McDonald?s worker arrested after telling company president she can?t afford shoes

[wehateporn]

"A woman who has been employed by the McDonald?s Corporation for over 10 years says she was arrested last week after she confronted the company president at a meeting and told him she couldn?t afford to buy shoes or food for her children"

...

"It?s really hard for me to feed my two kids and struggle day to day,? she shouted as Stratton was speaking. ?Do you think this is fair, that I have to be making $8.25 when I?ve worked for McDonald?s for ten years??"

...

"They just told me, you know, well, you?re being under arrest because you just interrupted, you trespassed the property. You?re just going to go to jail,? "

[the Shemp]

was she barefoot...?

[Brent 3dSexCash]

Maybe she should get a new job? No one is forcing her to stay there.. Or better yet how about not having kids until you have money to afford them.

I dont understand this idea that businesses owe their employees more than what was initially agreed upon. Just because she decided to pump out two kids the business owes her a living to support them?

If it is unfair leave or if you were promised something and didnt get it then sue.

And btw she was arrested for disrupting a private function.

[Cherry7]

Originally Posted by the Shemp

was she barefoot...?

No, but her children were.

[Rochard]

You can see exactly where this is going - She worked for the company for ten years and never made it past the fry station. If you look over her work history she's been late three or four times a month for the past ten years, has been written up for being insubordinate and not obeying company rules, and her twice yearly reviews will include the words "unmotivated" and "not management material".

The fact that we keep hearing she is a "mother of two" says it all. She thinks someone owes her something.

I've worked fast food for seven years; Most of us have. If after ten years you aren't the manager running the place, you either need to take a good careful look at yourself and figure out what you are doing wrong, or get another line of work.

[Tom_PM]

No, you can not see where this is going. You can apply all kinds of reasoning so it fits with your preconceived notions though. Well done.

Who gives a shit? Maybe her "raise" should be advise to quit and find a job where there is a potential to advance. "maybe" a million things. She can bitch if she wants to and so can anyone else.

[AsianDivaGirlsWebDude]

McDonald's own internal study revealed that the current minimum wage is not enough for a single parent working hard to raise a family:





Here is a video from a month ago that includes the same McDonald's employee that was arrested and fired:

A video of a McDonald's worker confronting the president of the fast-food behemoth has gone viral this week, with the help of a fast-food workers' campaign aimed at raising hourly wages to $15.

In the short clip, the worker, Nancy Salgado, a Chicago single mother of two, shouts out to Jeff Stratton, president of McDonald's USA, who was standing at a podium in a ballroom giving a talk.

"It's really hard for me to feed my two kids and struggle day to day. Do you think this is fair, that I have to be making $8.25 when I have worked for McDonald's for 10 years?" Salgado shouts out from the back of the room.

Stratton's response? "I've been there 40 years."

As Salgado calls out that she needs a raise, she is escorted out of the room, and in the video you can hear a voice say, "You're going to be arrested." Later, police reportedly issued her a ticket.

In bringing attention to this video, the Workers Organizing Committee of Chicago, which is helping to build the campaign for $15-per-hour wages, has circulated a press release highlighting the disparity between McDonald's corporate profits ? which totaled $5.5 billion last year ? and workers' wages. According to WOCC, the median wage of cooks, cashiers and crew is $8.94 an hour.

According to an MIT living wage calculator, an adult with one child needs to make $20.86 an hour working full time in the Chicago area to afford the basics.

There's been suggestion on social media that Stratton's response was curt and insensitive. So we reached out to McDonald's to ask him if he would have responded differently to Salgado had the circumstances been different ? say, if she had not barged into a private event and interrupted him.

"Yes, Jeff Stratton was caught off-guard at this church-based event," a McDonald's spokeswoman told us by email.

And why did Stratton bring up his 40 years at McDonald's? Well, it turns out "his 40-year anniversary was that very week, so it was top of mind for him," the spokeswoman said.

The company points out that Stratton first joined McDonald's back in the '70s as a restaurant crew member and has worked his way up.

McDonald's says its history is full of examples of individuals who worked their first job with the company and went on to have successful careers both within and outside of McDonald's.

As for the push from workers for higher hourly wages, McDonald's says it "does not determine wages set by our more than 3,000 U.S. franchisees," according to the company spokeswoman.

At the restaurants run by McDonald's USA ? less than 10 percent of the roughly 14,000 outlets in this country ? the spokeswoman explains, "we pay salaries that begin at minimum wage but range up from that figure, depending on the job and employee's experience level."

This Stephen Colbert piece on the strike is a riot:

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-col...ending-journal

For more info about the strike:

http://fightfor15.org/en/

McDonald's workers deserve a break today!



ADG

[Rochard]

Originally Posted by AsianDivaGirlsWebDude

McDonald's own internal study revealed that the current minimum wage is not enough for a single parent working hard to raise a family....

You think?

Minimum wage entry level jobs aren't meant to raise a family on. Such jobs are for high school kids, seniors working part time, or young people who don't yet qualify for something better.

[kane]

Originally Posted by AsianDivaGirlsWebDude

McDonald's own internal study revealed that the current minimum wage is not enough for a single parent working hard to raise a family:





Here is a video from a month ago that includes the same McDonald's employee that was arrested and fired:





This Stephen Colbert piece on the strike is a riot:

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-col...ending-journal

For more info about the strike:

http://fightfor15.org/en/

McDonald's workers deserve a break today!



ADG

The Colbert video is great. I loved the part where McDonald's tells you to budget $20 per month for health insurance when the cheapest plan they offer is $56 per month.

[nexcom28]

I thought McDonalds employees were supposed to be getting paid $25 an hour?

[Sly]

I missed career day in high school when the counselor told us all that we could pay for a small family with a single salary at an entry-level McDonald's job.

[AsianDivaGirlsWebDude]

Originally Posted by Rochard

You think?

Minimum wage entry level jobs aren't meant to raise a family on. Such jobs are for high school kids, seniors working part time, or young people who don't yet qualify for something better.

That is why I favor a Basic Income system that provides a living wage for all:

A Basic Income system (also called basic income guarantee, unconditional basic income, universal basic income or citizen?s income) is a proposed system of social security that regularly provides each citizen with a sum of money unconditionally.

Basic income is entirely unconditional: the only requirement for receiving it is to be a citizen and/or resident of the country. In contrast, a guaranteed minimum income may be conditional upon participating in government enforced labor or other means testing.

One of the arguments for a basic income was articulated by the French economist and philosopher André Gorz:

...The connection between more and better has been broken; our needs for many products and services are already more than adequately met, and many of our as-yet-unsatisfied needs will be met not by producing more, but by producing differently, producing other things, or even producing less. This is especially true as regards our needs for air, water, space, silence, beauty, time and human contact...

From the point where it takes only 1,000 hours per year or 20,000 to 30,000 hours per lifetime to create an amount of wealth equal to or greater than the amount we create at the present time in 1,600 hours per year or 40,000 to 50,000 hours in a working life, we must all be able to obtain a real income equal to or higher than our current salaries in exchange for a greatly reduced quantity of work...

Neither is it true any longer that the more each individual works, the better off everyone will be. The present crisis has stimulated technological change of an unprecedented scale and speed: 'the micro-chip revolution'. The object and indeed the effect of this revolution has been to make rapidly increasing savings in labour, in the industrial, administrative and service sectors. Increasing production is secured in these sectors by decreasing amounts of labour.

As a result, the social process of production no longer needs everyone to work in it on a full-time basis. The work ethic ceases to be viable in such a situation and work-based society is thrown into crisis...
?André Gorz, Critique of economic Reason, Gallile, 1989

naturalfinance.net describes several benefits from basic income:

The benefits of technology and automation make work less necessary, and are only possible if people can afford the outputs of technology and automation.

Wealth redistribution is the best possible economic development program because the wealthy don't spend as great a portion of their income as the poor do.

Wealth redistribution does not harm the wealthy, because all money is spent until it ends up with a saver. So, taxes paid eventually return to the tax payer.

Basic income is the most efficient possible form of wealth redistribution because there is no bureaucratic overhead needed to filter recipients, or find and punish abusers.

Basic income as an alternative to public retirement pensions (such as social security in the US) is the only possible prevention of generational theft that will occur if the funding sustainability of future retiree pensions and care is threatened

Reduced crime as a result of lower levels of desperation. If loss of income is a consequence of crime, it may in turn create more crime.

Balanced power in the labour market as a result of not needing work out of desperation, and better competitive position of workers if some people choose not to work.

Better work opportunities as a result of people better able to afford an education or business start up.

Smaller government made possible and attractive by the alternative of increased basic income to offset any program cost reduction. Viewed this way, the cost of every government program is paid for equally by each citizen, even if the source of government revenue is progressive income taxation.

Social justice is achieved efficiently and automatically, with less requirement on charity and welfare.

It is easier for volunteer home owners to help the poor and secluded through group homes by being able to rely on their certain income. Its possible and easier for the disadvantaged to group up and help themselves in the same manner.

Natural finance's definition of social dividends (variable basic income: tax revenue surplus over social program expenses) essentially allows the level of basic income paid to citizens to rise with economic, productivity, and automation growth. The affordability of basic income adjusts automatically to the performance of the economy.

A good book on the subject:

Two proposals that would make capitalism much more egalitarian.
Volume V in the acclaimed Real Utopias Project series, edited by Erik Olin Wright.

Are there ways that contemporary capitalism can be rendered a dramatically more egalitarian economic system without destroying its productivity and capacity for growth?

This book explores two proposals, unconditional basic income and stakeholder grants, that attempt just that. In a system of basic income, as elaborated by Philippe van Parijs, all citizens are given a monthly stipend sufficient to provide them with a no-frills but adequate standard of living.

This monthly income is universal rather than means-tested, and it is unconditional ? receiving the basic income does not depend upon performing any labor services or satisfying other conditions. It affirms the idea that as a matter of basic rights, no one should live in poverty in an affluent society.

In a system of stakeholder grants, as discussed by Bruce Ackerman and Anne Alstott, all citizens upon reaching the age of early adulthood receive a substantial one-time lump-sum grant sufficiently large so that all young adults would be significant wealth holders. Ackerman and Alstott propose that this grant be in the vicinity of $80,000 and be financed by an annual wealth tax of roughly 2 percent.

A system of stakeholder grants, they argue, ?expresses a fundamental responsibility: every American has an obligation to contribute to a fair starting point for all.?

ADG

[L-Pink]

Originally Posted by Rochard

You can see exactly where this is going - She worked for the company for ten years and never made it past the fry station. If you look over her work history she's been late three or four times a month for the past ten years, has been written up for being insubordinate and not obeying company rules, and her twice yearly reviews will include the words "unmotivated" and "not management material".

The fact that we keep hearing she is a "mother of two" says it all. She thinks someone owes her something.

I've worked fast food for seven years; Most of us have. If after ten years you aren't the manager running the place, you either need to take a good careful look at yourself and figure out what you are doing wrong, or get another line of work.

Originally Posted by Rochard

You think?

Minimum wage entry level jobs aren't meant to raise a family on. Such jobs are for high school kids, seniors working part time, or young people who don't yet qualify for something better.

Holy shit! Rochard and I agree on something! I'm logging out.


.

[Rochard]

Originally Posted by L-Pink

Holy shit! Rochard and I agree on something! I'm logging out.


.

Holy shit. The sky is falling. Buy lottery tickets today.

[Rochard]

Originally Posted by AsianDivaGirlsWebDude

That is why I favor a Basic Income system that provides a living wage for all:

This is wrong. This is rewarding people for having zero motivation. Or doing nothing at all.

Why should I bother doing a good job when I am guaranteed a basic income? I want my shoes, I want my car, I want my flat screen fucking TV, but I only want to work a entry level job position for the rest of my life.

Can't afford shoes, but I bet ya she she has both a smart phone AND a flat screen TV.

[AsianDivaGirlsWebDude]

Originally Posted by Rochard

This is wrong. This is rewarding people for having zero motivation. Or doing nothing at all.

Why should I bother doing a good job when I am guaranteed a basic income?

That is an understandable first reaction to the concept of Basic Income.

I suggest you read more about Basic Income to understand what it is before you reject it out-of-hand based upon how the current system operates (unless you are content with the status quo):

http://www.globalincome.org/English/Global-Basic-Income.html

A Global Basic Income (GBI) is undeniably a high ideal.

From the perspective of the world as it is today most people will probably think it is unrealistic. However, we believe that it can become a reality.

This belief is based first and foremost on our belief in people. People are egoistic; they want what is good for themselves. We don't want to deny that, but we believe that people also want what is good for others. We don't want other people to suffer; we all would prefer to live in a world where everybody can lead a worthy, fulfilling, happy life.

That is the basic conviction that underlies our goals.

The challenge, therefore, is to organise our societies and the world community in such ways, that the fulfilment of our own personal needs does not harm others. A basic income that guarantees every man, woman and child freedom from starvation and degrading poverty would be an important step to achieve this goal.

A few centuries ago almost no one would have believed that universal suffrage or social security systems like the ones we have today would be possible. Yet, here we are. There are no insurmountable obstacles to the introduction of a GBI. All depends on our ideas, will and the choices we as individuals and nations make.

From the FAQ page:

http://www.globalincome.org/English/FAQ.html

1. Why is a GBI given without an obligation to work?

The idea that you have to work to earn, to deserve, an income is rooted deep in our moral feelings and ethical beliefs.

Of course, in countries with developed social security systems there are many people who receive an income without working - elderly people, unemployed people, students - but these allowances depend on work done in the past or on the willingness to do work, now or in the future. Allowances without an obligation to work are only given to people who are not able to do (paid) work. A person, who is able to work but doesn't want to accept a job that is available, lives off of, profits, parasites on the efforts of others. This is the general feeling.

We don't want to argue against the moral intuition that people should work to earn an income. At the same time we advocate a basic income without an obligation to work.

This sounds contradictory, but it isn't. There is a difference between a moral obligation and a formal obligation, installed by law and enforced through sanctions. A formal obligation is often not the best way to make people act in accordance with a moral obligation. This is also true in this case: the moral obligation to work doesn't have to be enforced through law and sanctions. Moreover, it is harmful to the people involved as well as to society. Why?

First of all, no formal obligation and sanctions are needed because people are motivated to work by themselves. We believe that all people have a desire to do something productive.

Doing nothing or only having fun is not satisfactory to any person for a long period of time. People want to make a difference, want to achieve something in life or want to contribute to the community they live in. Therefore, a work motivation doesn't have to be enforced. Such enforcement is a denial of the genuine motivation of people and will only diminish the desire of people to work.

Secondly, a basic income is only for basic needs. It doesn't include money to buy a television, or a car, to pay the membership fees of a club, to buy sports shoes, to take dance courses or to go on holiday.

To buy anything more than what is needed for basic needs, people would still have to work and earn an (extra) income. Few if any people at all will be satisfied with just a GBI. This is the second reason why people will be motivated to work, without a formal obligation.

Despite these strong work motivations, it would probably be difficult to find enough workers for a lot of hard, low-paid work that needs to be done, when people don't depend anymore on work for survival. However, this shouldn't be seen as a problem.

The free market will solve this problem automatically when it is left to do its work. If not enough workers can be found for certain jobs, the working conditions of these jobs have to be improved or the salaries raised until the demand of labour and the supply of labour are in balance again. That is how a free market works. An unconditional basic income will make the labour market freer than it is now.

Forcing people to do hard, underpaid work by threatening them with poverty or even starvation in case of non-compliance, is a practice that has no place in a democratic, free society.

Many people nowadays are unhappy with their work and lives, because of this practice. It constitutes a constant incursion on the democratic values of our societies and on human dignity.

The dependence on work for survival gives richer people and companies too much power over people with little money. A basic income would reduce this imbalance in power. It would end at least extreme forms of exploitation. It would give everybody the freedom to decide according to their own beliefs and wishes about the work they want to do and the contribution they want to make to society.

Apart from the fact that the conditions and quality of paid work would change through the introduction of a basic income, it would also lead to a revaluation of unpaid work. So much unpaid work is done in our societies which is as important or even more important than paid work: raising children, household work, volunteers work for social organisations or people in need, and so on.

A basic income can be seen as recognition of all this important work. It would also constitute a defence line for voluntary work against the pressures of the market.

A formal obligation to work is also harmful to society. First of all because society is a community of people. Therefore, what isn't good for people also isn't good for society. Secondly because society as a whole, its structure, the general living conditions and quality of life, is negatively affected by a formal work obligation.

This negative affect can perhaps best made clear by indicating what would happen if a basic income, without work obligation, is introduced: working conditions will improve, income distribution will become more fair, people would be happier with the work they are doing, voluntary work would flourish, production that is harmful to people and nature would decrease and the overall quality of production would increase.

To recapitulate: the moral obligation to work doesn't have to be enforced through law and sanctions, because people have a will of their own to be productive and, secondly, because people have many desires other than basic needs, for which they need an extra income. Moreover, a formal work obligation negatively affects the lives of many people individually and of society as a whole.

There is an additional, fundamental argument for an unconditional basic income, namely the right of every human being to life.

This right is more fundamental than work ethics. If a person doesn't want to accept a job that is available, this fact doesn't constitute enough reason to deprive this person of the means to live.

Of course, if a formal obligation to work would be necessary to produce enough goods and services so that everybody can live, then such a work obligation would be justified. This brings us back to the previous arguments, which showed that such a necessity doesn't exist.

A last argument supporting the plea for an unconditional basic income is the fact that mechanisation and automation have raised productivity to such levels that only a part of the total labour potential available is needed to produce the goods and services we need. As long as there are more than enough people who like to work and earn money, we don't have to force everybody.

ADG

[PornDiscounts-V]

McDonalds is for kids to work at. Not for women with children. She should get a job at a grocery store as a checker with her cash register skills or as a bank teller. Then she would make $680 a week after taxes, have medical benefits and a retirement plan.

She is a stupid cunt!

[brassmonkey]

Originally Posted by wehateporn

"A woman who has been employed by the McDonald?s Corporation for over 10 years says she was arrested last week after she confronted the company president at a meeting and told him she couldn?t afford to buy shoes or food for her children"

...

"It?s really hard for me to feed my two kids and struggle day to day,? she shouted as Stratton was speaking. ?Do you think this is fair, that I have to be making $8.25 when I?ve worked for McDonald?s for ten years??"

...

"They just told me, you know, well, you?re being under arrest because you just interrupted, you trespassed the property. You?re just going to go to jail,? "

she broke the law it's not his fault get another job. stop breeding and save money

[L-Pink]

Come on ADG, what's next? Paperboy's need a living wage. Teenagers mowing lawns? Babysitters? Bleeding hearts only go so far before they look stupid!


.

[jigg]

Originally Posted by AsianDivaGirlsWebDude

That is why I favor a Basic Income system that provides a living wage for all:







A good book on the subject:







ADG

Switzerland is looking into this, doling out 2500 CHF a month to almost everyone

I don't see where we'd find ~$5.8 trillion a year from if you assume 170mil 18+ people that would get $2800/month

[DiamonMike]

Minimum wage = "I would pay you less, but thats against the law"

[Si]

Just remember, every time you buy something, you're voting for that thing you purchase.

McDs can suck my clagnuts no matter what they get upto. These greaseball scum cunts have been feeding people utter shit for years.

[noshit]

lol at all the bleeding heart democrat Authoritarians in this thread.
Trash her for having kids and wanting more money at her job... but so anxious to help 'her' with signing her 5th amendment rights away through Obamacare

[brassmonkey]

Originally Posted by Si

Just remember, every time you buy something, you're voting for that thing you purchase.

McDs can suck my clagnuts no matter what they get upto. These greaseball scum cunts have been feeding people utter shit for years.

it cleans your insides i stopped eating there. that big and tasty would make me sick

[jigg]

Originally Posted by noshit

lol at all the bleeding heart democrat Authoritarians in this thread.
Trash her for having kids and wanting more money at her job... but so anxious to help 'her' with signing her 5th amendment rights away through Obamacare

now tell us how exactly obamacare gets you to sign away your 5th amendment rights

[AsianDivaGirlsWebDude]

Originally Posted by L-Pink

Come on ADG, what's next? Paperboy's need a living wage. Teenagers mowing lawns? Babysitters? Bleeding hearts only go so far before they look stupid!


.

Although I consider myself a compassionate person, I doubt that most people who know me would call me a bleeding heart, since that implies weakness, and I consider my compassion a strength, and myself a strong independent-minded progressive.

Six years studying Humanities in college (with an emphasis on Philosophy, Psychology, Sociology, History, and Anthropology), made me look at social problems and issues of crime and poverty from a variety of different perspectives, and led me towards a path that seeks to genuinely understand people and to want to help build a better society.

Also, prior to college I served six years in the Navy (I joined at 17 years old), which tends to beat the bleeding heart out of you, lol.

Perhaps my world view is a little different than yours because I have had the benefit of having lived a long time, and visited many very different cultures, including ones where I lived as a discriminated-against minority, so my education and experience, coupled with my sincere desire to help build peace and love in the world while I am alive, have given me ideas which I understand are not currently in the mainstream of thought.

In my personal conduct, I've always been strongly self-reliant, so I totally understand where many people who may disagree with me might be coming from (I probably have felt the same as they did at some point in my life).

I think that most people feel that they have had to work hard to get to wherever it is that they think they are. Therefore the attitude prevails, that "since I had to do it the hard way, no one else should complain", along with the general self-perception that we are all the product of our own creation.

To me, life is way more complicated than that, and the current system is clearly broken.

I do not accept that poverty is inevitable, and in fact I believe it is largely preventable. I believe that there are humane solutions to most of the problems which plague humanity in varying forms all over the planet.

More importantly, I believe that human rights need to be vastly expanded so that we create more caring communities and societies, with an emphasis on improving the quality of life for everyone.

Social justice is the cornerstone of peace in my world view.

Regarding the Swiss Basic Income proposal - I read this about it just today:

Within the European Union, a profound awakening of public consciousness is taking place as organizers seek to obtain one million signatures on a petition in favor of a basic income guarantee for all citizens. Under the EU constitution, this number of signatures is required for the proposal to undergo formal study and debate by the European parliament.

In Switzerland, however, voters have seized the initiative through their own petition to have the Swiss government vote on a basic income guarantee of $2,500 Swiss francs per month, equivalent to $2,800 U.S. dollars.

A basic income guarantee is the only economic measure sufficient to resolve the growing worldwide discrepancy of income between those who have and those who don?t. The fact is that the tremendous productivity of modern industry should mean that fewer people should have to work to produce the goods and services everyone needs to survive and even prosper.

This is the fabled ?leisure dividend? that economists promised long ago as the potential of modern industrial methods but that no nation on earth has ever delivered. The reason is that the fruits of the productivity miracle have been stolen by the kingpins of high finance who assure that all profits eventually flow into their own hands rather than the world?s populace.

A basic income guarantee would assure that everyone gets their fair share of a nation?s output by right of birth, as members of the human family. People could then use the stipend as a supplement to their usual income or to study, do volunteer work, start their own business, or just retire early.

The grinches of the world claim, of course, that the only effect would be to encourage laziness and bad habits like drunkenness or drug abuse, but the advocates of a basic income have a much more positive view of human nature than that.

The grinches also claim that nations are too broke for such largess, ignoring the fact that they are broke because they have mortgaged their budgets through borrowing from the private banking system instead of exercising their own sovereign power of money-creation.

Not to mention the huge amount of money wasted worldwide on military spending which is mainly intended to protect the property of rich people and rich nations.

Another good read on the subject for anyone interested:


Basic Income: The Material Conditions of Freedom

Basic Income is a policy idea that could help us revolutionise the way we organise society. This book is the first proper guide to basic income -- what it is, how we can organise it, and how it can benefit the majority in different spheres of their lives.

Basic Income is simply the idea that everyone in a given society has a right to a minimal income. This is paid by the state out of taxation. Set at a subsistence level, it would take the place of unemployment and other benefits. This would bring profound social changes. Anyone could opt out of employment at any time. Those with few skills would no longer be forced to take up jobs with poor prospects, and employers offering McJobs would be forced to offer better terms. And money wasted by the state in means testing and tracing benefit fraud is saved

The campaign in favour of basic income is growing and governments are beginning to take notice. This is a clear, concise guide to the principles and practicalities of this revolutionary idea.

Have a good weekend!



ADG

[tony286]

people dont seem to get, first off i havent seen a kid working in a grocery store,fast food place and delivering food in a long time. Its all adults, they pay min wages, collect big profits and your tax dollars pay for these people.

[baddog]

$15/hour for McD's employees deserve it? What a joke. Stop talking shit. Do you even eat there?

[lock]

Well she thought perhaps nudge she was in an employee only area.

[Rochard]

Originally Posted by AsianDivaGirlsWebDude

That is an understandable first reaction to the concept of Basic Income.

Really?

"The challenge, therefore, is to organise our societies and the world community in such ways, that the fulfilment of our own personal needs does not harm others. "

The fulfillment of my own personal needs does not harm others. (If they are are going to want to change society, at the very least they'll need to learn how to spell.)

"A basic income that guarantees every man, woman and child freedom from starvation and degrading poverty would be an important step to achieve this goal."

So under your system a someone who has made a lifetime of poor decisions and who has been unable to rise above the level of minimum wage at an entry level job is going to be.... rewarded?

I like the system we have now. The pot heads who live next door to me who barely work three hours a day on their mail order business are properly rewarded - two crappy cars and a house they rent.

Don't tell me she can't have what I have - she can. I was a high school drop out who eventually went to night school at age 27. I went to night school with the single moms who put in a little effort and got a college degree.

BTW, the CEO of McDonald's... Has worked for McDonald's for 41 years.

[Rochard]

Originally Posted by tony286

people dont seem to get, first off i havent seen a kid working in a grocery store,fast food place and delivering food in a long time. Its all adults, they pay min wages, collect big profits and your tax dollars pay for these people.

I can't remember the last time I've been to McDonald's - it's been at least two months - but everyone there is under the page of 21.

I have a friend of mine who is 30, a single mom, and makes only slightly more than minimum wage working at a gas station. I've told her over and over again she could do so much better in life if she applied herself, but she's not interested. She lives with her mom, loves her kid, and her basic needs are covered. If she's lucky she'll get married and live out her life with the bare minimums and be happy with it.

I couldn't live like that. I remember being twenty-one and working four jobs daily, including a newspaper route.

[kane]

Originally Posted by Rochard

I can't remember the last time I've been to McDonald's - it's been at least two months - but everyone there is under the page of 21.

I have a friend of mine who is 30, a single mom, and makes only slightly more than minimum wage working at a gas station. I've told her over and over again she could do so much better in life if she applied herself, but she's not interested. She lives with her mom, loves her kid, and her basic needs are covered. If she's lucky she'll get married and live out her life with the bare minimums and be happy with it.

I couldn't live like that. I remember being twenty-one and working four jobs daily, including a newspaper route.

Interestingly enough, I went through the drive-thru of my local McDonald's today. All I saw was the woman who took my money, the guy who handed me my food, and a few people working inside as I waited for the food.

The woman that took my money was clearly an adult. I don't know how old, but I would guess late 20's. The two people working inside that I saw looked like teenagers. I would assume they were high school age. The guy that handed me my food actually went to my high school and graduated a year before me. He had a shirt and tie on so I am assuming that he is now the manager.

I would guess that most McDonald's are like that where most of the workers are younger people who are high school or college age, a few are older and the managers could be just about any age.

Here is one thing that I have noticed that I find interesting. The grocery store that I shop at now has almost no young people working at it. When I first moved here I remember that most of the people who were out collecting the shopping carts in the parking lot and who were stocking shelves and doing jobs like that looked like they were high school age. Now almost all of them look to be into their 20's. I hardly see anyone working there now that is younger. I think when the recession hit eventually the younger people moved on to other jobs and older people who lost their jobs went to work at this store and are still there.

All this said, to me, there is no reason to work at McDonald's for 10 years unless you are working towards owning one or at least being a manager. If I had no real job skills and was in my mid-20's and needed a job and went to work and McDonald's I would also quickly make some choices to decide what I really wanted to do and what kind of career I wanted and I would start working towards that be it going to school to learn the skills or getting a second job learning that trade or whatever it was.

[PiracyPitbull]

Originally Posted by kane

All this said, to me, there is no reason to work at McDonald's for 10 years unless you are working towards owning one or at least being a manager. If I had no real job skills and was in my mid-20's and needed a job and went to work and McDonald's I would also quickly make some choices to decide what I really wanted to do and what kind of career I wanted and I would start working towards that be it going to school to learn the skills or getting a second job learning that trade or whatever it was.

This is it in a nutshell. Too many people take a job that they have absolutely no interest in and wonder why years later, that their pay is almost the same and someone years younger is telling them to straighten their uniform and clean the counters. Any motivated adult in those sectors (retail / FMCG) should be aiming for a management role within two years, unless that is, they really don't care..

It's very hard for me to believe that in those environments (and like many here I started in one of them) that even when starting from scratch, a motivated person wouldn't be in a management position in under two years

[seeandsee]

Imagine now MCdonalds pay checks in shit countries LOLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL

[freecartoonporn]

Originally Posted by seeandsee

Imagine now MCdonalds pay checks in shit countries LOLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL

i was thinking the same. just saw thread , guy from india giving full time workers for 1.25 bucks per hour....

[Roald]

Originally Posted by freecartoonporn

i was thinking the same. just saw thread , guy from india giving full time workers for 1.25 bucks per hour....

yes but look up minimum wage in India, the 1.25/hour aint that bad after all.

http://www.businessinsider.com/a-loo...e-world-2013-8

[just a punk]

Originally Posted by Rochard

You can see exactly where this is going - She worked for the company for ten years and never made it past the fry station. If you look over her work history she's been late three or four times a month for the past ten years, has been written up for being insubordinate and not obeying company rules, and her twice yearly reviews will include the words "unmotivated" and "not management material".

Wow! That's a serious reason to arrest her. I wonder why she hasn't received a life sentence or been fried in the electric chair

[Phoenix]

I get that she shouldn't expect to make a fortune as a low level employee at a fast food restaurant. However, she was at a company meeting. She spoke up and for that she is arrested? surely there is more to the story...she attacked the guy with her shoe...she pulled a gun...she released poison into the coffee.

I didn't know speaking your mind at a company meeting was something you could be arrested for. Fired? sure...but arrested?


Hell in a handcart....no...too late for that. We are there already.

[Oracle Porn]

Originally Posted by Roald

yes but look up minimum wage in India, the 1.25/hour aint that bad after all.

http://www.businessinsider.com/a-loo...e-world-2013-8

prices in india are much cheaper, you live like a king for $1k/month

[kane]

Originally Posted by Phoenix

I get that she shouldn't expect to make a fortune as a low level employee at a fast food restaurant. However, she was at a company meeting. She spoke up and for that she is arrested? surely there is more to the story...she attacked the guy with her shoe...she pulled a gun...she released poison into the coffee.

I didn't know speaking your mind at a company meeting was something you could be arrested for. Fired? sure...but arrested?


Hell in a handcart....no...too late for that. We are there already.

I assume the same. We aren't getting the full story as to why she was arrested.

[kane]

Originally Posted by PiracyPitbull

This is it in a nutshell. Too many people take a job that they have absolutely no interest in and wonder why years later, that their pay is almost the same and someone years younger is telling them to straighten their uniform and clean the counters. Any motivated adult in those sectors (retail / FMCG) should be aiming for a management role within two years, unless that is, they really don't care..

It's very hard for me to believe that in those environments (and like many here I started in one of them) that even when starting from scratch, a motivated person wouldn't be in a management position in under two years

Over the years I have worked at a lot of different places. I am always looking for a way to better myself and move up the company ladder. Every place I have worked there have always been a number of people who have been there for years, don't make much money, complain about being broke but do nothing about it. I just don't understand it.

[wehateporn]

I wouldn't be surprised if she was paid to do this as part of a setup, so as the video could be used for the 'Living Wage' agenda

[Bryan G]

Originally Posted by tony286

people dont seem to get, first off i havent seen a kid working in a grocery store,fast food place and delivering food in a long time. Its all adults, they pay min wages, collect big profits and your tax dollars pay for these people.

Maybe where you are. There is a ton of kids working in grocery stores, fast food restaurants, etc here.

[mineistaken]

Originally Posted by Brent 3dSexCash

Maybe she should get a new job? No one is forcing her to stay there.. Or better yet how about not having kids until you have money to afford them.

Tell hat to left wingers and democrat voters

[Rochard]

Originally Posted by CyberSEO

Wow! That's a serious reason to arrest her. I wonder why she hasn't received a life sentence or been fried in the electric chair

She wasn't arrested because she was bad employee. She was arrested because she broke into a meeting and was trespassing.

You can protest outside my house all you want. But you don't break in and do it from my living room.

[fuzebox]

Originally Posted by kane

Here is one thing that I have noticed that I find interesting. The grocery store that I shop at now has almost no young people working at it. When I first moved here I remember that most of the people who were out collecting the shopping carts in the parking lot and who were stocking shelves and doing jobs like that looked like they were high school age. Now almost all of them look to be into their 20's. I hardly see anyone working there now that is younger. I think when the recession hit eventually the younger people moved on to other jobs and older people who lost their jobs went to work at this store and are still there.

I don't know how it is everywhere, but being from Vancouver, all the grocery stores are union and pay very well. That's considered a great job to land for unskilled people.

[SuckOnThis]

I can see both sides to this.

On one hand we have a system where the wolves have been turned loose on the sheep without restraint and now the sheep are rebelling. Not everyone has the desire and/or is capable of being king of the castle so should those that don't place money above everything else be made to not have basic living requirements met? Should those sheep be slaughtered? The system is not setup nor could it sustain 300 million wolves so the people that argue that they just go get a better paying job are not living in reality IMO. Thankfully I personally havent had to try to find a job in over 20 years, but looking back it wasnt that easy even with a degree and I imagine things are much harder now. Thankfully I took the path I did, but I have always been one to think outside the box and to take chances. Not everyone is capable of the same and if they were I most likely would have been fucked. Bottom line, the current system we have encourages greed and to screw over others to get ahead and to those that don't have that in them, well good luck. What we are witnessing now is a massive redistribution of wealth to the very few at the expense of the majority. If we keep heading down the current path a lot of top economists thinks the US will be a 3rd world country by 2030.

On the other hand a system that rewards no one and gives everyone the same standard of living regardless, discourages growth, inventiveness, and kills the entrepreneurial spirit. We have seen this played out in communistic societies and that type of culture seems awfully grey and boring. Why invent a better mousetrap if there is no reward?

Seems to me there are very few options. Having a minimum wage that allows one to provide basic needs is a good start, educating our youth beyond how to push a broom is another. There are plenty of other things but having a class of people with no hope is a recipe for disaster.

[epitome]

Originally Posted by vvvvv

McDonalds is for kids to work at. Not for women with children. She should get a job at a grocery store as a checker with her cash register skills or as a bank teller. Then she would make $680 a week after taxes, have medical benefits and a retirement plan.

She is a stupid cunt!

$680/wk after taxes as a bank teller?

Last bank teller I knew was making like $14/hr (with OK benefits). That is less than $30k on a 40 hour week. $560/wk before taxes.

Certainly more than McDonald's, but not clearing $680/wk.

[jack-exploitedbabysitters]

Seriously can mcdonalds afford to pay people more? At the end of the day people want fast and cheap food, you can't pay workers 20 bucks a hour and have a 99cents menu.

[AsianDivaGirlsWebDude]

Originally Posted by jack-exploitedbabysitters

Seriously can mcdonalds afford to pay people more? At the end of the day people want fast and cheap food, you can't pay workers 20 bucks a hour and have a 99cents menu.

Poor MickeyD's... In 2012, McDonald's Corporation had annual revenues of $27.5 billion, and profits of $5.5 billion.

Everyone's going nuts about a Huffington Post story that McDonald's could double wages for all of its employees, including its very well-paid CEO, and pay for this increase by raising the price of a Big Mac by only 68 cents.

Those who would like McDonald's to pay its employees enough to live on love this idea.

And what's not to love?

Finally, McDonald's full-time restaurant employees would not have to suffer the ignominy and hardship of being poor in addition to having to work at McDonald's. Finally, McDonald's restaurants would be staffed by folks who felt proud and lucky to work there. Finally, America's "McJobs" problem, in which middle-class manufacturing jobs are being replaced by low-paying retail service jobs, would be getting addressed at the source. And, finally, America's strapped consumers, some of whom are McDonald's employees, would have more money to spend ? and that money might accelerate revenue growth for not just McDonald's (employees eat there, too), but many other companies.

Those who have bought into the "profit maximization" obsession that has taken over American business culture over the past 30 years, however, hate this idea.

McDonald's shouldn't pay its employees a penny more than it absolutely has to, these folks say. It's not McDonald's fault that those employees have no skills and aren't worth more than $7.25 an hour.

McDonald's should pay those people as little as possible and deliver as much profit as possible to its shareholders. The only purpose of a company, after all, is to make money for its shareholders. And McDonald's should absolutely not raise the price of its Big Macs by so much as a penny, because then it would sell fewer of them!

Those are the two schools of thought on the McDonald's-doubling-wages talk.

But there is another possibility here ? one that, in this profit-obsessed country, no one is even considering.

That possibility is that McDonald's could double its restaurant-worker wages and not increase its prices at all ... but instead just make a little less money. In other words, it could better balance the interests of all three of its stakeholders ? shareholders, customers, and employees ? instead of shafting employees to deliver as much profit as possible to shareholders.

According to the Kansas City researcher who did the original wages-to-Big Mac study, McDonald's spends about 17% of U.S. revenue on employee salaries and benefits.

If that ratio holds true worldwide, McDonald's would have spent about $4.7 billion on salaries and benefits last year, on revenue of $27 billion. Meanwhile, the company made about $8.5 billion of operating income. (This is for the corporate parent, not the franchises.).

If McDonald's doubled the wages of its restaurant employees (not management, which is presumably very well-compensated), it might add, say, another $3 billion of annual expenses. This would knock its operating profit down to a still healthy $5.5 billion.

Importantly, however, $5.5 billion is still a lot of money. McDonald's would still be very profitable.

Big Macs would still cost the same as they do today (billions and billions would still be served!)

McDonald's managers would still take home their impressive salaries.

And McDonald's restaurant employees would, finally, rise above the poverty line. And their extra spending money would quickly be spent on other products and services, thus helping the whole economy.

By paying these higher wages, McDonald's would also be able to hire the best restaurant workers in the whole economy, thus presumably improving the McDonald's experience for customers and reducing turnover and retraining costs.

So, how about it McDonald's? How about doubling your restaurant employees' wages and just making less money? Your employees will be in great shape. And your shareholders will still do just fine.

ADG