McDonald's is helping their employees
Options
Replies
-
So I'm assuming everyone who thinks McD's is paying their employees enough also have no problem with paying for all the gov't benefits those employees get because of their "fair wage"?
But what is a fair wage for a no skill job like McDonald's? $11? $15? $25?
I think a fair wage is what an employer and an employee agree upon.
Can you even negotiate wage when working at jobs like walmart or mcdonalds? I know you can in positions where you sign a contract... but I've never tried... though I have tried getting raises when I deserved them... particularly when I was seeing other people who didn't get them... and then I quit, even when begged to not to, when I couldn't get a raise.0 -
So I'm assuming everyone who thinks McD's is paying their employees enough also have no problem with paying for all the gov't benefits those employees get because of their "fair wage"?
But what is a fair wage for a no skill job like McDonald's? $11? $15? $25?
I think a fair wage is what an employer and an employee agree upon.
Can you even negotiate wage when working at jobs like walmart or mcdonalds? I know you can in positions where you sign a contract... but I've never tried... though I have tried getting raises when I deserved them... particularly when I was seeing other people who didn't get them... and then I quit, even when begged to not to, when I couldn't get a raise.
The only time I have had issues negotiating a wage was my brief time working in a union job. It also happens to be the lowest paying job I ever accepted.0 -
So I'm assuming everyone who thinks McD's is paying their employees enough also have no problem with paying for all the gov't benefits those employees get because of their "fair wage"?
If a person qualifies for government assistance then I have no problem paying for it.
If you think an employer doesn't pay a fair wage then don't work for them. I assure you an employer that cannot hire people due to the wage being too low will raise the wage incrementally until they are able to fill the position.
So essentially you have no problem lining corporations pockets with your tax dollars. I don't know what the answer is to this issue....but I don't like the idea that a person works 40 hours a week and still makes so little they qualify for gov't assistance.0 -
The majority of people that work at McD's are not working 40 hours, they typically work at most 30 hours (well under what is federally recognized as full time)... The only people that might be are the managers and I'm pretty sure they don't make $7.25 an hour.0
-
If you have a complete absence of government regulation in business then you end up with a world where the wealthy do whatever they want. In those days we had substandard working condition. Longer work days and lower pay checks. Let's not forget the nightmare we had when the railroads were privately owned and they were charging farmers more to move their crops then they would get for selling them.
If you have a powerful presence of government regulation in business you end up with a world where the profit incentive is removed from the innovators and the pioneers of new technology and new ideas. The government will take everything they want and tax what they leave behind. People would not get credit for their hard work or their new ideas. Our intellectual property would belong to the government.
Clearly you cannot go all the way to on side or the other. There has to be a line somewhere in the middle but where would it be? I don't pretend to know the answer but I can assure you that McDonald's or any other company will do whatever it can to find a way to eliminate as much red as they can from their ledger and they all see our paychecks and benefits as red.0 -
So I'm assuming everyone who thinks McD's is paying their employees enough also have no problem with paying for all the gov't benefits those employees get because of their "fair wage"?
If a person qualifies for government assistance then I have no problem paying for it.
If you think an employer doesn't pay a fair wage then don't work for them. I assure you an employer that cannot hire people due to the wage being too low will raise the wage incrementally until they are able to fill the position.
So essentially you have no problem lining corporations pockets with your tax dollars. I don't know what the answer is to this issue....but I don't like the idea that a person works 40 hours a week and still makes so little they qualify for gov't assistance.
That's capitalism for you. Love it or hate it, that's what it is.0 -
Is that really capitalism? I would think in its purest form there simply wouldn't be any government support for the poor and the unemployed.0
-
So I'm assuming everyone who thinks McD's is paying their employees enough also have no problem with paying for all the gov't benefits those employees get because of their "fair wage"?
If a person qualifies for government assistance then I have no problem paying for it.
If you think an employer doesn't pay a fair wage then don't work for them. I assure you an employer that cannot hire people due to the wage being too low will raise the wage incrementally until they are able to fill the position.
So essentially you have no problem lining corporations pockets with your tax dollars. I don't know what the answer is to this issue....but I don't like the idea that a person works 40 hours a week and still makes so little they qualify for gov't assistance.
I am taking bids to get a retaining wall and border built in my yard. There are multiple factors that I will use to determine who gets the work but one of the main factors is price. When I finally chose someone I am not going to tell them.. your bid is not high enough to support yourself this week... why don't I give you another couple thousand for the work. We agreed on a wage for the job. Am I exploiting the worker if the wage is not high enough to pay for all their needs for the month?
I happen to feel that one should be paid based on the value of the work they do and not based on their personal need. Should corporations be held to a higher standard and pay based on a person's need rather then the value of the work they do?0 -
McDonald's is a business. As Soldier said.. Any business will do as much as possible to get as much work out of their employees and pay them as little as they can because that is what we ALL demand.
If you shop at Walmart, dollar stores, fast good places and other businesses that support low prices then you are propagating the issue. Businesses do what consumers want them to do..People don't seem to understand this. The reason everyone pays crap wages is because they have to keep the prices/overhead low or the customers will go somewhere cheaper..Its a race to the bottom.
What people fail to understand is that unless we are ALL willing to start paying the 'real cost' of the goods and services we buy it will never change. Wages will go as low as possible..Look at China or Bangladesh - Why do you think companies are outsourcing as much as they can? Because if they pay their labor force close to nothing they can drop the prices on the merchandise and make more profit to line their pockets. Most companies don't give a rats behind about the people doing the work. Same with taxes.. everyone wants the services, but no one wants to pay for them - funny how that works.
The only way to fix this disaster is to cut back on consumer goods, only buy locally manufactured things demand quality products from ethical companies that pay their employees a reasonable wage and stop supporting Walmart and all those cheap discount stores/fast food places. The problem is that no one is willing to do that, they would much rather complain and demonize organizations and unions that fight for a fair wage for their employees because it makes the costs go up.. Well, unfortunately when you want to drop the costs of things the employees are the ones that suffer the cuts to the bottom line - sure as hella not going to be the CEO's that take the pay/benefit/bonus cuts.0 -
If everyone supported their local businesses things would get better, at first. Over time the local businesses would grow and they would eventually end up becoming the Wal-Marts of tomorrow.0
-
I happen to feel that one should be paid based on the value of the work they do and not based on their personal need. Should corporations be held to a higher standard and pay based on a person's need rather then the value of the work they do?
So do I.
The culture of entitlement that has developed is driving this. I "need" an iphone, I "need" designer sneakers, I "need" jewelry and cars and a huge mansion to live in. Problem is, I haven't EARNED any of that if all I am capable of is running the register at McD's.0 -
From the article:The health insurance expense should have actually said 'health care expenses' and that figure was based on a co-payment for a doctor's visit," she wrote in an email to CNBC.
Um...so where's the health insurance line-item?
And yeah, their budget thing is kind of laughable and shows the disconnect between the people the made it and the people that actually need it - http://www.practicalmoneyskills.com/mcdonalds/documents/McD_Journal2.pdf
What I can tell is missing (+ minimum costs):
Health insurance (assuming the above quote) +$40/mo
Gas for the car (since the only cars I know of that don't need gas don't cost $150/mo) +$120/mo (10 gallon tank, weekly fillup)
Food +$200/mo (depending on number of people)
Child care (there goes that $750/mo "spending money") +$500/mo
Credit cards (technically; it's easy to argue that credit cards aren't mandatory, but they're generally a fact of life in a poor household, because you can't really choose whether the fix the car (or put gas in it) so you can get to work, or feed your family)
Bills from education (remember, not everyone who's poor was always like that, and maybe they've tried to better themselves, but haven't yet had that big payoff everyone promises comes with an education)
What I can tell is underfunded:
Health Insurance (for most people)
Rent (in some places; even in my city, which has some of the lowest cost of living in the country, the cheapest I've ever seen is $400 for an efficiency)
Electric (if the everything but heat are electric, consider yourself lucky if it's not three digits, that's stove, water heater, a/c, fridge, etc)
"Cable/Phone" doesn't appear to include Internet, if it's cable, phone, and Internet, make that closer to $150 depending on the options available to you ($20 for phone, $75 for cable, $55 for Internet, or thereabouts).
I applaud the fact that they attempt, but it, frankly, seems rather unrealistic. According to the article, they took the "average of minimum wage workers," which, also from the article, evidently means that not all minimum wage workers have a full plate of expenses (they're teens, live at home, live with roommates, etc). So, instead of making it a thing of "here's an example of living on your own with a minimum wage job," it's more of a "here's what you can do when you only have half of the expenses that are actually required."0 -
I happen to feel that one should be paid based on the value of the work they do and not based on their personal need. Should corporations be held to a higher standard and pay based on a person's need rather then the value of the work they do?
So do I.
The culture of entitlement that has developed is driving this. I "need" an iphone, I "need" designer sneakers, I "need" jewelry and cars and a huge mansion to live in. Problem is, I haven't EARNED any of that if all I am capable of is running the register at McD's.
Except in most places, minimum wage doesn't even pay for things that truly are necessities. By your logic, one doesn't "need" food on the table, even a basic roof over their head (preferably in a neighborhood that doesn't require bulletproof glass on the windows), or transportation to the job in question. The cities that have the jobs that would allow people to move up also only have housing that is well beyond a minimum wage budget.
The problem I see with responses like these is that it reeks of the crap spewed between the different generations. The Baby Boomers love telling the Millennials to just go an get a job, even flipping burgers, and to go get an education to "better themselves." The problem is, when the economy tanks, even the burger joints aren't hiring, and even if they are, they're not going to hire someone with a higher education background, because they'll move on to greener pastures at the first chance they get.
"I can't get a job."
"Well, you're not too good to flip burgers."
"Hey, a burger joint actually hired me, but I still don't make enough and can't get enough hours to afford rent, food, and transportation."
"So go get a degree."
"I have a Bachelor's in Computer Science, but the economy has tanked, so I can't get a job."
"Well, you're not too good to flip burgers."
"The burger joints seem to think otherwise. Thanks to having a degree, they say I'm 'overqualified' and refuse to hire me."0 -
Is that really capitalism? I would think in its purest form there simply wouldn't be any government support for the poor and the unemployed.
Nothing is ever in it's purest form. As Homer J Simpson once said, "In theory, communism works."0 -
they're not going to hire someone with a higher education background, because they'll move on to greener pastures at the first chance they get.
Except that the thing... minimum wage jobs are typically high turn over anyway, regardless of education level. Even manual labor jobs that require some skill are typically high turn over. Mostly because a decent portion of people working in those are doing so as they were designed to be worked... as a temporary job, not a career. Having worked in fast food before the majority of us had no intention of staying there for any longer than we needed and as soon as we found better jobs and opportunities we got the hell out of there. The only people that had an intent on staying there were those that were just working to supplement household income or the family that owned the business... Hell, even my manager (who was the son of the owner) got the hell out of that business as fast as he could... but that was a family thing.0 -
I happen to feel that one should be paid based on the value of the work they do and not based on their personal need. Should corporations be held to a higher standard and pay based on a person's need rather then the value of the work they do?
So do I.
The culture of entitlement that has developed is driving this. I "need" an iphone, I "need" designer sneakers, I "need" jewelry and cars and a huge mansion to live in. Problem is, I haven't EARNED any of that if all I am capable of is running the register at McD's.
Except in most places, minimum wage doesn't even pay for things that truly are necessities. By your logic, one doesn't "need" food on the table, even a basic roof over their head (preferably in a neighborhood that doesn't require bulletproof glass on the windows), or transportation to the job in question. The cities that have the jobs that would allow people to move up also only have housing that is well beyond a minimum wage budget.
The problem I see with responses like these is that it reeks of the crap spewed between the different generations. The Baby Boomers love telling the Millennials to just go an get a job, even flipping burgers, and to go get an education to "better themselves." The problem is, when the economy tanks, even the burger joints aren't hiring, and even if they are, they're not going to hire someone with a higher education background, because they'll move on to greener pastures at the first chance they get.
"I can't get a job."
"Well, you're not too good to flip burgers."
"Hey, a burger joint actually hired me, but I still don't make enough and can't get enough hours to afford rent, food, and transportation."
"So go get a degree."
"I have a Bachelor's in Computer Science, but the economy has tanked, so I can't get a job."
"Well, you're not too good to flip burgers."
"The burger joints seem to think otherwise. Thanks to having a degree, they say I'm 'overqualified' and refuse to hire me."
You just described what was once my situation. Electrical mechanical engineer major living in NYC. Thank God for mom. I couldn't find a job in my field. I had no problems finding jobs at McDonalds, or Dunkin Donuts or many other retail chains. Now I'm in the financial sector. So It's my experience, doesn't mean it's everyones. But you have to admit, kids are very prideful. They will tell you themselves, "I ain't flippin' no burgers!", or "I'm nobody's servant."0 -
I happen to feel that one should be paid based on the value of the work they do and not based on their personal need. Should corporations be held to a higher standard and pay based on a person's need rather then the value of the work they do?
So do I.
The culture of entitlement that has developed is driving this. I "need" an iphone, I "need" designer sneakers, I "need" jewelry and cars and a huge mansion to live in. Problem is, I haven't EARNED any of that if all I am capable of is running the register at McD's.
Except in most places, minimum wage doesn't even pay for things that truly are necessities. By your logic, one doesn't "need" food on the table, even a basic roof over their head (preferably in a neighborhood that doesn't require bulletproof glass on the windows), or transportation to the job in question. The cities that have the jobs that would allow people to move up also only have housing that is well beyond a minimum wage budget.
The problem I see with responses like these is that it reeks of the crap spewed between the different generations. The Baby Boomers love telling the Millennials to just go an get a job, even flipping burgers, and to go get an education to "better themselves." The problem is, when the economy tanks, even the burger joints aren't hiring, and even if they are, they're not going to hire someone with a higher education background, because they'll move on to greener pastures at the first chance they get.
"I can't get a job."
"Well, you're not too good to flip burgers."
"Hey, a burger joint actually hired me, but I still don't make enough and can't get enough hours to afford rent, food, and transportation."
"So go get a degree."
"I have a Bachelor's in Computer Science, but the economy has tanked, so I can't get a job."
"Well, you're not too good to flip burgers."
"The burger joints seem to think otherwise. Thanks to having a degree, they say I'm 'overqualified' and refuse to hire me."
Just to be clear... You are saying that a person should be paid based on their need and not based on the work?
Also... I know you probably just used this as an example but I think it is a bad one. Can you introduce me to the person with a Bachelor's degree in Computer Science that can't get a job? I have that degree and get daily unsolicited recruitment emails/calls. My office has been trying to fill 7 IT jobs for 6 months unsuccessfully.0 -
Just to be clear... You are saying that a person should be paid based on their need and not based on the work?
Also... I know you probably just used this as an example but I think it is a bad one. Can you introduce me to the person with a Bachelor's degree in Computer Science that can't get a job? I have that degree and get daily unsolicited recruitment emails/calls. My office has been trying to fill 7 IT jobs for 6 months unsuccessfully.
I think the problem here is people don't want to move... There was a big news story in the area of this guy, who used to work for Texas Instruments... He is an engineer (I can't remember which field though). Well he was laid off and can't find a job... Hell, even the POTUS couldn't find him a job... why? It wasn't because there aren't jobs available for him... it's because he is divorced and his children from a previous marriage are here... while I get the not wanting to leave your children... surely there has to be some way you can make arrangements with your ex in order for you to move to where a job is.0 -
I happen to feel that one should be paid based on the value of the work they do and not based on their personal need. Should corporations be held to a higher standard and pay based on a person's need rather then the value of the work they do?
So do I.
The culture of entitlement that has developed is driving this. I "need" an iphone, I "need" designer sneakers, I "need" jewelry and cars and a huge mansion to live in. Problem is, I haven't EARNED any of that if all I am capable of is running the register at McD's.
Except in most places, minimum wage doesn't even pay for things that truly are necessities. By your logic, one doesn't "need" food on the table, even a basic roof over their head (preferably in a neighborhood that doesn't require bulletproof glass on the windows), or transportation to the job in question. The cities that have the jobs that would allow people to move up also only have housing that is well beyond a minimum wage budget.
The problem I see with responses like these is that it reeks of the crap spewed between the different generations. The Baby Boomers love telling the Millennials to just go an get a job, even flipping burgers, and to go get an education to "better themselves." The problem is, when the economy tanks, even the burger joints aren't hiring, and even if they are, they're not going to hire someone with a higher education background, because they'll move on to greener pastures at the first chance they get.
"I can't get a job."
"Well, you're not too good to flip burgers."
"Hey, a burger joint actually hired me, but I still don't make enough and can't get enough hours to afford rent, food, and transportation."
"So go get a degree."
"I have a Bachelor's in Computer Science, but the economy has tanked, so I can't get a job."
"Well, you're not too good to flip burgers."
"The burger joints seem to think otherwise. Thanks to having a degree, they say I'm 'overqualified' and refuse to hire me."
Just to be clear... You are saying that a person should be paid based on their need and not based on the work?
Also... I know you probably just used this as an example but I think it is a bad one. Can you introduce me to the person with a Bachelor's degree in Computer Science that can't get a job? I have that degree and get daily unsolicited recruitment emails/calls. My office has been trying to fill 7 IT jobs for 6 months unsuccessfully.
I'm saying that wages (based on a typical 40-hour week) should be enough to cover basic needs, such as food and shelter, for the area the establishment serves. I'm not talking a McMansion and a BMW, but in many places, minimum wage can't even get an efficiency apartment and bus fare. A person shouldn't have to spend every waking hour working, just to have a place to stay and food on the table.
Regarding my example - it may be a bad one now, but (at least in my area) the IT sector got hit just as hard in 2009ish as most other industries. I, personally, spent nearly a year unemployed, with a Computer Information Systems Bachelor in hand, because I had the misfortune of having just shy of a year's worth of experience on top of my education when I got laid off, and everyone around me was looking for "entry level" people with 2+ years of experience (so the job postings said).0 -
Just to be clear... You are saying that a person should be paid based on their need and not based on the work?
Also... I know you probably just used this as an example but I think it is a bad one. Can you introduce me to the person with a Bachelor's degree in Computer Science that can't get a job? I have that degree and get daily unsolicited recruitment emails/calls. My office has been trying to fill 7 IT jobs for 6 months unsuccessfully.
I think the problem here is people don't want to move... There was a big news story in the area of this guy, who used to work for Texas Instruments... He is an engineer (I can't remember which field though). Well he was laid off and can't find a job... Hell, even the POTUS couldn't find him a job... why? It wasn't because there aren't jobs available for him... it's because he is divorced and his children from a previous marriage are here... while I get the not wanting to leave your children... surely there has to be some way you can make arrangements with your ex in order for you to move to where a job is.
In most cases, it's not because someone doesn't want to move, but because they can't. Moving is expensive. Even in the best of circumstances, you'll likely to have to double up on rent (finish the old place, start the new). Then, there's also the matter of getting a job. Only a small number of places offer decent moving assistance, and most places bias their search to people who are already local. So, if you don't get lucky with a job offer, you're stuck trying to move outright, or "soft move", to the new city, with no income, until you find a new job. People who are already poor can't afford to do that.
In regard to your example - it's very likely not that he doesn't want to move, but that the terms of his divorce are such that moving is impossible, for any of a number of reasons, not the least of which being financially. Sure, there's a job three states away that will take him, but he'll end up spending extraordinary amounts in transportation to hold up his end of the joint custody agreement. Unfortunately, not all divorces are civil in any way, shape, or form. The parent with primary custody may fight to get some high amount of child support if the other parent moves out of state. I don't know about you, but I've seen some crazy "exes", and even what I've mentioned here is on the very tame side.0
