Fast Food Workers Go On Strike For Higher Pay From The Business Men

Not everyone is as lucky as you are. Your job comes with no insurance; mine does. You're rolling the dice with your career; I'm not. But if it works for you, then God Bless you.

 

At a guess: cheap beer, cheap pot, the latest Smartphone, and parties.

 

Wasn't luck.

HA, I have health insurance if that is what you mean. Insurance against what? I drive my own career I don't let others do it for me, that means risk that also means more reward. Why should people who refuse to take such risk or better their own skills have a claim to same rewards as me?

 

I wasn't talking about health insurance. You serve at the pleasure of the company and if they decide you are no longer worth employing, your gone no matter how good you think you are. If my company wants to terminate my employment, they can, however they have to show just cause in front of an arbitrator. The company decides your career while your in their employ. If you don't like it, then there's the door.

Not everybody wants to come to work having to worry about whether or not they'll have a job the next day regardless of how good they feel they are. If there is going to be a layoff at my job, there is a mechanism in place used to determine who is laid off. In your case, the company gets to pick and chose who they lay off.

But hey, life's an adventure. Get laid off during your 50's; I'm sure at that age companies will scap you up in nothing flat.

If what your doing works for you, then go for it. Me I'll do what works best for me and my family.

 

That's incorrect, many minimum wage employees qualify for food stamps and government health care. The liberals raised the income requirements for welfare in that state, as it is an important swing state in the elections.

That is why these people can afford to strike against their employers, their being subsidized by government to do so.

 

You dad gave you some excellent advice. I told my teens "There's nothing more miserable than getting up in the morning and going to a job you hate, so make sure you get into the line of work where you'll want to get up in the morning and go to work."

 

Where is the "moral" indignation of artificial persons of wealth regarding having to pay taxes on social spending instead of better wages to preclude such a draw on public resources through more socialized, income transfers?

 

And my own.

And if I get another offer of choose to seek won because I no longer think it worth working for them I am gone.

Under a union contract or a state law? Tell me if you decide to quit do you have to show just cause before you can do it?

RFOL, no they do not. Just as the company I worked for for 26 years did not. They can make decisions about my current employment but not my career. They are just a part of it. My career has transgressed through several employers all but one of which I left completely on my own, the one of 26 years because of company wide cutbacks during the 2008/2009 recession. It came to haunt them later.

Yes I've closed it on most of my employers as I stated above.

Well if you don't then I probably would not want you working for me because I want every employee worried about the future of the company and it's success and therefore their jobs so that the give the best job they can looking for ways to do it better and more efficiently and to help grow the company. If you merely come to work to collect a paycheck so you don't have to worry about paying this months bills I don't want you.

Yeah I bet not based on your worth to the company but merely how long you have been there.

Depends but why it is better for the company to do it by anything but value to the company. Now that means for the vast majority of cases the more senior people who are better at the job and perform more efficiently at that by this time have proven to be loyal and dependable. But there are cases when the most senior person is not the most productive or dependable. What is in the best interest of the company, keep the less senior but more productive, dependable employee on or keep the more senior but less productive and less dependable?

If the latter how is it fair to the less senior but more productive more dependable employee?

But again why should people who refuse to take such risk or better their own skills have a claim to same rewards as me? As I said when I was in a union it held me back from promotions and raises in pay. And I can assure you the times I have been involved in from a management standpoint union contract negotiations the union management did NOT have the best interest of the workers in mind, they were looking out for themselves.

 

My dad to me "Do everything you can to help your boss get promoted".

 

I believe bearing true witness to a federal doctrine and State laws, simply for the sake of the rule of law, is a much more moral solution in modern times.

 

I mean that adhering to the rule of law tends to engender more respect toward the law, than does the rule of men whenever they can reach a quorum.

 

Likewise, I'm free to leave anytime i want if a better opportunity presents itself.

Same here. And i still enjoy the job security that you don't.

Under union contract; i'm private sector. I'm free to leave anytime i want; there are no strings attached.

Yes they do, but you don't realize it. They tell you exactly what you'll do; they decide whether or not you get promoted or a pay increase to name a few. You've had several employers in order to grow in your career; I've had but one and have grown in it without having to leave the company, thus increasing my job security and increasing my pension at the same time.

The problem with your line of thinking is that their are no guarantees for employment. You get to pick and choose who you retain and who you lay off in the event of a layoff no matter how good I might think I am and no matter what the contribution I make to the company. I don't need to come to work knowing whether or not i'm going to have a job based on a arbitrary or capricious decision made by a manager who may not recognize my skill sets.

An experienced employee is always worth more to a company as opposed to a newer employee. The employer who rids themselves of an experienced employee actually hurts the company, not help it.

Because the company has a moral and ethical obligation (and legal in union shops) their senior employees within reason. Obviously if their are grounds for discharge, the company has a right to effect the discharge, but only after proving just cause in front of an arbitrator.

Its fair because they have a vested interest in the company and if the company expects loyalty and the employee to care, they need to show that on their end.

Because its all subjective; for you to assume they are not bettering their skills is mere speculation on your part. I don't know what kind of a union you were in, but in my union, they want us to grow within the company; many of the managers have come from the ranks of the employees and have forged a working partnership with both company and union to ensure the success of the company.

 

So why shouldn't the company be able to go with a better opportunity if it presents itself to them?

No you actually enjoy less because yours is only dependant on years of service, you can't do anything to increase your job security other than be there.

So why can't the company replace you anytime they want no strings attached? I thought it was suppose to be a two way street?

AHH, so your arguement is merely that I am stupid..............................................rather lame.

Well no they don't other than keep bringing in new accounts and make sure the ones you have are happy, other than that I direct my own efforts.

Yes based on my job performance which I control rather than an arbitrary seniority system where a contract says you don't get the promotion you deserve.

Yes I can get pay raises I deserve rather than what a contract says I will get bases only on what the union business manager and the company agree on and if you think that is done with your welfare in mind you are the one being naive.

Yes I have worked in a variety of industries and positions working my way up on my own merits and have done WAY better than what any union contract would have done for me. In 42 years of work I have been out of work a total of 4 months. Once when I decided to move back South and the other the 2008/2009 recession where I spent 3 months negotiating with several employers before choosing which one to go with. I have am fortunate not to have to be under a company pension but have accumulated my own wealth which cannot be revoked or go bankrupt on me and certainly provides a better return for the money.

There is no guaranty to yours and you have to please two masters, the employer and the union.

No I get to choose whom based in part on how good a worker they are, even in the non-union companies seniority does have a role. In your system you can be the best worker yet be the one laid off entirely due to seniority.

You have to come to work thinking that everyone with more seniority gets to stay and you no matter how good a worker will be gone. And that that job promotion you believe you have earned will go to that lazy arse over the because he has more senority, and that pay raise you believe you have earned ain't coming because you are locked into union wage scales.

Not necessarily and in fact once trained in because less and less a factor.

Unless that more experienced employee has failed to keep their skills up and learn new ones as I went through when desktop computers starting being used, I saw many experienced workers unable or unwilling to learn the skills necessary and newer workers who did became more valuable.

And even in non-union companies years of service is always a factor, but not the limiting one.

If the employee can leave at will why shouldn't the company be able to fire at will. What if you wanted to leave the company and you have to go before an arbitrator first?

The company has a vested interested to protect the assets of the investors and provided the best return possible to them. What "vested" interest does the worker have that he can choose tomorrow to quit and the company has no recourse?

It's quite objective and measurable but you're assuming every worker is bettering the skills is not only speculation but specious speculation. I once witnessed a strike at a papermill because the company wanted to train operators to operate more than one type of machine so when their machine went down they could move them over to another machine, the union objected, because it meant fewer workers, saying basically that union workers were to stupid to learn to operate more than one type of machine therefore it presented a safety problem.

I was in two, an electrical and a shipfitters.

Your union wants to make sure it is still around and the business managers get their high pay and expense accounts.

 

That's right except aside from "being there", one must pull his/her own weight and stay current on technology.

Because we have a labor contract that both the company and union agreed to. It is a business contract that both sides agree to go by. If it was so important to the company to replace at will, they would have never allowed seniority language in the contract.

Those are your words, not mine.

Either way, their decision is final whether or not you agree with it.

Again, that's not my experience. Union members in my company regularly receive promotions and merit pay increases, above and beyond what is called for in the contract.

You get your pay raise when your boss say's that its ok; could be two years, three or more. I know of people in non-union shops who've gone 5 years without any type of raise. Btw, we have no business managers in my union. All union officials are elected by the rank and file; many are volunteer positions.

I have been fortunate enough to have worked under a company-union negotiated pension plan (which is guaranteed) and also under a 401.k program which the company likewise matches dollar for dollar what i put in along with a balloon payment once per year and like you I get to make sound investment choices so I get a better return on money i invest. That coupled with social security ensure that when i reach retirement age, money should not be an issue.

I have no master to satisfy; unless you consider going to work and doing your job as satisfying your master. The union is not my master; in fact if i'm not happy with their work performance, I can vote them out of office. You cannot do that with your master at your job can you?

Unlike non-union companies, we rarely have bad workers; if they are bad, they don't last too long as the company has the right to fire non-productive employees. They just have to prove just cause in front of an arbitrator.

People aren't promoted at my company based on seniority, rather based on merit; wage scales are minimum payments; many of us are above minimum scale due to merit increases.

Our members are encouraged to learn new technology since their jobs demand it and 99% do it. The union also offers free training courses for members desiring to additionally enhance their job set skills.

It might be a factor, but the company has the final say. There are no guarantees.

Again, the company has a labor contract, which is a business contract with the employees. Both sides have agreed to this mechanism; if the company didn't agree, no one forces them to include it in the labor contract.

If that was important to the company, they'd insist on non-compete clauses in the labor agreement. In my company this is not an issue.

If it was a violation of the labor agreement, then the workers had every right to engage in a work stoppage. It all depends on what relevant language is contained in the labor agreement. The union's job is to try to keep their members working without putting the company out of business. I'd love to see the quote where the union allegedly said their members were "stupid" to lean more then one type of machine based on a safety issue.

I've never been in any of those unions; mine is a broadcast union.

Again, as I mentioned above, we have no business managers in my union; everyone who represents us are elected from the ranks and have no fancy expense accounts either. Many of them work part time on a volunteer basis because they believe in the labor movement and it helps to keep our dues to a reasonable level.

 

Which is unique to unions especially manufacturing and industry unions.

But let's say the affiliate you work at, let's say you run audio, tis owned by a group which owns 6 others. There is union contract covering all the labor agreements and it is coming up for negotiation. Now your station has been suffering in the ratings as your town has been shrinking and revenue is down and all the workers at your station say we don't want or need an increase we want to keep the station open. The groups has said that if cost go up there they will shut that station down. The union says no, every affiliate has to operate under the same agreement because if we start to let each negotiate it's own we lose power. The workers at your station write letters to the union expressing what they want, to go on the air and stated it and write letters to the paper. But no the union says we don't care what the majority of workers there want. So the contract is signed and your station is closed.

That happened in the paper industry.

 

The Business man is in business to make money, not pay for the welfare of others.

If you are suggesting to blackmail the Business man into raise wages, because if he doesn't then he will be taxed more to pay for their welfare, then that is immoral and cannot be fruitful in a Christian country.

The Business man has tax loopholes and any of this "social spending" you speak of gets passed on to the middle classes tax burden.

The Constitution of the United States of America grants this Economic Freedom to the Business Man, as he is the Job Creator and bares the burden of protecting America's Success through Capitalism.

 

You seem to be missing the point about artificial persons complaining about taxes instead of a form of minimum wage that can lower that cost to the private sector. The question becomes, what is an optimal minimum wage.

 

The minimum wage is presently optimal for Business men, they do not pay for the welfare that supplements the working poor.

They have tax loopholes, so those tax burdens go onto the middle class. Since they are in the business to profit at the lowest cost to the private sector, then the formula works that is why the minimum wage is presently in place.

 

Then whence any complaint about social spending for the least wealthy?

 

The middle class are whining that they don't want to pay the full tax burden any longer, and this administration is starting to spread a new ideology about 'taxing the rich'

But this all harms the free market, as the rich are the economic engines of America.

 

What about correcting for market inefficiencies through public sector intervention in private sector markets?

 

You are right.

What happened in 1960 was that the women began entering the unskilled labor market, eventually doubling the Labor Pool.
Hence, the Laws of Economic cut the wages in accord with Supply and Demand.

The employers in the USA effectively have been getting both the husband and the wife for what previously was a wage paid to unskilled labor that could allow him and his family to exist.

Keeping the Minimum Wage from doubling every 10 years, as it always had in the past, and as does the wages of everyone do even now has been bad for the economy, the family, and for the rising numbers on Welfare and phony Disability Claims.

Check this curve and see the flat plateau starting in 1960, and delaying the doubling of the Minimum Wage to a 15 year wait.