Fast Food Workers Striking?!?!?

Fullsterkur_woman

I'm so glad to hear you say that, so many people graduate with a 4-year degree in Byzantine Romantic Prose and wonder where their 50k/year start off job was.

I myself studied in high school, worked out a lot and got really good at throwing a rock a very far distance, then I went to College and was paid to get a degree in Petroleum Engineering with a minor in Economics (why???? because that paid the most upon graduation) I'm 29 years old, and I made well into 6-figures last year and will for the rest of my life....why? because I made good decisions in life.

I won't even hold it against you that you're an Aggie. No really, my best friend is an Aggie, and I wouldn't trust my cats to any vet that wasn't an Aggie.

See, smart choice of major. And I didn't have the value of a student athlete to bring to the table, so I didn't get any of the stuff you did related to that.

Edit to add that I spend quite a bit of time playing with rocks myself these days, and if I could only go back in time 25 years knowing what I know now, things might have gone very differently for me in school!

jonnythan

Just to show how ignorant most of the people in this thread are of the very basics of labor actions such as strikes, McDonald's can't simply fire all these people. It would literally be illegal.

Now, by all means, continue this incredibly stupid "debate" full of BS and people who don't know a damn thing about economics, labor action, social stratification, etc.

SteveJWatson

I thought they were striking to have the minimum wage law changed to $15/hr? If not, then your'e correct, they have the ability to strike, and McDonald's should fire them all; I doubt it would be AS extremely unwise of a business decision as doubling the pay of your least skilled workers

Let's examine this theory, since a number of people are saying how easily McDonalds could replace it's front line workforce.

Today McDonalds fires all store employees.

Well first they'd have to close every store. And they'd need to hire people to just to do that. Can't have food sitting around in empty buildings indefinitely. So as of this moment they are generating $0 in revenue and spending money on top of that.

All the supplies they have planned for future sales are wasted. All the questionable beef, all the dehydrated onion bits, all of it is a loss for the company.

As far as public relations goes their image, that they spend millions to maintain, has taken a giant hit. You can't put into numbers what something like this would do to the company.

McDonald's will remain shut down for weeks or longer, as they attempt to find, hire, and train millions of new employees. All without any former employees there to guide them. In many ways they'd be starting from scratch as a company. No revenue is being generated and massive expenses are being racked up.

The losses would reach into the billions, they honestly might never recover.

All because some of you find these front line employees to be useless jackholes who can be replaced in a day. You sure about that?

Well first of all McDonalds would give the an ultimatium of go back to work or you are replace.

I bet over half the works are BSing this strike and just piggy backing it for more money and would go back to work or else be out of work.

They they hire more while working on reduced staffs at minimum wage. It is not all the complicated. People will crumble over the pressure of losing their job if they truly need it.

Isn't teenage unemployment in the 20%'s? isn't black teenage %'s in the 30%'s? these people couldn't fill those positions making $7.25/hr? living with roommates or mom and dad?

I have no idea what you are saying.

i meant to quote the guy who said that McDonald's couldn't replace their workers if they all went on strike, I was saying A) they wouldn't ALL go on strike, yes they could, from the hugely unemployed numbers of teens

gotcha, I agree :glasses:

Except if they could then the threat of a strike would be meaningless, wouldn't it?

NinjadURbacon

I thought they were striking to have the minimum wage law changed to $15/hr? If not, then your'e correct, they have the ability to strike, and McDonald's should fire them all; I doubt it would be AS extremely unwise of a business decision as doubling the pay of your least skilled workers

Let's examine this theory, since a number of people are saying how easily McDonalds could replace it's front line workforce.

Today McDonalds fires all store employees.

Well first they'd have to close every store. And they'd need to hire people to just to do that. Can't have food sitting around in empty buildings indefinitely. So as of this moment they are generating $0 in revenue and spending money on top of that.

All the supplies they have planned for future sales are wasted. All the questionable beef, all the dehydrated onion bits, all of it is a loss for the company.

As far as public relations goes their image, that they spend millions to maintain, has taken a giant hit. You can't put into numbers what something like this would do to the company.

McDonald's will remain shut down for weeks or longer, as they attempt to find, hire, and train millions of new employees. All without any former employees there to guide them. In many ways they'd be starting from scratch as a company. No revenue is being generated and massive expenses are being racked up.

The losses would reach into the billions, they honestly might never recover.

All because some of you find these front line employees to be useless jackholes who can be replaced in a day. You sure about that?

Well first of all McDonalds would give the an ultimatium of go back to work or you are replace.

I bet over half the works are BSing this strike and just piggy backing it for more money and would go back to work or else be out of work.

They they hire more while working on reduced staffs at minimum wage. It is not all the complicated. People will crumble over the pressure of losing their job if they truly need it.

Except they can't can they, because if they did and the workers stayed out they would be screwed. hence the barganing position of the workforce, hence why striking is an effective barganing tool. If they could be replaced, they would, McDonalds are not holding onto them out of some sense of civic duty. Why must this point be repeated over and over and yet still people dont get it.

Yes they can, because not all workers are striking. I saw several new footages with workers striking in the fast food place and people behind the counter still. Workers are not in a bargaining position. They are essentially poking a giant with a stick saying we will take you down. It will not work.

ElliottTN

woahohohoho

I worked in the service industry in high school. So this isn't an elitist, "us vs them" viewpoint by any means, and it insults my intelligence that you would assume such. Then *poof* I'm a college student. Guess what, that *poof* isn't luck or a handout or me sitting around waiting for someone to give me a bucket o' cash. This is hard work and aspirations.

Typically I wouldn't make this personal, because anecdotal evidence is useless. But chose to use yourself as an example, soooo...

Ok. Do tell. You went to college. Was it because:


A. Your parents paid for it
B. Student loans paid for it (government assistance)
C. You earned the money through your service industry job


Because A is luck, B is a handout, and C is nearly impossible.

So which is it?

Everyone loves to take all the credit for their accomplishments. They tend to forget all the help they received along the way.

How is B a handout? A loan is something you pay back with interest.

Do you really believe in a capitalist society someone would give you a loan that big to bet on you succeeding in life without any collateral?

Student loans are handouts because they are government backed loans with very low interest rate that the government guarantees the financial institution will be paid one way or another. If the student fails to pay it and defaults the company gets to write it off in their taxes and still go after the student for payment it's a nice business plan with little risk.

So maybe I'm missing how it's considered a handout.

WendyTerry420

Long story short - I worked my *kitten* off in fast food. Receive flack from customers (drinks thrown at me, etc), ****ty treatment, all for $8.00 an hour until I finally got my pay raise (about two months after promised, ONLY because I asked daily.) Everyone treats the hamburger flippers like ****, when all they're trying to do is get a paycheck to support themselves.

BS. Like fast food workers are the only people who get ****ty treatment in their jobs? Try the pressure in the business world. Try working a job where giving back wrong change or burning the food aren't your biggest disasters.

You just helped me validate the point that fast food workers are worth minimum wage. My employer pays me more because I CAN'T make mistakes. To some of us, a mistake could cause someone to die, cost people thousands of dollars or cut off power to a whole city. That is why some of the workforce is worth more pay than others.

Oh, no kidding! Most employees are treated like crap. Welcome to reality!

SteveJWatson

Just to show how ignorant most of the people in this thread are of the very basics of labor actions such as strikes, McDonald's can't simply fire all these people. It would literally be illegal.

Now, by all means, continue this incredibly stupid "debate" full of BS and people who don't know a damn thing about economics, labor action, social stratification, etc.

Even if they could fire them all (within the framework of the law) they couldn't fire them all without taking a huge financial hit. Hence striking is an effective barganing tool and has been even before the introduction of labour laws.

ajaxe432

Just to show how ignorant most of the people in this thread are of the very basics of labor actions such as strikes, McDonald's can't simply fire all these people. It would literally be illegal.

Now, by all means, continue this incredibly stupid "debate" full of BS and people who don't know a damn thing about economics, labor action, social stratification, etc.

you angry?

NinjadURbacon

I thought they were striking to have the minimum wage law changed to $15/hr? If not, then your'e correct, they have the ability to strike, and McDonald's should fire them all; I doubt it would be AS extremely unwise of a business decision as doubling the pay of your least skilled workers

Let's examine this theory, since a number of people are saying how easily McDonalds could replace it's front line workforce.

Today McDonalds fires all store employees.

Well first they'd have to close every store. And they'd need to hire people to just to do that. Can't have food sitting around in empty buildings indefinitely. So as of this moment they are generating $0 in revenue and spending money on top of that.

All the supplies they have planned for future sales are wasted. All the questionable beef, all the dehydrated onion bits, all of it is a loss for the company.

As far as public relations goes their image, that they spend millions to maintain, has taken a giant hit. You can't put into numbers what something like this would do to the company.

McDonald's will remain shut down for weeks or longer, as they attempt to find, hire, and train millions of new employees. All without any former employees there to guide them. In many ways they'd be starting from scratch as a company. No revenue is being generated and massive expenses are being racked up.

The losses would reach into the billions, they honestly might never recover.

All because some of you find these front line employees to be useless jackholes who can be replaced in a day. You sure about that?

Well first of all McDonalds would give the an ultimatium of go back to work or you are replace.

I bet over half the works are BSing this strike and just piggy backing it for more money and would go back to work or else be out of work.

They they hire more while working on reduced staffs at minimum wage. It is not all the complicated. People will crumble over the pressure of losing their job if they truly need it.

Isn't teenage unemployment in the 20%'s? isn't black teenage %'s in the 30%'s? these people couldn't fill those positions making $7.25/hr? living with roommates or mom and dad?

I have no idea what you are saying.

i meant to quote the guy who said that McDonald's couldn't replace their workers if they all went on strike, I was saying A) they wouldn't ALL go on strike, yes they could, from the hugely unemployed numbers of teens

gotcha, I agree :glasses:

Except if they could then the threat of a strike would be meaningless, wouldn't it?

It all depends on the strike. A political strike means the shut down of government and programs (when city workers strike). When fast food people strike they are replaced. It comes down to the money. Does a company take a couple million dollar loss or pay out millions from this point on? They take the millions loss now and save multi millions over the next 100+ years.

ObstacleRacer

I thought they were striking to have the minimum wage law changed to $15/hr? If not, then your'e correct, they have the ability to strike, and McDonald's should fire them all; I doubt it would be AS extremely unwise of a business decision as doubling the pay of your least skilled workers

Let's examine this theory, since a number of people are saying how easily McDonalds could replace it's front line workforce.

Today McDonalds fires all store employees.

Well first they'd have to close every store. And they'd need to hire people to just to do that. Can't have food sitting around in empty buildings indefinitely. So as of this moment they are generating $0 in revenue and spending money on top of that.

All the supplies they have planned for future sales are wasted. All the questionable beef, all the dehydrated onion bits, all of it is a loss for the company.

As far as public relations goes their image, that they spend millions to maintain, has taken a giant hit. You can't put into numbers what something like this would do to the company.

McDonald's will remain shut down for weeks or longer, as they attempt to find, hire, and train millions of new employees. All without any former employees there to guide them. In many ways they'd be starting from scratch as a company. No revenue is being generated and massive expenses are being racked up.

The losses would reach into the billions, they honestly might never recover.

All because some of you find these front line employees to be useless jackholes who can be replaced in a day. You sure about that?

Well first of all McDonalds would give the an ultimatium of go back to work or you are replace.

I bet over half the works are BSing this strike and just piggy backing it for more money and would go back to work or else be out of work.

They they hire more while working on reduced staffs at minimum wage. It is not all the complicated. People will crumble over the pressure of losing their job if they truly need it.

Except they can't can they, because if they did and the workers stayed out they would be screwed. hence the barganing position of the workforce, hence why striking is an effective barganing tool. If they could be replaced, they would, McDonalds are not holding onto them out of some sense of civic duty. Why must this point be repeated over and over and yet still people dont get it.

Because they aren't very bright, plain and simple.

They are the ones saying, "You could replace all of them tomorrow with no problem!" When it's shown to them that in reality that's not the case they switch to, "Well..you know..keep some of them...most of them really..then just get some high school kids."

As stated earlier (by someone else who did a great job of tricking me with sarcasm) how are these high school employees supposed to serve lunch and breakfast? Typically the most profitable times for fast food. Ohhh I thought that's what these jobs were designed for?! High school kids, right?

Logic escapes some people. They're too busy patting themselves on the back for being smarter than fast food employees.

den1eser

I completely agree

WendyTerry420

I thought they were striking to have the minimum wage law changed to $15/hr? If not, then your'e correct, they have the ability to strike, and McDonald's should fire them all; I doubt it would be AS extremely unwise of a business decision as doubling the pay of your least skilled workers

Let's examine this theory, since a number of people are saying how easily McDonalds could replace it's front line workforce.

Today McDonalds fires all store employees.

Well first they'd have to close every store. And they'd need to hire people to just to do that. Can't have food sitting around in empty buildings indefinitely. So as of this moment they are generating $0 in revenue and spending money on top of that.

All the supplies they have planned for future sales are wasted. All the questionable beef, all the dehydrated onion bits, all of it is a loss for the company.

As far as public relations goes their image, that they spend millions to maintain, has taken a giant hit. You can't put into numbers what something like this would do to the company.

McDonald's will remain shut down for weeks or longer, as they attempt to find, hire, and train millions of new employees. All without any former employees there to guide them. In many ways they'd be starting from scratch as a company. No revenue is being generated and massive expenses are being racked up.

The losses would reach into the billions, they honestly might never recover.

All because some of you find these front line employees to be useless jackholes who can be replaced in a day. You sure about that?

Well first of all McDonalds would give the an ultimatium of go back to work or you are replace.

I bet over half the works are BSing this strike and just piggy backing it for more money and would go back to work or else be out of work.

They they hire more while working on reduced staffs at minimum wage. It is not all the complicated. People will crumble over the pressure of losing their job if they truly need it.

Except they can't can they, because if they did and the workers stayed out they would be screwed. hence the barganing position of the workforce, hence why striking is an effective barganing tool. If they could be replaced, they would, McDonalds are not holding onto them out of some sense of civic duty. Why must this point be repeated over and over and yet still people dont get it.

My daughter would love to take their jobs.

NinjadURbacon

Just to show how ignorant most of the people in this thread are of the very basics of labor actions such as strikes, McDonald's can't simply fire all these people. It would literally be illegal.

Now, by all means, continue this incredibly stupid "debate" full of BS and people who don't know a damn thing about economics, labor action, social stratification, etc.

you angry?

Ignorant how so? If you do not show up for your shift you are fired? that is really black and white. No grey.

SteveJWatson

I thought they were striking to have the minimum wage law changed to $15/hr? If not, then your'e correct, they have the ability to strike, and McDonald's should fire them all; I doubt it would be AS extremely unwise of a business decision as doubling the pay of your least skilled workers

Let's examine this theory, since a number of people are saying how easily McDonalds could replace it's front line workforce.

Today McDonalds fires all store employees.

Well first they'd have to close every store. And they'd need to hire people to just to do that. Can't have food sitting around in empty buildings indefinitely. So as of this moment they are generating $0 in revenue and spending money on top of that.

All the supplies they have planned for future sales are wasted. All the questionable beef, all the dehydrated onion bits, all of it is a loss for the company.

As far as public relations goes their image, that they spend millions to maintain, has taken a giant hit. You can't put into numbers what something like this would do to the company.

McDonald's will remain shut down for weeks or longer, as they attempt to find, hire, and train millions of new employees. All without any former employees there to guide them. In many ways they'd be starting from scratch as a company. No revenue is being generated and massive expenses are being racked up.

The losses would reach into the billions, they honestly might never recover.

All because some of you find these front line employees to be useless jackholes who can be replaced in a day. You sure about that?

Well first of all McDonalds would give the an ultimatium of go back to work or you are replace.

I bet over half the works are BSing this strike and just piggy backing it for more money and would go back to work or else be out of work.

They they hire more while working on reduced staffs at minimum wage. It is not all the complicated. People will crumble over the pressure of losing their job if they truly need it.

Except they can't can they, because if they did and the workers stayed out they would be screwed. hence the barganing position of the workforce, hence why striking is an effective barganing tool. If they could be replaced, they would, McDonalds are not holding onto them out of some sense of civic duty. Why must this point be repeated over and over and yet still people dont get it.

Yes they can, because not all workers are striking. I saw several new footages with workers striking in the fast food place and people behind the counter still. Workers are not in a bargaining position. They are essentially poking a giant with a stick saying we will take you down. It will not work.

How do you know? Have you any idea of scabs Vs Strikers in terms of numbers. If it was no threat then it would hardly be newsworthy.

jonnythan

Just to show how ignorant most of the people in this thread are of the very basics of labor actions such as strikes, McDonald's can't simply fire all these people. It would literally be illegal.

Now, by all means, continue this incredibly stupid "debate" full of BS and people who don't know a damn thing about economics, labor action, social stratification, etc.

you angry?

I am a little bit, yeah. I posted on my wall a little while ago that privilegd white folk who think they attained their position in society through nothing but their own darned hard work have joined people who don't vaccinate their kids on my list of people who make me unreasonably angry.

jimethanowen

Exactly, it is entry level work, not meant to be a career unless you are in management!

gmhaggie06

I thought they were striking to have the minimum wage law changed to $15/hr? If not, then your'e correct, they have the ability to strike, and McDonald's should fire them all; I doubt it would be AS extremely unwise of a business decision as doubling the pay of your least skilled workers

Let's examine this theory, since a number of people are saying how easily McDonalds could replace it's front line workforce.

Today McDonalds fires all store employees.

Well first they'd have to close every store. And they'd need to hire people to just to do that. Can't have food sitting around in empty buildings indefinitely. So as of this moment they are generating $0 in revenue and spending money on top of that.

All the supplies they have planned for future sales are wasted. All the questionable beef, all the dehydrated onion bits, all of it is a loss for the company.

As far as public relations goes their image, that they spend millions to maintain, has taken a giant hit. You can't put into numbers what something like this would do to the company.

McDonald's will remain shut down for weeks or longer, as they attempt to find, hire, and train millions of new employees. All without any former employees there to guide them. In many ways they'd be starting from scratch as a company. No revenue is being generated and massive expenses are being racked up.

The losses would reach into the billions, they honestly might never recover.

All because some of you find these front line employees to be useless jackholes who can be replaced in a day. You sure about that?

Well first of all McDonalds would give the an ultimatium of go back to work or you are replace.

I bet over half the works are BSing this strike and just piggy backing it for more money and would go back to work or else be out of work.

They they hire more while working on reduced staffs at minimum wage. It is not all the complicated. People will crumble over the pressure of losing their job if they truly need it.

Except they can't can they, because if they did and the workers stayed out they would be screwed. hence the barganing position of the workforce, hence why striking is an effective barganing tool. If they could be replaced, they would, McDonalds are not holding onto them out of some sense of civic duty. Why must this point be repeated over and over and yet still people dont get it.

Because they aren't very bright, plain and simple.

They are the ones saying, "You could replace all of them tomorrow with no problem!" When it's shown to them that in reality that's not the case they switch to, "Well..you know..keep some of them...most of them really..then just get some high school kids."

As stated earlier (by someone else who did a great job of tricking me with sarcasm) how are these high school employees supposed to serve lunch and breakfast? Typically the most profitable times for fast food. Ohhh I thought that's what these jobs were designed for?! High school kids, right?

Logic escapes some people. They're too busy patting themselves on the back for being smarter than fast food employees.

you do realize that 18 and 19 year olds are by and large out of high school correct??

jonnythan

Just to show how ignorant most of the people in this thread are of the very basics of labor actions such as strikes, McDonald's can't simply fire all these people. It would literally be illegal.

Now, by all means, continue this incredibly stupid "debate" full of BS and people who don't know a damn thing about economics, labor action, social stratification, etc.

you angry?

Ignorant how so? If you do not show up for your shift you are fired? that is really black and white. No grey.

The fact that you don't even know the answer to your question means you should probably just not engage in this conversation in any capacity other than asking questions of people who actually know what they're talking about.

SteveJWatson

I thought they were striking to have the minimum wage law changed to $15/hr? If not, then your'e correct, they have the ability to strike, and McDonald's should fire them all; I doubt it would be AS extremely unwise of a business decision as doubling the pay of your least skilled workers

Let's examine this theory, since a number of people are saying how easily McDonalds could replace it's front line workforce.

Today McDonalds fires all store employees.

Well first they'd have to close every store. And they'd need to hire people to just to do that. Can't have food sitting around in empty buildings indefinitely. So as of this moment they are generating $0 in revenue and spending money on top of that.

All the supplies they have planned for future sales are wasted. All the questionable beef, all the dehydrated onion bits, all of it is a loss for the company.

As far as public relations goes their image, that they spend millions to maintain, has taken a giant hit. You can't put into numbers what something like this would do to the company.

McDonald's will remain shut down for weeks or longer, as they attempt to find, hire, and train millions of new employees. All without any former employees there to guide them. In many ways they'd be starting from scratch as a company. No revenue is being generated and massive expenses are being racked up.

The losses would reach into the billions, they honestly might never recover.

All because some of you find these front line employees to be useless jackholes who can be replaced in a day. You sure about that?

Well first of all McDonalds would give the an ultimatium of go back to work or you are replace.

I bet over half the works are BSing this strike and just piggy backing it for more money and would go back to work or else be out of work.

They they hire more while working on reduced staffs at minimum wage. It is not all the complicated. People will crumble over the pressure of losing their job if they truly need it.

Except they can't can they, because if they did and the workers stayed out they would be screwed. hence the barganing position of the workforce, hence why striking is an effective barganing tool. If they could be replaced, they would, McDonalds are not holding onto them out of some sense of civic duty. Why must this point be repeated over and over and yet still people dont get it.

My daughter would love to take their jobs.

And if they are so replaceable, why doesn't she?

And if she did, dont you think she would deserve a living wage in exchange for her labour?

F00LofaT00K

I just did the math and at a full 40 hours a week at $7.50/hour if you're a single person and need a 1 bedroom apartment, you can live off that no problem.

I would really like to see the math you did... Rent must be REALLY cheap where you live. Here's how I managed at 32 hours on $8 an hour. That is approximately $1,110 per month before taxes.

My net pay ended up being about $950 per month.
My rent was 550 per month for a small, very old studio apartment-it was the cheapest place I could find.

That leaves me with $400 a month for everything else.

I spent about $125 on food.

That leaves me with $275.

My auto insurance was about $30 per month.

$245.

A monthly bus pass cost me $90 a month.

$155.

I had a $10 per month phone plan. This was a necessity in case work could offer me more hours.

$145.

Electric cost me around $50. It was around $35 in spring through fall and around $70-$80 in winter.

That brings the rest of my money down to $95.

My monthly insurance premium was $46. I have a couple of medical conditions where I NEED to see a doctor.

This leaves me with $49 at the end of each month.

A copay for a prescription that I NEED for asthma is $30 per month.

This left me with $19 a month.

I still have a $345 payment for student loans. I couldn't get myself even a very old car +auto insurance to give me reliable transportation to work. Explain to me how that $19 will cover whatever copays I have for my doctors visits? How will that allow me to get a new pair of pants for work because the cheap pair I got from good will for $3 has a hole now... which is against company dress code? How does that let me save up for an emergency? If I got hurt at work and had to miss a month for recovery... how would that allow me to keep my crappy apartment and pay my electric bill?

I would VERY much like to see the math you did where you discovered a single person can live off of $7.50 an hour.