accepted the job. When no one wants to work for a wage, the free market will drive up wages. An example of that is that in the mid-late 90's in the Dallas/Ft Worth area, fast food joints had to pay starting wages of around $10/hr. That would be the equivalent of $15/hr in todays wages when you account for buying power of the wage. This was because there were many more better paying jobs and workers would not work for less.

Never the less, stop whining about what you expect and go work your way up somewhere from the bottom. You will have much more appreciation for any job you get. Remember, no one owes you anything. You want something out of life, you need to work for it and find something you are good at and be the best at it. Being a professional expecter will keep you a miserable whiner.

The free market is and has been dead for a long time.

NEWS FLASH!!!!!! Slaves had a house and food and cloths, SLAVES!!!! People owned by others with no rights at all, had as much as more than 1/2 the working populous today!!!!

Over half the country is "the working poor", only able to eat because the .gov gives the means to purchase food through welfare.

SLAVES didnt have welfare, yet had shelter and food.

Do you not understand this very simple and basic concept?

FREEMEN, work 8 hours a day at least 5 days a week( most of the time more), yet cant even have these very basic essentials of life...!!!!????????

Really????!!!!

That is gonna be your arguement?

Just stop, your insulting me, people who were property like the couch or the TV or the family pet were better off 100 years ago than people working 40+ hours a week today, making minimum wage for themselves, while their company is making hundreds of dollars an hour off of their labor.

If a man is making a company $100 an hour, the man deserves at least $25 of that.

Saying anything short of that is idiocy, as the company is already making 3 times more than the man, who is actually doing the work that is making the money.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan

Originally posted by filledcup
reply to post by matafuchs

 

how about raising salaries so ppl can take care of themselves and remove welfare since they dont need it anymore finally getting what is known as a 'living wage'?

some companies cant afford it as they are still in development. but that's no excuse for the well developed companies that can.

help ppl grow out of welfare. it will help close the gap between middleclass and rich that seems ever growing.

that's y i said, a company should pay it's employees a percentage of the return(profit margin) profit margin goes up, they get an increase because of the percentage alotted to them. profit margins go down they get a decrease. so they will realize they should make the best effort to increase profit margin so they will profit too.

in short a company's staff should be viewed as shareholders/investors by the company.

edit on 30-8-2013 by filledcup because: (no reason given)

edit on 30-8-2013 by filledcup because: (no reason given)

Have you ever run the books for a company?

Remember, the majority of jobs are not created by the megacorporations you are likely talking about. I run the books for a small business. We set about 45% of our revenue aside for wages and benefits. We pay 70% of our employees insurance costs. Before Obamacare (ACA) we provided better insurance for less money. It sucks enough now I dropped coverage and moved over to my wifes insurance (which costs me more).

So 45% goes to wages and benefits. You keep chiseling away. For example, food costs in most restaurants is around 28%. So now you are spending a total of 73% of your annual revenue on real, hard costs. Throw in any franchise fees (around 6%), the electric bills, etc (another 3%) and allocation of reserves for your property taxes (approx 10%, give or take).

So I am a restaurant owner, running about $600k/year in revenue, making a 10% gross profit margin (food industry is 8%-12% average, with 18% being the high end for chains).

This isn't rocket science. People who know how to do math, and use spreadsheets created these models because they work. If you have a better mousetrap, I am interested.

no ,All these “deserving” types don’t own businesses. They don’t know anything about accounting and balancing budgets. They don’t know the amount of capital it takes to turn a small profit. There prisoners of their own ignorance

Originally posted by Beartracker16

The story reports that raising wages to poverty levels would cost .30 cents on a $10 meal.
Is that so bad.
McDonald's say wages are not controlled by corporate policy but by the franchise owners.
Could this lead to increasing wages for other segments of the economy?
There should be outrage all over the US as people are unable to get their happy meals today.


video.ca.msn.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

edit on 29-8-2013 by Beartracker16 because: correcting info

BZZZZT!!! WRONG!!!

You Want Fries With That?

CBS News Story

Deloitte Industry Operations Report 2010

I'm sure all of this has been mentioned,but it's worth RE-mentioning. First, any arbitrary attempts to usurp market principles backfires. Prices MUST rise correspondingly to keep Cost-of-Goods-Sold in balance with revenue; regardless of the cost increasing in labor, raw material, taxes, etc...

Next, It is NOT society's responsibility to provide you with a living wage - it is YOUR responsibility! There are many jobs out there that are NOT designed to support a living - period! Most notably, ENTRY-LEVEL jobs that require no knowledge, no education and no skills. As a worker, if you are unhappy with your employment/income opportunity it is YOUR responsibility to change it!

Finally, if these people had taken advantage of the FREE education that the rest of us paid for, their lot in life wouldn't look so abysmal. Piling on, the very little advantage that they did take was liberal propaganda which led them to believe that they were entitled to the spoils of the world simply because they exist. This is the product of "Participation trophies" - awards just for showing up. Schools doing away with "Winners" and "losers" teaching children that "Everyone wins" just for giving minimal effort. Schools eliminating an "F" grade because "No one is allowed to fail". NONE of those practices prepare people for the REAL world where HARD WORK and an EDUCATION gets you ahead. Where you are either a WINNER or a LOSER - you're choice! Where FAILURE is inevitable - and often times can lead to success if you learn from failure and WORK HARDER!

I'm not interested in diluting the water with debates on Capitalism and the like - that isn't what this thread is about. Besides, what we call "Capitalism" today has ZERO resemblance to REAL capitalism. It is much closer to corporatocracy/oligarchy/plutocracy/fascism. Raising wages for an unskilled labor class does nothing to change that!

Originally posted by oblvion

Originally posted by vtcajun
reply to post by oblvion

 

what hole have you been living in? I had more sleepless night, less time with my family and a lifetime of savings tied up from hard work sacrificing wages so I could pay my employees. Anyone with a sense of pride and a desire to improve will not stay in a minimum wage job. I had several good employees I hated losing move on to something better. I still stay in touch with some of them and they have thanked me for the opportunity to earn while they made improvements on their own. As a boss, I only owe my workers what I have promised them when they accepted the job. When no one wants to work for a wage, the free market will drive up wages. An example of that is that in the mid-late 90's in the Dallas/Ft Worth area, fast food joints had to pay starting wages of around $10/hr. That would be the equivalent of $15/hr in todays wages when you account for buying power of the wage. This was because there were many more better paying jobs and workers would not work for less.

Never the less, stop whining about what you expect and go work your way up somewhere from the bottom. You will have much more appreciation for any job you get. Remember, no one owes you anything. You want something out of life, you need to work for it and find something you are good at and be the best at it. Being a professional expecter will keep you a miserable whiner.

If a man is making a company $100 an hour, the man deserves at least $25 of that.

Saying anything short of that is idiocy, as the company is already making 3 times more than the man, who is actually doing the work that is making the money.

the man doesn’t deserve anything. He made that $100 off the capital and resources of the owner of the business. If the man wants the whole pie, he needs to leave and start his own company. The man entered a contract to provide his labor to create goods via the resources provided by the owner for a wage. If he doesn’t like the wage, leave.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


ur a small business, so like i said u kinda fall into the bracket of those with a legitimate excuse. as u pointed out, the math is clear.

but what is 10% of your company revenue is 2.5% in other larger companies. and yet still in other companies, that 10% equates to millions if not billions of dollars over the years in clear profits. at what point do those companies stop and say.. "ok we have enough, we can give more back now, i have 6 mercs, 4 mansions in different parts of the world and a pool in every single one of them except the one overlooking the sea."

the problem is not the small businesses that manage to eek out a comfortable living. but the super large financial horders. they have too much and it stifles the economy. the money isnt returned to the lowest echelons of their workforce fast enough to stimulate growth in GDP. a holistic view.

and by your view also there is a problem with the current system. im not even going after the interest the bank charges and the inflation at this point. but because of the rigid standpoint taken by a traditional view, the government had to intervene for the sake of fairness. and TRY to compensate for their failures. this is why welfare systems were introduced. that problem is that because of the minimum wage mandate, companies that startup and struggle to meet the minimum wage have to maintain that minimum wage even when their profit margins start sliding away due to various factors including a disgruntled workforce providing terrible service to its customers.

to be fair to the companies, if workers are to benefit from higher profit margins, then they should also lose from lower profit margins. so in a sense it is safer for the business owner to make his employees share holders. that way their own productivity defines how far they advance. but at least they know that when they do work hard they will receive return on investment (time, energy, time away from family, working with ill health to pay bills). everyone makes sacrifices to get to work. but ppl will always click at some point and realize that their workload is increasing as management attempts to drag out more productivity, but their pay rate stays the same even though they are inputting more. and that's when the problems start. especially when food prices are steadily going up

a hungry man is an angry man.

reply to post by doobydoll

Contracts are agreed upon before one will even get hired, I have turned down jobs because I didn't like their "Terms", which is the new word for "Contract" in use today, They can be found on ANY application right where you sign it, both with a pen and digitally.

Those terms will not change unless both parties agree to change them, and the employer just cuts you loose to hire another dumbass who will agree to perform under the terms of his bull# contract.

Go see how long you remain employed if you tell your boss you want to negotiate new employment terms, I'll wager you won't.

So many people see the big profits of the large companies like McDonald's and because these people don't understand business, they automatically think, "why doesn't McDonald's just spread their wealth to the lowly hamburger flipper".

They don't realize that each McDonald's is a franchise, owned by a small business person, who is responsible for, not only payroll, but a host of other expenses. On top of all that, they have to pay a fee to the mother company based on their profits.

Basic explanation of franchises

reply to post by matafuchs

You just described the "jobless recovery" which isn't really a recovery of any type at all.

Just sayin'.

reply to post by HanzHenry


Henry, you said nothing to which I replied the way I did. You took what I said out of context which proves you did not read the post. Is you retort here any less snide? Keep to the conversation, do not inject bleeps and other gibberish into the conversation and I am more than willing to debate.

Originally posted by queenofswords
So many people see the big profits of the large companies like McDonald's and because these people don't understand business, they automatically think, "why doesn't McDonald's just spread their wealth to the lowly hamburger flipper".

They don't realize that each McDonald's is a franchise, owned by a small business person, who is responsible for, not only payroll, but a host of other expenses. On top of all that, they have to pay a fee to the mother company based on their profits.

Basic explanation of franchises

that reiterates a point made earlier. maybe mcdonalds can waiver and reduce some of it's fees for franchise owners allowing more to go to the franchise' profit margin. but then how are we sure that the franchise owners wont keep all the excess for themselves?

but the working man really isnt concerned with the details. just like his boss doesnt really care why he came to work late. he knows when he's feeling exploited.

so basically these ppl all have the right idea. the burger flippers should pressure their management for better wages, management should pressure the owner for better wages, the owner should pressure the patent owner for reduced fees.. going right up the chain. too much money is just sitting in local and foreign bank accounts unused.

everyone likes to spend money.. and it just so happens that that's how capitalism was really designed to work. spend spend spend and growth is generated. what we have now is spend spend spend occuring only at upper echelons and fake growth is simulated(not stimulated) and the countries keep going deeper into deficit spending in an attempt to compensate.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


I know. As well as how each state, based on the economy has adjusted their SUTA taxes it is crazy. How about OSHA requirements? How about disability and Workers Comp and all the other kinds of insurance a company needs to carry. Theft of property. People who call in and you have to cover for. I do not want this to become owners vs employees but most people in the workforce have no clue...

If big corporations didn't enjoy virtual immortality through legal maneuverings and not-so-legal one's, things might change for the betterment of all.

The corporations have to go, or at least have limitations placed on their charter and somehow be influenced to follow rules to prevent the damage they do.

In earlier times, Corporations were not granted immortality, had no "personhood", were forced to prove themselves to serve the public good, and were illegal here until 1819 for good reason.

A good portion of the reason for The Revolutionary War was against the king's corporations, way back when in times forgot.

Something similar may have to be done again.

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by oblvion

 

The average salary of a franchise owner is 60,000/year.

If an owner works 60 - 80 hours a week, do the math.

I bet you if I look hard enough, I could find a cat that played the piano.

By your logic, all cats would therefore be able to play the piano.

edit on 30-8-2013 by beezzer because: sprelling

Beezer I HAD mad respect for you, my roomie "inserslyproportional" still does, as we have argued over the last couple of days about this.

Your "model" cant work, think it through to the end game.

At the end of the road we are on, lies only SLAVERY for all but the top players.

It is best described as a "no sum game" or in latin, a "non sequitor".

There can not be any winner other than the casino, all the odds are in their court, it is only a matter of time and they will win it all, "we the people" will lose it all.

They stack the deck, they hold any card they decide, they cant lose.

This entire system is broken beyond repair or even recall.

It is the guy who owns the business gets to make $1000's an hour off the workers back, while paying him minimum wage.

When the guy flipping the burgers is the sole reason the money is getting made to begin with.

Imagine working for 10 years to only get $200,000 in pay, while that same business got to make $200,000,000,000 in profit.

Those reaping the profits didnt make or wrap or upsale a single thing, they only sat in a nice posh office, wasting away 8 hours of a 10 hour day BSing around.

Yet somehow they are "entitled" to those rediculous gains?

I think not.

Those actually toiling away made every single cent of that money, not one single person in a single office did anything to actually "earn" that money.

Yet you believe them to be worth thousands of times more per hour than those that did all of the work, and actually produced the product that made all of that money possible in the first place?

So then you think the architect built your home?

He went out and poured the concrete? He framed it? He plumed it? He did the drywall? he painted it? He decked and roofed it? He trimmed it out? He floored it? He wired it?

yet he gets to keep 99% of the money involved in making the house?

Of course not, the trades would not tolerate such a thing.

Why is food production so much different?

Not one single share holder makes the burgers, takes the orders, makes the sandwich, serves the customer, cleans and maintains the business.

Yet only those doing absolutely nothing to make the company profitable deserve ALL the rewards for its profits?

I know you are a reasoned and knowledgeable fellow, Inversly speaks of you very highly, and even now tells me I am quite wrong, and your wisdom is the stuff of legends.

How do you not see this for what it is.

The people making the money for the company deserve their share, more so than the office workers who only suck money out of the company, not produce it.

Please inform me how it is, that these people not even doing anything at all to produce, deserve hundreds and or thousands of times more than those actually "making" the money for the company.

Originally posted by matafuchs
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

 

I know. As well as how each state, based on the economy has adjusted their SUTA taxes it is crazy. How about OSHA requirements? How about disability and Workers Comp and all the other kinds of insurance a company needs to carry. Theft of property. People who call in and you have to cover for. I do not want this to become owners vs employees but most people in the workforce have no clue...

For the most part there are "global" standards that people follow when employing people. In the state of Texas a good guide would be "Especially For Texas Employers", as it gives guidelines on how to maintain a workforce within the bounds of EEOC, FMLA, and FLSA, while not losing your shirt to UI chargebacks.

It shouldn't be "owners vs employees". I am an employee. The owner of my business is a real POS. But he did a good thing setting up this business, and I am grateful for the opportunity he provided me.

That is all that is needed. The gratitude of the employer and the employee for each other.

Well, that and a series of shackles against corporations. But when this is done be prepared for Wall Street to throw a fit. And since money = free speech, their voice is louder.

reply to post by filledcup


I worked in a company with Revenue Sharing once. I made more per hour than the CEO. Mostly because all systems are set up to be manipulated. Although, "manipulating" doesn't imply unethical.

Originally posted by MyHappyDogShiner
reply to post by doobydoll

 

Contracts are agreed upon before one will even get hired, I have turned down jobs because I didn't like their "Terms", which is the new word for "Contract" in use today, They can be found on ANY application right where you sign it, both with a pen and digitally.

Those terms will not change unless both parties agree to change them, and the employer just cuts you loose to hire another dumbass who will agree to perform under the terms of his bull# contract.

Go see how long you remain employed if you tell your boss you want to negotiate new employment terms, I'll wager you won't.

I'm not saying contracts 'will' be re-negotiated. I'm saying it is possible to re-negotiate any contract. And of course, the party who benefits most from any contract is always happy as things are and will not want to even consider re-negotiating, unless it adds more to their benefit.

If the boss won't even so much as listen, he probably can't hear you for the noisy ringing tills - you have to MAKE him listen, quieten those tills and strike. It might not get you anywhere in the end, but a one day nation-wide strike here and there is still gonna make a huge dent in the profits of a fast-food chain which has millions of customers through its doors on a daily basis.

I'm hoping these guys might start a ball rolling and other minimum wage earners stand up and do the same. Yes it's possible they might lose their jobs and end up with nothing, but the alternative is to work and still have nothing, so what do they have to lose?

If they're struggling to live despite working all week, they might as well sit on their arse at home all week and struggle.

Originally posted by MyHappyDogShiner
reply to post by matafuchs

 

You talk about handouts galore....

Never mind where it is those same "handouts" end up.

This is like the old "Company Store" of the old days, the debt cannot be repaid, the plantation / farm owner is guaranteed to get his money back regardless of what happens.

The Peon can never escape the cycle because the peon has no idea he is in a cage of his own making.

It most definitely is not "Socialism" because that has never been allowed to exist in the history of the world, the term is used as an blerb, in the wrong context by too many.

Company Store.. the USA is a company store..

My maternal grandfather was a coal mining SLAVE, died in early 50's of black lung. this was a multi generational thing for many impoverished people. MANY were FORCED into this lifestyle.. people outside have no clue what life was like for those poor people. AND I GUARANTEE, any of those miners in their prime, would OUTWORK all these "awesome business owners" and I.T. commandos that are "saving lives" daily with their courage and bravery on the face of keyboards and LCD screens..lol

Originally posted by camaro68ss

Originally posted by oblvion

Originally posted by camaro68ss

Originally posted by doobydoll

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by SearchLightsInc
Economics 101 - Paying your workers below the poverty line because they are less than human and deserve nothing out of life, no matter how hard they work. Oh wait, that's just greed

Economics 101 - Paying your workers what the position is worth because it's an entry level job that isn't intended to support a family. Oh wait, that makes sense.

Seriously people ... go take an economics course. Paying a burger flipper the same as a degree'd chemist will set off a chain of inflation and will do the burger flipper no good. Instead, the burger flipper needs to learn new skills and/or get an education to raise him/her self out of the entry level job. Handing him money he hasn't earned in an entry level position will just teach him that he can get money that he doesn't deserve and that he doesn't have to work for a better job.

In your opinion they don't deserve a pay rise. In their opinion they do.
In your opinion the job isn't worth more. In their opinion it is.
I'll believe them because they're the ones doing the job, not me.

They're also probably of the opinion that you don't deserve the pay you get and that your job is overpaid. You opinion will be opposite. I'll believe you because you're the one doing the job, not me.

Opinions.

The fact is, all employees are important to the smooth running of any company - this is the only reason a company employs anyone, because there's a job that NEEDS to be done. If minimum wage earners were so unimportant to a company and not really needed, they wouldn't be hired at all.

This is what all minimum pay workers need to remember - they need to realise their company hires them because it NEEDS them, and not because it's doing them some half-arsed favour.

you make it sound like these minimum wage workers are slaves of some sort. That fact is, there job there doing is a contract between themselfs and there employer. The contract is, you work X amount of hours and produce X amount of product and ill pay you X amount of dollars. The employee doesn’t have to agree to these terms. They can walk away from the job offer and try somewhere else. Its a contract.

BS!!!!

There is literally nothing else in most of the economy...PERIOD!!!!!

They have to agree, or they can be social leeches, most dont want to be, so they take the crap work they can get, better than just sitting on their asses and soaking the public.

I know of many who can just sit on their butts, but instead choose to work, yet still cant make enough.

Any company making hundreds of millions, should not be relying on the public to feed them and their families, NOT EVER!!!!!

If a man works over 40 hours a week, at any job, he deserves to be able to have a home and food, the ultra rich, with way more than them or their next 6 sets of kids and grand kids and great great great grand kids dont deserve thousands of times more for doing absolutely nothing but being born owning a business, than the man actually making the money in the first place.

That is the way of the Monarchy, not the way of the American.

Kings deserve it all because their daddy was king.

Americans deserve the ability to work and aquire through LABOR, a decent living.

None of these palaces can exist at all, without the guy who cleans the toilet, who mows the grass, who cooks the meals...etc


All of these deserve a decent living, as all are equally important and required positions.

you entitle types. Dissevering jobs, homes, healthcare. ME ME ME. hahaha, you guys will never get it. its not your fault. Society raised you this way.

Just to clear this up, I served 6 years, I went to college, I am not the guy you think I am.

I just clearly see what it is that is destroying this country, and am against it, as I actually had a dog in the fight, risking it all in the countries sake and all that jazz.

Economics is not what is best for billions in porifts a year in record proifit margins, economics is what is best for everyone gross across all sectors, not just the mega corps and wallstreet.

Originally posted by oblvion


Please inform me how it is, that these people not even doing anything at all to produce, deserve hundreds and or thousands of times more than those actually "making" the money for the company.

Winston Churchill once said that American democracy is the worst form of government, until compared to all other forms of government.

Is it a perfect system? No. You'd have to watch Star trek and hope for the future. The system we have now though, works. Unfortunately there will be winners and losers in this system. There will be top-end people and low-end people. The only good thing about our system is that the oppourtunity is there for anyone to make it to the top end.

I'm near the top of my profession. Right now I sit in a climate-controlled office and goof off on the computer because work is tapering off for the holliday. 5 Years ago I was busting my ass. 10 years ago I was busting my ass. 15 years ago I was busting my ass. 20 years ago I was busting my ass. 25 years ago I was busting my ass.

Years ago I took a part-time job because times were hard for me and my family. I washed dishes at a bar/restarant after my "day job". I walked in, with my head held high, because I was going to be the best damned dish washer anyone had ever seen.

And I was.

Looking at CEO's and corporations for blame won't get you to succeed. When I wanted to double my money, I just worked twice as long.

We can argue all day about the greed of corporations, they will say it is "their fair share and that they earned it."

Those at the lower rungs also say the same thing.