why are you having kids if your career is cashiering at mcdonalds...
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Hundreds of Fast-Food Workers Strike for Living Wage, Inspired by Wal-Mart Strike
- Thread starter kame-sennin
- Start date
- Status
why are you having kids if your career is cashiering at mcdonalds...
AlimNassor
Banned
So, you're telling me running a huge business is easier then working a register or flipping burgers?
You should get paid enough to actually support yourself, and 7 bucks an hour definitely isnt enough to support 1 person. Family? Well, hopefully there is another person making at least a living wage and government assistance can help
balladofwindfishes
Member
Did you fall asleep during the history lessons on the early 1900s labor movement?
Deified Data
Banned
Playing devil's advocate, some might say it's that individual's responsibility to seek employment that better enables them to provide for their families.
This is not the 1900 labor movement.
You're clearly not familiar with the idea of a labor strike.
Of course her alone striking won't raise her pay--but if she gets most of the people she works with to join in then they have a chance.
Why do you think the Walmarts, Targets and fast food chains of the world put so much energy into preventing workers from organizing?
I seem to remember you making a thread where you talked about getting your hours severely cut at work or something to that effect. What's with the corporate boot-licking?
balladofwindfishes
Member
But there's always the "what if they can't"
Maybe they have a learning disability. Maybe they work multiple jobs and have no time to even look for a new job, let alone interview.
With the inability to take time off to get education, where do you go? To another cash register paying you around the same wage? Hope Costco is hiring?
Ignoring history is an ignorant position to take. Do you really want to pretend that the movement was successful not because of the tactics, but because it was 1900?
he's a republican
I did that when I was 16. So a 16 year old looking to make extra spending money should be paid enough to support a family? That would have been great at the time to make a few more bucks, but I don't think that can be expected from employers.
balladofwindfishes
Member
you're not working full time at 16. You're lucky to put in 8 hours a week, let alone 30-40. You always will be making less because you just can't work the same amount of time.
I said support yourself. You can't support yourself on 7 bucks an hour unless you work like 80 hours a week, and i dotn think we should force people to work 80 hours a week to survive
Then implement a seniority/tenure requirement.
Start workers at a lower wage, then after a year raise their wages/benefits to a more humane level.
This has been bothering me lately. I definitely feel this will be more of a thing going forward. Essentially we've created this system where we needs jobs to live. However what people want to do with their lives is not necessarily what business/society needs. So we have this labor force of people who don't have business useful skills.
Honestly people shouldn't work in these minimum wages jobs. They are mechanical and robotic things that humans are very poor at. It's not human interesting, we're thinkers and this doesn't require thinking. And machines would do better, they'd be cleaner, never late, don't get sick, don't need a vacation, don't complain, are complete accurate and would hit all their goals. You really think I need a person to order at a fast food restaurant? It's like a modern elevator/gas attendant. I can replace that job with a touch screen panel (hell that's how most of them work) or even a phone app and it'd probably be business cheaper in the long run. Why we even have these jobs is beyond me. Maybe because the pool of unskilled labor is so big its cheaper? Or perhaps businesses aren't quite this tech savvy yet? Definitely unions would have a fit. In any case it makes little sense to me that they exist at all.
So I'm not sure what we should do. We need to do something with these people but forcing them into jobs they suck at and don't like isn't a good solution and neither is paying them more to hate and suck at it. It seems better for everyone to just get rid of these jobs altogether. Perhaps we should be less worried about creating jobs and more worried about trying to get people sustainable lives even without them.
Honestly people shouldn't work in these minimum wages jobs. They are mechanical and robotic things that humans are very poor at. It's not human interesting, we're thinkers and this doesn't require thinking. And machines would do better, they'd be cleaner, never late, don't get sick, don't need a vacation, don't complain, are complete accurate and would hit all their goals. You really think I need a person to order at a fast food restaurant? It's like a modern elevator/gas attendant. I can replace that job with a touch screen panel (hell that's how most of them work) or even a phone app and it'd probably be business cheaper in the long run. Why we even have these jobs is beyond me. Maybe because the pool of unskilled labor is so big its cheaper? Or perhaps businesses aren't quite this tech savvy yet? Definitely unions would have a fit. In any case it makes little sense to me that they exist at all.
So I'm not sure what we should do. We need to do something with these people but forcing them into jobs they suck at and don't like isn't a good solution and neither is paying them more to hate and suck at it. It seems better for everyone to just get rid of these jobs altogether. Perhaps we should be less worried about creating jobs and more worried about trying to get people sustainable lives even without them.
Zoe
Member
So pay should scale with hours worked or with age? A 16 year old should be getting paid less to do the same job just because they're not an unemployed 50 year old taking care of a parent?
balladofwindfishes
Member
in practice this might just encourage companies to get rid of employees once they hit that threshold.
Yea, being paid more for working more hours is kind of how minimum wage jobs work. A 16 year old can't work the same amount of hours a 50 year old can, they have a very obvious other responsibility that takes up that time, and if they don't, then they are probably close to independent anyway, and should be making the higher wage.
A 16 year old will be paid less not by raw wage per hour, but because they can't work the number of hours 50 year olds can.
The vast majority don't get work from Monster.com or classifieds--they get work through connections. So for that woman it's day after day after day of, No, You're not right for this position, and Sorry, we can't help you. On top of her legal responsibilities with her children, her mother, and herself. Do you even know what it's like to deal with a government welfare office? Do you know how it feels to just try to get diaper money from your child's father?
And that's assuming that she got enough minutes for her prepaid phone that week. And that's assuming that she even knows how to write a proper resume in the first place. And that's assuming that she's got a friend with a computer that will let her email all the things she needs to.
People make stupid decisions in life that put them in these positions. Others are born in truly terrible situations, and they don't even know that there is light on the other side. Why should those people be punished for that? Why shouldn't those people be given every opportunity to thrive and contribute?
WickedCobra03
Member
This is a valid point. I feel people should take this into account with their life situation and job when having a child let alone multiples, but there is no doubt that minimum wage is not really a valid number pertaining to anything.
Agreed; I'm glad people are taking more of a stand for better working wages.
1. Yes. You move to a different company that pays more. Simple as that. People with actual disabilities do so what is her excuse?
2. The labor movement was not low skilled labor. They were skilled for the time and in many instances were seen as desirable me. Working in a factory was better than working in a farm. They had leverage.
Modern day equivalent would be like working g at a tech company or specialized manufacturing plant. Not McDonalds.
Beerman462
Member
If the wage was $15 an hour there would be more competition for the job. If you got hired over the other competition, then yes you deserve $15 an hour.
K
kittens
Unconfirmed Member
I almost posted about this yesterday, but had other shit to do. Glad someone else did! It's so awesomely inspiring to see these workers striking. They're some of the most subjugated, abused, marginalized workers in our economy. They deserve more power.
Also major kudos to the Walmart strikers for their continued work + inspiration. Yall are awesome.
Also major kudos to the Walmart strikers for their continued work + inspiration. Yall are awesome.
Zoe
Member
But companies typically don't hire minimum wagers on full time, and they have enough of a labor pool to not have to.
ElectricBlanketFire
Member
Have you been to a grocery store with automated check-outs? How many times does the doofus in front of you screw up bagging their items and has to call for help? Does a robot roll over to the customer or does a worker?
YuriLowell
Member
No they wont, they are all replaceable and will be done within days.
balladofwindfishes
Member
1. The disability thing comes somewhat anecdotal, because I know someone who has a learning disability and is stuck moving between minimum wage jobs because they tried college and flunked out because they just couldn't understand it.
2. Yep, those coal mining 11 year olds were very skilled laborers.
a 16 year old is lucky if he can work 5 one shift. A 50 year woman can work multiple shifts in the same day (and companies don't hire a new person for every shift just because the pool is there, there'd be no reason to).
So a full time worker, doing the same job, should not only get more hours but we're talking a huge per hour wage increase? Wouldn't this just make companies hire less full time employees and have more part timers (even more so than now for companies who try to save money on paying benefits).
Deified Data
Banned
I believe our current minimum wage is too low and should keep pace with inflation over time.
That said, I don't think employers should be obliged to provide a living wage for anyone other than the person they hired. If that individual has a family, a mortgage, 2 other jobs, etc. they should be expected to seek employment accordingly, even if that means working 2 other jobs at a similar rate of pay.
Now, that does not mean I disagree with the strike. I think it's necessary, and I think minimum wage should be raised to at least $10/hour. I just don't think employers should be expected to pay employees with the assumption that they're supporting a family on their own. You have to be realistic about such things.
That said, I don't think employers should be obliged to provide a living wage for anyone other than the person they hired. If that individual has a family, a mortgage, 2 other jobs, etc. they should be expected to seek employment accordingly, even if that means working 2 other jobs at a similar rate of pay.
Now, that does not mean I disagree with the strike. I think it's necessary, and I think minimum wage should be raised to at least $10/hour. I just don't think employers should be expected to pay employees with the assumption that they're supporting a family on their own. You have to be realistic about such things.
A good chunk of the country has no public transit, period. You accept that unless you live directly in the core of a major city, you'll need to own a car.
1. ....Okay
2. Still made more than farmers, and let's not pretend the labor movement was just a bunch of extreme situations. When they stopped working the company came to a standstill. How many Walmart or McDonalds have you seen close early because of this?
Zoe
Member
Benefits have to be paid to people working over a certain threshold, so yeah, they have a reason to keep a pool of part-timers.
balladofwindfishes
Member
that's not at all what I said. I said by the nature of part time jobs and the nature of a 16 year old needing to go to school they'd make less money than someone older because the older person can simply work more hours and make more money from their hours.
Minimum wage @ 10 dollars
16 year old works 3 hours a day (because of school), makes 150 dollars a week
30 year old works 7 hours a day, makes 350 dollars a week
More money, same pay.
Beerman462
Member
Relevant to the discussion.
They would need to increase prices by 20% to double the Crew Payroll. Which if you assume they all make minimum wage would put them close to $15/hour.
They would need to increase prices by 20% to double the Crew Payroll. Which if you assume they all make minimum wage would put them close to $15/hour.
Wuthering_Heights
Banned
Relevant to the discussion.
They would need to increase prices by 20% to double the Crew Payroll. Which if you assume they all make minimum wage would put them close to $15/hour.
Seems reasonable to me.
Agreed. Minimum wage should be the minimum that you can survive on your own with 1 full-time job. 10 dollars is a good figure
balladofwindfishes
Member
so you ARE arguing it was successful not because the tactics but because it was 1900, I knew it.
Yes, a strike in 2012 requires more people striking than one in 1900, this is obvious to anyone. Just because the scale required for success has increased, doesn't mean success is impossible.
If it's not possible to change anything with strikes, why do companies try their hardest to eliminate them, and to push away unions and employee collectives?
I am surprised that you want to start a semantic battle over whether something that is "tedious" is necessarily also "onerous" but do not seem receptive to the idea that being "hard" is not synonymous with "requiring complex skills or knowledge".
Yeah, acquiring the skills for some jobs is a lengthy process. I offer no disagreement there. That is part of what I was talking about when I said that white collar jobs are hard to obtain. However, once you get such jobs, the actual day-to-day experience is not much of a hardship. More upfront investment, but a better experience over the course of your career.
To make a simple example:
Job A: Requires several years training to obtain necessary skills, but each day on the job is pleasant.
Job B: Required no training, but every day is very unpleasant.
I don't agree with the belief that Job A is "harder", and I think that society ought to start paying the Job B types better. I say this as someone who has acquired some fairly specialized skills and knowledge in my life, and has been able to work a series of very cushy jobs as a result.
Currently white collar jobs pay a lot more, not because fewer people want to do those jobs, but because fewer people are capable of doing them. But I think the real key is that it's not that they're incapable because of some innate lack of mental acuity or moral defect, but rather because they cannot afford to spend several years receiving the requisite training.
A single worker manages 12 lanes. Most transactions need no human intervention.
Is this real life? All I see here is "Booo hooo it's too fucking hard, I give up!!"
If you are that poor, the federal government offers financial aid. If a person chooses to go back for a Bachelors degree, then start at the community college where financial aid will help cover most of the costs of school there. Plus, with the minimum wage salary in addition to financial aid, that will provide a good amount of funding and help with education and living.
If a person chooses to go to the vocational route, then the person needs to make sure to research where they are going. If they get tricked into going to one of those places for a freaking iPad, then it's their own damn fault. For a person to improve their lives, it means stop being stupid and actually making sure that decisions that are made benefit them.
As for all your other hypothetical situations, live at home if you can't live with a roommate or find a place to live with 3-4 other roommates, get a bike for transportation if gas is too much, learn to cook and buy your own groceries, etc. for every situation. There is such a thing as growing up.
Also, a person with a bachelors degree is still better off than a person who works minimum wage. Do you really think the economy is always going to suck? Once the economy picks up, a person with a bachelors degree will have a better future than a person who is working minimum wage.
Dude Abides
Banned
Yeah, you know nothing about the labor movement.
That I agree with, but I think a lot of others on here still think that $350/week isn't a living wage (and I agree, you can't support a family with that). But the argument still boils down to minimum wage isn't a living wage. When people refer to the minimum wage, it's usually referring to minimum wage at full time hours.
(I'm not trying to pick on you, I actually agree with you, but I just want to hear other people's opinions on this as well)
Of course the fact that it was 1900 helped. The economy was completely different. You are arguing these jobs are equivalent to the industrial jobs of the 1900 but they aren't the same. At all.
The truth is she is easily replaceable and unless this catches like wildfire, which is looking unlikely this will fail.
dorkimoe
Member
Whats funny is, waitresses at restaurants make more than I do. i have my college degree and work at the biggest insurance company in the country.
Yet i could quit and go be a waiter and make more money
Even if you pay people more, they will just keep raising the price of goods, and cost of living will go up..so its all kind of pointless
ElectricBlanketFire
Member
From Jim Skinner's (CEO of McDonald's from 2004 until June of this year) Wikipedia entry:
The training came from McDonald's itself. No college. Started at the entry-level.
Their new CEO, Don Thompson, grew up near the Cabrini–Green housing project in Chicago.
balladofwindfishes
Member
Yes, I'm arguing they're equivalent, and you're replying with "they aren't!"
And yet you've provided no real reason why you believe they are different besides "have you seen a Walmart shut down yet" which is not a reason at all. Not every business in the 1900s shut down entirely.
What's your reasons for believing it was successful for its timeframe and not its practices?
Relevant to the discussion.
They would need to increase prices by 20% to double the Crew Payroll. Which if you assume they all make minimum wage would put them close to $15/hour.
That's actually very interesting. Can you provide how you arrived at the 20% increase in prices to double the crew payroll?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked