# McDonalds workers demand $15/hr and Union



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

Since when did working at McDonalds become a life long career? Other than the few that move into management and corporate positions. 

http://www.suntimes.com/business/27...protest-call-for-15-an-hour.html#.U3zDW_ldWSo


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

Understand that McDonald's is probably not providing their employees with a health plan, and that folks still have to pay their share under the ACA. Understand as well that there are plenty of folks for whom a job in the service sector is probably the best they can hope for.


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

mhammer said:


> Understand that McDonald's is probably not providing their employees with a health plan, and that folks still have to pay their share under the ACA. Understand as well that there are plenty of folks for whom a job in the service sector is probably the best they can hope for.


I fully understand those things but in my world that falls under the category of tough shit. Have we now reached the stage that places like McDonalds are now expected to pay wages high enough to raise a family? If we have we are in seriously bad shape in this hemisphere. Are you wanting to pay $12.00 for a big Mac? These are jobs to help you pay for school so you don't have to work at McDonalds.


----------



## sulphur (Jun 2, 2011)

With everything being outsourced and our resources sold off,
people don't have much choice in the job that they need to survive.

Where years ago, the McJobs were mainly part time students, or a younger demographic,
it's now mostly older people, tossed out of their once full-time positions.

There may be a million of those coming in Ontario!


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

sulphur said:


> With everything being outsourced and our resources sold off,
> people don't have much choice in the job that they need to survive.
> 
> Where years ago, the McJobs were mainly part time students, or a younger demographic,
> ...


You are 100% correct but you cannot expect a place like McDonalds to fix the problems we have created by bad government. McDonalds cannot and should not become the next GM/Ford/Domtar etc etc etc


----------



## traynor_garnet (Feb 22, 2006)

The service sector is the largest part of the Canadian economy. These are jobs people must stay in because the middle class (and associated jobs) is shrinking. Through structural shifts in the economy, tax cuts that benefit the top, and an (associated) decrease in social services, we are seeing a bifurcation in Canada. 

It is far from unreasonable to ask a multi billion dollar corporation to pay its employees a wage they can at least live off of. Don't forget, these jobs are often part time so companies can further avoid benefits and protections afforded to FT workers. 

As a side note, having worked at Mc Ds as a teen, I can assure you this is not an easy job. 

TG


----------



## Mooh (Mar 7, 2007)

GuitarsCanada said:


> I fully understand those things but in my world that falls under the category of tough shit. Have we now reached the stage that places like McDonalds are now expected to pay wages high enough to raise a family? If we have we are in seriously bad shape in this hemisphere. Are you wanting to pay $12.00 for a big Mac? These are jobs to help you pay for school so you don't have to work at McDonalds.


You can't raise a family on $15/hour. On a 40 hour week that's still only 30 grand/year. Whether or not you see the work as a career, it is for many.

Peace, Mooh.


----------



## sulphur (Jun 2, 2011)

I don't envy anyone working there, that's for sure.

I understand what you're saying Scott, 
it isn't McDonalds responsibility to compensate for the governments screw ups.

When they are raking in billions and the CEO makes the average workers yearly wage in the first morning of the first day of the year, I see a problem in that.


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

Mooh said:


> You can't raise a family on $15/hour. On a 40 hour week that's still only 30 grand/year. Whether or not you see the work as a career, it is for many.
> 
> Peace, Mooh.


You can if you are shacked up with the dude making the fries


----------



## Jim DaddyO (Mar 20, 2009)

I didn't know that temporary foreign workers were allowed to unionize here...... :smiley-faces-75:


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

When I was young, every Hockey Night in Canada, we'd see Murray Westgate dressed up as "your Esso gas station man" ( http://www.greatesthockeylegends.com/2013/09/hockey-legend-of-different-kind-murray.html ). In his crisp uniform, he'd fill up your tank, check your oil and clean your windshield. The assumption was that here was a grown-up, working a decent job pumping gas, and able to have a family and self-respect. And it's not like we all drove 4-cylinder engines that cost nothing to operate, or paid a bloody fortune for gas to subsidize Mr. Westgate's standard of living.

What it takes to have a respectable standard of living has changed, our standards of what is a respectable standard of living has changed, our earning requirements to be able to afford a retirement of longer than 5-10 years have changed. And all the while the various competitors in the service sector have raced to the bottom to provide more potential customers with more stuff for smaller profit margins.

When food-slingers and the fast-food industry blossomed in the mid-to-late 70's, it instantly became a youth-oriented employer. And once youth became accustomed to the disposable income and retailers and service-providers realized they had this huge potential market to sell to, adolescent employment in the fast-food industry became de rigeur. As a high-schooler in the late 60's the only people I knew who worked more than a couple hours a week were guys with car habits, or families with corner stores that required them to give the parents a bit of a break. As a high schooler in the late 90's, my son didn't know anyone who _didn't_ work >12hrs a week. And since those kids are all living at home and not paying rent, hydro, or for toilet paper or milk, they could work for crap wages in unstable go-nowhere jobs, and there was little pressure on employers to improve those wages because the grownups were all off seeking other sorts of jobs...and getting them.

Well, big nervous money has made it such those "other jobs" aren't quite as plentiful, such that more people find themselves having to live as grownups with grownup responsibilities, doing work that is planned around kids not paying rent.


----------



## Destropiate (Jan 17, 2007)

Mcdonalds could pay every person working for them 15 bucks an hour and still make billions of dollars. The worst thing our governments do is letting big corporations continue to mine money and not give the people doing the mining any sort of decent living wage. It's not how it used to be for people In their early 20's. Having a good education and being a hard worker is no guarantee of decent work anymore. Good jobs are scarce. I know good people with university or college degrees that have had to scrape by working retail until their mid thirties. If that's the way it's gonna be now because of cheap export manufacturing etc then the only way to grow the middle class is to start making companies pay a little more to the bottom line. They can afford it. The proof is the astronomical profits they take in. Especially places like Mcdonalds and Walmart.


----------



## sulphur (Jun 2, 2011)

They're the first ones to quash any hint of a union, to protect their precious profits.


----------



## Lincoln (Jun 2, 2008)

I don't know what it's like the east, but when we cross over the border and go shopping in Washington one of the things that strikes me right away is the staff at all the fast food places. They are adults and not foriegn workers or ethnics. They look like they are in it for the long haul too. It's really wierd to see. But with all the manufacturing jobs gone to China, and the extinction of Ma & Pa type businesses in favor of huge franchise chains......what else is everybody going to do? 
Also, those adults that are now forced to rely on working the counter at Wendy's are educated, have worked other jobs, may have been unionized at some point and will be demanding for "more" from thier employers than a teenager would. 

I don't understand how big business can send all the jobs to Asia while hoping to sell huge numbers to consumers in North America. It seems to me they are eliminating thier target consumers (middle class) in most cases. 

In Canada, what will we have left once the raw materials run out? Our fresh water?


----------



## smorgdonkey (Jun 23, 2008)

Destropiate said:


> If that's the way it's gonna be now because of cheap export manufacturing etc then the only way to grow the middle class is to start making companies pay a little more to the bottom line. They can afford it. The proof is the astronomical profits they take in. Especially places like Mcdonalds and Walmart.


...and WalMart is now the largest employer in the USA...average wage $8.00 per hour.

Workers' wages go up 1% per year...maybe 2%. White collars never see 1%-2%. The guys who make a million per year would make a whopping $10,000 raise on 1%.

It's greed. The people who talk about trickle-down economics working are usually the ones who benefit the most (the ones at the top).

It just makes me think that a big crash is coming.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

LMAO

Yeah, let's just see how people feel about paying a few bucks more for their heart attack sandwiches.

It won't fly.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

But here's the thing, smorg: we tend to think of these multi-nationals as if they were run by Montgomery Burns, when really they are partly run by the very pension funds we are depending on to support us, and our travel plans, in our old age. I know the outcome to employment is not what any of us _wants_, but the folks shepherding our investment capital think in terms of ROI, and not in terms of impact on national unemployment statistics or the impact on working class folks and single parents with bills to pay.

WE are part of the problem. The very profit margins that impose low wages on one segment of society are the profit margins that subsidize "freedom 55" (or 65 or whatever inflection point applies to you). It actually creates a sort of class war between the middle class (or aspiring middle class), and those who are trying to not be working class for the rest of their lives. MY retirement investments demand that YOU make less. The smaller an ROI on MY retirement funds, the worse off I will be in 5, 10, 20 years.

I hate to keep boring people with this, but the social institution of retirement, and especially the shifting and escalating costs of keeping it alive as an outcome for the majority (and living 25 more years at a decent standard of living costs a LOT more than living 10 more modest years after you leave the workforce), has had HUGE UNIMAGINABLE consequences for the whole of society. And much as it tends not to occur to us, the creation of a profit-margin-enhancing underclass to fund that mass of people expecting to work for 35 years, then coast for another 25, is one of those consequences.


----------



## smorgdonkey (Jun 23, 2008)

RE: heart attack sandwiches - *ALL meat should be way more expensive*. That's the truth. If it were...guess what? There would be more small scale farmers/ranchers who could make a living.

mhammer - super rich people running big funds and investing in super rich companies for little people. Capitalism is eating itself. The real problem is that American wealth was built on slavery. When slavery was no longer legal, it took them a while but they soon realized that they could subcontract out their slavery. Canada has followed suit. Soon they will run out of people to exploit and while they are still focusing on fattening their wallets, China will have been focusing on the future for a decade or more. When China forecloses on what the West owes them, it will not be pretty.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

If you want to consider the Ontario Teachers Pension Fund "super rich people", be my guest. 

There are a lot of pension funds we consider as benign. Where on earth do people think their RRSPs or GICs or mutual funds make the interest from? They don't pull it out of their hindquarters, and they certainly don't make it on "George Bailey"*** style mortgages. Our attitude towards the interest and ROI we plan to retire on shares much in common with our attitudes towards meat: it comes from Styrofoam containers in the supermarket, right?

We can point to big villains all we want, but...












***See _It's a Wonderful Life_


----------



## Lincoln (Jun 2, 2008)

smorgdonkey said:


> RE: heart attack sandwiches - *ALL meat should be way more expensive*. That's the truth. If it were...guess what? There would be more small scale farmers/ranchers who could make a living.


The single family farm is a thing of the past already. They can't make a go of it anymore. All the farm land is being bought up and operated by huge companies who's only intrest is making lots of money. 
Look what's happening to grocery stores. That's where the action is. Everybody HAS to eat.


----------



## smorgdonkey (Jun 23, 2008)

mhammer said:


> If you want to consider the Ontario Teachers Pension Fund "super rich people", be my guest.


Well, I would not call the teachers super rich but I bet the administrator of that pension is...and guess what? If that pension went broke tomorrow, that guy would still have all of his money but maybe looking for another job. He's get one too - perhaps not administrating another pension but crunching numbers somewhere. They are the type who get 'paid administrative leave' if they have charges pending against them. For contrast's sake, working people are the ones who lose everything if they had charges pending against them.

Side note: down here (banjos playing) the teachers can take online courses and get raises. Many signed up for a coaching course which resulted in them gaining salary of $6000-$8000 per year depending on their certification and years of experience, even though they would never coach. They can take online courses and still get the raises even if their area of specialty is completely unrelated. "But we just want to teach the children"...f'n yeah, right.



Lincoln said:


> The single family farm is a thing of the past already. They can't make a go of it anymore. All the farm land is being bought up and operated by huge companies who's only intrest is making lots of money.
> Look what's happening to grocery stores. That's where the action is. Everybody HAS to eat.


Indeed.that's because the big guys kept squeezing them out because they could sell their crap cheaper...AND government regulations were relaxed for the bigger operations (they always are). If people had to pay the COST rather than the price then things would be different. It takes 2500 gallons of water to end up with one pound of beef. So, the only way to get cheap burgers is that someone is getting a lot of freebies somewhere and it wasn't the small farmers. How much does 2500 gallons of water cost? How much does it cost if it is Evian? Hell, how much if it is store brand in a bottle?

Then real problem is that *everything* is out of whack.


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

whatever drugs you guys are taking, i wanna know. cause i wanna make dam sure i never take any of that shit.


----------



## Accept2 (Jan 1, 2006)

http://cdn4.trueactivist.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/McDonaldsReddit.jpg


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

Smorg, it's not the teachers that are rich. And while I'm sure the folks who tend to that pension fund make a nice living, they're likely not super rich, either. But that is one BIG honking chunk of change and it has impact when portions of it get moved from here to there. Remember, the teachers pension fund was all set to buy controlling interest in Bell a few years ago. And given that a lot of teachers retire early because they started teaching early, that pension fund needs to pay a lot of people for a long time.

Now multiply that by all the various pension funds out there, and add in the insurance companies that depend on investment income to pay for all those floods (because premiums sure won't do it), and that is a LOT of money moving around impatiently in search of another quarter point here or there. And when someone promises that quarter point by moving a facility to somewhere where wages are half what they are in Ontario, Quebec, or some other province, THAT'S where the money goes.

Those funds *could* be used to support businesses that create jobs domestically, and I imagine that sometimes they do, but they are committed to providing returns, not to community service. That's not "evil", but one does have to be aware of what the implications are. You can't get something for nothing.


----------



## smorgdonkey (Jun 23, 2008)

Accept2 said:


> http://cdn4.trueactivist.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/McDonaldsReddit.jpg


That is heavy duty!!


----------



## sneakypete (Feb 2, 2006)

Things will change after the next big war, if there`s anyone left alive. Let`s see....it`s going to be China, Russia, Iran and North Korea against the rest?....`course Russia thought the Nazi`s were their friends too for a while at one time and got fooled, so China may have some surprises up their sleeves. Gov`t think they can continue treating their citizens like crap and they`re just going to keep taking it, but there have been many serious revolutions before, what makes people in power think they can`t happen again? because it`s the 21 century? Please, look around....there are plenty of countries where gov`ts are struggling to keep their people under control, economies are still extremely fragile...wouldn`t take much to send them over the edge again, and more seriously this time...that new world order thing I keep hearing about may not turn out quite the way it`s planned to.....people aren`t really hungry yet...most people anyways...but it`s coming...and Canada with it 3 million + lakes and tiny population could be in big trouble. Frankly, I don`t trust the US gov`t any more than say the Chinese or Russians...they`re all equally dangerous and capable of beginning the next conflict...and it is coming, we may not live to see it but those with young children might. Middle classes are disappearing in many places while they`re emerging in others, but for how long? I don`t know the stories of all the people who work in Walmart or McDonalds...but my guess is, those jobs may be the only ones certain people are qualified to do while other folks would probably love to get out of there but can`t, for probably any number of reasons....things have really changed since I was a kid...my dad was the sole earner in our family and we wanted for nothing, he worked hard all his life, went overseas during WW II, raised 4 kids and at the end...had almost no money to his name, very little in fact but we had a good life as kids....we were middle class. But from what I read, that class is disappearing fast....you`re either well off or struggling to stay afloat.


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

I don't buy into this disappearance of the middle class nonsense, at least here in north America.

if anything, the middle class is stronger than ever. More people than ever have access to education, information, healthcare and good jobs (unlike the "good 'ole days" when a "good job" meant long hard days sweating in factories or mines that paid little to no attention to work health and safety).

I doubt other than a handful of members on this site, very many are anything but middle class.

Now things are likely more polarized in other parts of the world, but that's a variable thing....even China and India have growing middle classes as their economies and workforces develop and everyone wants a piece of the action. Theres still a long way to go, but it will be interesting to see if they can remain competitive as this occurs, or will the drive to find cheaper labour move elsewhere?

FWIW, I actually support the workers in this story.
makes no sense to me why someone working in a Milestones should be many times more than someone working in a McDonalds.
As cheap (and conservative) as I am, many of these service industries like fast food have exploited labourers long enough in order to build massive empires.


----------



## traynor_garnet (Feb 22, 2006)

Diablo said:


> I don't buy into this disappearance of the middle class nonsense, at least here in north America.
> 
> if anything, the middle class is stronger than ever. More people than ever have access to education, information, healthcare and good jobs (unlike the "good 'ole days" when a "good job" meant long hard days sweating in factories or mines that paid little to no attention to work health and safety).


Based on what? Hard data clearly shows the middle class is shrinking. This isn't a political position. 

Your other comment about "more people having good jobs" is simply wrong; decent paying, secure, jobs in the manufacturing sector are being replaced by temporary, insecure, low paying service sector jobs. The gains made by the middle class throughout the 20th century were due to collective bargaining and the development of a social safety net; this position was undercut by moving production overseas and dismantling social services in the name of "helping" the economy.


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

traynor_garnet said:


> Based on what? Hard data clearly shows the middle class is shrinking. This isn't a political position.
> 
> Your other comment about "more people having good jobs" is simply wrong; decent paying, secure, jobs in the manufacturing sector are being replaced by temporary, insecure, low paying service sector jobs. The gains made by the middle class throughout the 20th century were due to collective bargaining and the development of a social safety net; this position was undercut by moving production overseas and dismantling social services in the name of "helping" the economy.


first of all, "middle class" isn't a constant or easy thing to define. But its nowhere near as clear as you make it out to be. 
In terms of examples, I already gave you some (access to education, healthcare, safe working conditions etc). Additionally, theres never been a time in this country when theres been so many single homeowners. And I wouldn't call them rich or 1%. I was one of them. Theres also fewer renters and more homeowners than ever.

Anecdotally, I see more ppl with luxuries like new shiny cars and fancy smartphones than I see ppl starving in the streets, in spite of what the media tells me is happening. 
Also:

http://globalnews.ca/news/1284297/canadas-middle-class-most-prosperous-in-world-report/
http://globalnews.ca/news/1335704/millennials-richer-than-their-parents-at-that-age-bmo-report/
http://www.cbc.ca/news/more-homeowners-fewer-renters-statscan-says-1.745914



Is there still cause for concern? always. Noone has a crystal ball. But I see a glass half full rather than half empty in this case.
I agree, back in the day, collective bargaining etc was necessary to ensure safe working conditions and a liveable wage. I think its served its purpose. Fait accompli.
I don't think its required anymore. Most of the ppl these CBA's originally helped, earn so much they wouldn't even vote NDP anymore, for fear of seeing any of their near 6 figure incomes and pensions go to the tax man. Oshawa is an example....union town, stronghold for NDP started voting PC a few years back. Who wants to help the little guy now that you've got a cottage and a boat to pay for?


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

"Classes" presume some sort of stable social box which one is born into, and generally never leaves. Not quite as bad as castes, but often just as established. Sociolinguists often study the relationship between accent and social class, and see strong within-language relationships. In England, you can easily identify a person's social class by their spoken accent.

I will contrast "class" with standard of living. Once upon a time, the two were largely the same thing, but no more. You'll see a pipe-fitter with a monster house and his-n-hers SUVs, and you'll see a Ph.D. in biochemistry sitting in Second Cup, cruising the net on the free Wi-Fi, so they can find a job and get out of the crappy basement apartment they live in and finally grow up. The idea of two separate standards of living for the "educated middle class" and the non-university-educated semi-skilled blue collar type is completely blurred these days. 

Part of what blurs that distinction is that just about everyone's standard of living has slowly crept up. What we take for granted as "normal" for a starving student would have been considered pretty damn fine in 1964. That person may not think of themselves as middle class, and when indexed by all the measures that StatsCan or other social-indicators think-tanks they may or may not count as middle-class, but the fact is they're living better than they would have 50 years ago, even though they're not living quite as well as they might or think they ought to. 

And a HUGE part of the disconnect between class, education, and standard of living, is the *mammoth* transformation that credit has had on society, and the manner in which it has permitted many to have a standard of living completely uncorrelated with their earnings or earning potential. Most of you here are too young to remember "lay-away" plans. Some store would have washing-machines on sale, and you'd go to the store and plunk down a deposit to reserve your machine at that price. It was "laid away" for you, and you'd pay a little more each month until it was fully paid off, at which time you'd then take delivery. Now, the same individual would simply put it on a credit card and take possession immediately, whether they could afford it or not. The evolution of credit has essentially _*hidden*_ social class.

So I have no idea whatsoever if "the middle class" is shrinking, expanding, staying steady, or even worth talking about.


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

I agree with your final assessment.

But I think in this discussion or in common usage in this country, class is tied strongly to income, as a nation of immigrants, we don't have the same elitist views on breeding, bloodlines. heritage etc that the Brits you mention have. Here, money is all that matters. Its what gets you into good schools (along with good grades of course), not old family connections, your name etc. Money breaks the barriers of exclusivity in this country in almost all circumstances.

And I agree, credit has blurred the lines.
It helps us look richer than we are, while at the same time, the consumerism its tied to bolsters the economy, yet makes us "poorer" than we are in some sense...while providing opportunity for those that can use it wisely as a tool to further themselves, and not just immediate gratification of wants. 
As evil as credit can be, we see in developing countries, how having access to credit can make a huge difference in turning their lives around


----------



## traynor_garnet (Feb 22, 2006)

No, the middle class isn't "easy" to define but it isn't impossible either. There are long standing practices, definitions, and measurements in place that allow us to do longitudinal analysis. 

Your examples are basically due to the extension of credit, and, the growth in dual income homes (a relative rarity until the last few decades). People may have more things, but also have way more debt and are both working. In terms of real dollars, a buck isn't a buck anymore.

The links you provide are interesting because they attest the polarization I mentioned earlier. The median income may have gone up, but only because high earners skew the result. These "outliers" can heavily effect statistics, making it very important to study the "distribution."

I'll leave the voting stuff aside as it is overtly political and I don't want to take the thread there.

TG




Diablo said:


> first of all, "middle class" isn't a constant or easy thing to define. But its nowhere near as clear as you make it out to be.
> In terms of examples, I already gave you some (access to education, healthcare, safe working conditions etc). Additionally, theres never been a time in this country when theres been so many single homeowners. And I wouldn't call them rich or 1%. I was one of them. Theres also fewer renters and more homeowners than ever.
> 
> Anecdotally, I see more ppl with luxuries like new shiny cars and fancy smartphones than I see ppl starving in the streets, in spite of what the media tells me is happening.
> ...


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

traynor_garnet said:


> No, the middle class isn't "easy" to define but it isn't impossible either. There are long standing practices, definitions, and measurements in place that allow us to do longitudinal analysis.
> 
> Your examples are basically due to the extension of credit, and, the growth in dual income homes (a relative rarity until the last few decades). *People may have more things, but also have way more debt and are both working. * In terms of real dollars, a buck isn't a buck anymore.
> 
> ...


re bolded, that's an important point.
It says to me that pply aren't working more now because theyre poor...its by choice.
Heck where I live in SW Ontario, being below middle class means you don't have granite counter tops. Point being, if we're broke, a lot of it is because we've made bad budget decisions, we're not struggling to put food on the table.
I think we're confusing having to work vs needing to work. besides, in the "good 'ole days" sure, there were lots of stories of how mom stayed home with the kids...BUT Dad worked 2 more jobs to make ends meet. Theres a certain romanticization of how things used to be, in a Leave it to Beaver sort of way.

Out of curiousity, what do you consider to be the dividing lines in terms of income for middle class (on both ends)?


----------



## traynor_garnet (Feb 22, 2006)

Credit was the "miracle" that kept economies a float. Once the dollar was untied from gold, credit bought us some time but it won't last forever and periodically produces a catastrophe (2008). Of course, it has really increased the wealth at the top end while putting most people in lots of debt.

There are blurred class lines in class, largely due to (as you note) the high pay of some trades. Still, overall, the picture is the same: the middle class tends to have a university education (especially the upper middle class).

Standard of living is an issue, but don't forget that most household are now dual income households carrying debt. We work twice as much and carry way more debt; sure we have more "stuff" but it isn't a clear cut "gain."

The middle class is certainly worth talking about. FTR, Canadians are actually more inclined to misidentify themselves as being middle class. About 40-50% of Canadians are middle class, but close to 80% of us think we are middle class. Very interesting to consider when thinking about voting and political representation.







mhammer said:


> "Classes" presume some sort of stable social box which one is born into, and generally never leaves. Not quite as bad as castes, but often just as established. Sociolinguists often study the relationship between accent and social class, and see strong within-language relationships. In England, you can easily identify a person's social class by their spoken accent.
> 
> I will contrast "class" with standard of living. Once upon a time, the two were largely the same thing, but no more. You'll see a pipe-fitter with a monster house and his-n-hers SUVs, and you'll see a Ph.D. in biochemistry sitting in Second Cup, cruising the net on the free Wi-Fi, so they can find a job and get out of the crappy basement apartment they live in and finally grow up. The idea of two separate standards of living for the "educated middle class" and the non-university-educated semi-skilled blue collar type is completely blurred these days.
> 
> ...


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

traynor_garnet said:


> Credit was the "miracle" that kept economies a float. Once the dollar was untied from gold, credit bought us some time but it won't last forever and periodically produces a catastrophe (2008). Of course, it has really increased the wealth at the top end while putting most people in lots of debt.
> 
> There are blurred class lines in class, largely due to (as you note) the high pay of some trades. Still, overall, the picture is the same: the middle class tends to have a university education (especially the upper middle class).
> 
> ...


Source?
A lot of ppl spew off stats they make up based on perception, so Im just curious where these numbers come from.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

traynor_garnet said:


> The links you provide are interesting because they attest the polarization I mentioned earlier. The median income may have gone up, but only because high earners skew the result. These "outliers" can heavily effect statistics, making it very important to study the "distribution."


When I used to teach introductory statistics, we would cover "measures of central tendency" and I would present the example to the class of a mining town of several thousand, where everybody but the owner made less than $15k/yr and the owner made millions. I'd then ask if using the average income would provide an accurate mental picture of the standard of living in the town to someone who only knew that number and nothing else about the town. Naturally, they'd all say "No", and we'd embark on discussion of other ways of providing single numbers that might be more representative, or perhaps a pair of numbers that might be able to tell a fuller story.

Funny how sometimes you can teach mathematical subjects better when you appeal to people's sense of social justice.


----------



## gtrguy (Jul 6, 2006)

smorgdonkey said:


> It just makes me think that a big crash is coming.


I think so.



GuitarsCanada said:


> we are in seriously bad shape in this hemisphere


I think so.

I would agree with both of these sentiments.

Another thing that's going to very soon become a big deal- that's "China Direct" outcompeting the Walmarts of the world. Imagine right now if China suddenly turned off the tap of products to Walmart... really think about that for a minute. You may not be aware but China has been subsidizing the shipping of online sellers from China for quite some time, particularly via eBay. Ever wonder how a 99 cent item (that would cost you many times that to buy in Canada) can be shipped to you from China for free? You should be wondering... and concerned. and now Alibaba is about to hit North America in a big way- that's China's version of eBay and Paypal. Why should China be paying fees to eBay and Paypal when they can simply do it themselves and keep the fees? Walmart is going to get left out in the cold and unable to compete with their own suppliers dealing direct with the consumer.

This is basically a big game of Monopoly and from where I'm sitting China is waaay in the lead and other countries haven't even clued in. It's smart, it's long term and it's working.

Interesting times my friends, interesting times....


----------



## smorgdonkey (Jun 23, 2008)

Diablo said:


> I don't buy into this disappearance of the middle class nonsense, at least here in north America.
> 
> if anything, the middle class is stronger than ever.


I completely disagree. For statistical purposes, middle class goes up to $125, 000.00 per year. I know very few people who make anywhere close to that. The ones that do are by no means 'middle class'. Education? Sure...if you can pay for it over the 15-20 years after you get out of school. 'Good jobs'? I don't see those either.



Diablo said:


> I agree, back in the day, collective bargaining etc was necessary to ensure safe working conditions and a liveable wage. I think its served its purpose. Fait accompli.
> I don't think its required anymore.


I completely disagree here too. Workers are threatened, intimidated and put in dangerous situations daily - EVEN AT MY JOB...but there is nowhere else to go and since many of them are some of those 'homeowners' that you mentioned, they need the money or they lose the home. People used to own a home on x% of their income and now it is 3x% or more.

If anything, the workers need more rights and unions need more rights - a great example is 'legal strike'. Workers should have the right to stop working when conditions are not right. Instead, lawmakers have furnished employers with the ability to fine workers something like $1000 per day if they go on an illegal strike. Not to mention, the government can just legislate people back to work without looking into anything.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

traynor_garnet said:


> Standard of living is an issue, but don't forget that most household are now dual income households carrying debt. We work twice as much and carry way more debt; sure we have more "stuff" but it isn't a clear cut "gain."
> 
> The middle class is certainly worth talking about. FTR, Canadians are actually more inclined to misidentify themselves as being middle class. About 40-50% of Canadians are middle class, but close to 80% of us think we are middle class. Very interesting to consider when thinking about voting and political representation.


That's an interesting distinction between what one IS and what one _thinks_ one is.

Two things make it interesting, at least to me:

1) What should governments do about the one vs the other? Do governments, at any level, have any sort of responsibility, or capacity, for reshaping what class people _think_ they belong to?

2) Can people_ change _classes, if it is based on what they think, and what would lead them to perceive, in a reliable sense, with certainty, that they _had_ changed classes. The image I have in my head is one of Tony Montana, thinking he is now "high class" because of the ostentatiousness of his home and wardrobe. But its gotta be more complex than that.


----------



## 10409 (Dec 11, 2011)

Entry level jobs aren't supposed to pay well. if mcdonalds employees are worth 15$ an hour how am i supposed to get labourers to work construction at the going entry level rate of 12-13$ an hour? Whats the point in learning anything if you can make a decent living with a grade 5 understanding of mathematics and enough manners to say thank you ten thousand times a day? 

if we're being honest, over half of fast food jobs could be more efficiently accomplished by computers, the same way self-checkouts in stores let one cashier do the job of 6. i go through drive thru's daily, and i'd prefer to deal with a touch screen 9 times out of 10.


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

*YOU* hire these people for $13/hr? ive deleted this post 4 times. i'm gonna not come back to this thread. you admit this in front of everyone as if it's perfectly ok


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

mike_oxbig said:


> Entry level jobs aren't supposed to pay well. if mcdonalds employees are worth 15$ an hour how am i supposed to get labourers to work construction at the going entry level rate of 12-13$ an hour? Whats the point in learning anything if you can make a decent living with a grade 5 understanding of mathematics and enough manners to say thank you ten thousand times a day?
> 
> if we're being honest, over half of fast food jobs could be more efficiently accomplished by computers, the same way self-checkouts in stores let one cashier do the job of 6. i go through drive thru's daily, and i'd prefer to deal with a touch screen 9 times out of 10.


If we think in terms of our own local context, couldn't agree with you more.

However, the action by the folks in the original news item did not pertain to our context, but to *theirs*. And where they live, a visit to the walk-in clinic is not paid for by whatever paltry taxes they pay, and saying thank you ten thousand times a day may be the best available job they can hope for to support their family. I'm sure there are plenty of folks at Fort Mac making double my wages, with 1/3 of my education, and not doing anything more than me. But then I'm not paying the rents or housing prices they are, and I don't have to fly anywhere to see family.

Always critical to take context into account. Is the $15/hr demand reasonable in their context? I have no idea. I also have no idea what they currently make. If they're making $7.50 then clearly they're being led by some folks who are more idealogues than realists or pragmatists. If they're getting $11.50, and it's been stuck there for several years while rents, gas, and transit passes keep going up, then maybe $15 makes a whole lot more sense.

On the other hand, maybe they have a TFW program too, and asking for more money just gets you less job.


----------



## bluzfish (Mar 12, 2011)

I'm back to doing contract work with the company I worked for before.

They still have difficulty finding workers for easy desk clerk jobs (answer phone inquiries, simple interactions with customers and lots of free time for study, reading, internet, etc.) at $18/hr, 16 to 26 hours per week. Plus, there are regular quarterly multiple trip and cash give-aways (i.e. Vegas, $1000 - $5000 cash). They also offer extended medical and life insurance and are pretty flexible with family responsibilities.

While they do employ many very good people, it's still not uncommon for all too many employees to regularly show up late, leave early, slack off, treat customers badly or just not show up at all for their scheduled shift. It's hard to find reliable, competent workers no matter how much pay, perks and benefits you offer.


----------



## traynor_garnet (Feb 22, 2006)

Diablo said:


> Source?
> A lot of ppl spew off stats they make up based on perception, so Im just curious where these numbers come from.


I'll have to check. It's from one of my lectures but I cannot recall the source off hand. If I get the time to dig it up I will let you know (it will be an academic source so it may be a bit of a dry read).

TG


----------



## traynor_garnet (Feb 22, 2006)

One of the foundational debates in social theory is between Marx and Weber's understand of what a class "is" and how these differences inform very different conceptions of class based action, class interest, and consciousness. 

Governments often benefit from the mis-identification since people will often support policies that are really not in their own interests. Again, there is a much larger debate and problematic behind this statement.

Your second point on Tony Montana is a perfect example of Weber's distinction between class and status groups. They groups often overlap, but they are not identical and consist of different forms of power.

TG



mhammer said:


> That's an interesting distinction between what one IS and what one _thinks_ one is.
> 
> Two things make it interesting, at least to me:
> 
> ...


----------



## 10409 (Dec 11, 2011)

cheezyridr said:


> *YOU* hire these people for $13/hr? ive deleted this post 4 times. i'm gonna not come back to this thread. you admit this in front of everyone as if it's perfectly ok


yes i do, and it is perfectly ok. i take people who usually have nothing but a pair of hands and a willingness to learn and i teach them how do a job. As they learn, they earn more money. in the ~4 years or so it generally takes someone to "know what they're doing" their hourly wage can triple. If they're smart they'll buy the tools required to start doing contracts of their own, and then their wages will skyrocket. It's called a job with career potential. mcdonalds, on the other hand, is a dead end job. no matter how long you work there, you'll be done learning after a month, so your worth to the company will peak quite early. it seems completely reasonable to me that people with dead end jobs should have to do things like catch the bus, live with room mates, and make sacrifices to make ends meet.


----------



## 10409 (Dec 11, 2011)

mhammer said:


> If we think in terms of our own local context, couldn't agree with you more.
> 
> However, the action by the folks in the original news item did not pertain to our context, but to *theirs*. And where they live, a visit to the walk-in clinic is not paid for by whatever paltry taxes they pay, and saying thank you ten thousand times a day may be the best available job they can hope for to support their family. I'm sure there are plenty of folks at Fort Mac making double my wages, with 1/3 of my education, and not doing anything more than me. But then I'm not paying the rents or housing prices they are, and I don't have to fly anywhere to see family.
> 
> ...


"As far as men go, it is not what they are that interests me, but what they can become"

i can't find any sympathy for someone who sets themselves on a path leading nowhere and fails to look for an exit. I know existentialism is full of contradictions and flaws, but in first world countries, where there's a will, there's a way. these people are living in adversity as if they're convinced that it's all life has to offer. I don't accept that.


----------



## smorgdonkey (Jun 23, 2008)

I have no problem with them earning less when it IS entry level...but if they work there for years and perform well, they should be able to make decent money doing it. Mickey Dee's is good on a resume...why? Because it sucks and if you did it well & put up with the crap then you probably will do pretty well in other places.

Just because all of the service jobs used to be entry level into the workforce, doesn't mean they are entry level any more. I worked at a pizza joint. I excelled. I moved onto a tire factory in less than a year...I excelled there as well. The tire factory doesn't really hire any more and they pay way less than they used to so, what I am saying is that entry level isn't entry level any more. Entry level is any new job that you don't have experience in...if you keep at it and excel then there should be money there for anyone who does so.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

The research literature on youth employment (and here we are talking about working at the same time as attending high school) indicates that in a great many instances, the early employment they obtain at Mickey Dee type jobs tends to foster lousy attitudes towards work. If you survey their attitudes, you'll find that they are more likely to agree with survey statements like "It's okay to phone in sick if you don't feel like going to work that day", or "It's okay to keep money that a customer was accidentally overcharged, if they don't notice".

There seems to be a few reasons for it. First off, the jobs themselves are not intended to "go" anywhere. That is, they are not viewed, nor are they offered, as the ground floor of anything. Second, because of that, many such workplaces tend to be adolocentric in their workplace culture, with little incentive to adopt more professional behaviour of those higher up the chain. Third, as one of my students so aptly put it: "They didn't give a s**t about me so why should I care about them?". Many youth researchers would agree that the inflection point in adolescent employment history came around 35-40 years ago with the rapid rise of the fast-food industry, and its impact on who works where. We act as if it's always been like that, but it hasn't. I, for one, am deeply curious about the long-term impacts of such early employment experiences on employee attitudes and behaviour. And when people have been, for one reason or another, "stuck" in such jobs for long enough, what sort of impact does that have on their employability in better jobs?


----------



## smorgdonkey (Jun 23, 2008)

mhammer said:


> Third, as one of my students so aptly put it: "They didn't give a s**t about me so why should I care about them?".


...and pretty much every place is like that now so, I don't know where we go from here. One used to be indentured into a company when one was hired. Now one is a number which is targeted as soon as the performance of that number slips beneath some threshold or if that number sustains an injury/illness or other condition which the employer thinks they could replace with a cheaper more productive alternative (such as an employee who has earned significant paid vacation - cheaper to have a noob who gets the minimum). 

In my job, according to the corporation's own accounting, there was an operating loss of hundreds of millions of dollars last year. So, what goes into making an operating loss? Some of my guesses are:
-Interest on a huge multi-billion dollar loan that THEY decided that they needed to take on to replace equipment which still worked. 
-a payout which they made to cover the loss of a court case that had come to the forefront due to the corporation paying females less than males for the same job (for years).
-cuts to service (from a service industry...hmmm...that doesn't seem too smart).
-massive amounts of overtime due to a terrible system that they implemented.
-extra fuel costs due to the purchase of more vehicles.
-bonuses that they paid to about 7000 white collar workers FOR WHAT?? It is their job to manage the business and the business by THEIR numbers is failing!!! Meanwhile the workers are working harder than ever before.

But we can't do anything about it because we aren't in a legal strike position. Even when arbitrators make decisions in favour of the workers, the corporation interprets the findings in a different manner and then adjusts the implementation of the changes to suit them even if it doesn't address the reasons/conditions for which it was brought forth into arbitration.

Furthermore, the corporation fights every little issue even when it is clear that the employee is 'in the right' to discourage pursuit of the issue and to keep the people representing the employees occupied. They have very deep pockets and don't mind spending money to keep the employees on the ropes & beaten down. 

I said it before...it's all out of whack.


----------



## djmarcelca (Aug 2, 2012)

Do I think Mcdonalds workers deserve 15/hour?

No.

Not because they don't deserve to make decent wages, but because the job is not worth it. 
The Job Determines the wage. 

Unskilled labour - Low wage
Semi-Skilled Labour - Slightly elevated wage
Skilled labour -High wage.

It's that simple

If your job description is placing pre-cooked food on a tray handing it to someone and saying "Thank you come again"
Then minimum wage is all that job deserves.

If you're working a quick-lube changing oil & tires, or cleaning construction sites (I did that for one summer) or learning the basics of house plumbing or wiring 
That's Semi skilled and that's the 12-15/hour employee.

And of course the Skilled labour. 
Mechanics, Millwrights, Carpenters, Plumbers, Electricians, Chefs etc. 
The people you hand a job to, tell them what you want, and come back and it's done. Educated, Employable, highly desirable by Employers 
These are the guys who should and are getting 30+/hour (at least in Alberta they are)

If you want it, LEARN how to EARN it.
God helps those who help themselves,
Give a man a fish, and he'll eat for a day, Teach a man to Fish, he'll eat for a lifetime
and so on and so forth.


----------



## Accept2 (Jan 1, 2006)

Are workers really worth $15 an hour? McDonalds believes that some are...........
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money...donalds-former-new-ceo-big-pay-bumps/2078001/


----------



## traynor_garnet (Feb 22, 2006)

Nobody is disputing that wages should differ according to skill, training, and human capital. This is a strawman you have you created. What we are disputing is the _level_ of wages the low end should receive and the social causes that lead people into/restrict them to these types of jobs. 

People need to work and not everyone can be a x,y, or z (pick what ever current job category is offered as necessary, we don't need 10 million people doing that job nor will demand remain at current levels). We need an economy that distributes wealth somewhat fairly and proportionately keeping in mind some level of meritocratic inequality; what we have is astronomical wealth on the high end, and a pittance given to the low end. 

Let's not forget that McD's has experimented with replacing Canadian workers with call centres in India. Yep, pull up to the drive through and the person you talk to is not in the restaurant, or even in your country. Anything to drive down labour costs and increase profit, with complete disregard for the collective good.

We need to take the expression "people need to work" literally. We cannot replace everyone with computers and "self serve" (what will those people do); we don't need to have one group working incredibly long hours while another group looks for available work. How can we think about jobs in a new way, that gets rid of the absurd extremes yet remains somewhat meritocratic? . . . 

TG




djmarcelca said:


> Do I think Mcdonalds workers deserve 15/hour?
> 
> No.
> 
> ...


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

smorgdonkey said:


> ...and pretty much every place is like that now so, I don't know where we go from here. One used to be indentured into a company when one was hired. Now one is a number which is targeted as soon as the performance of that number slips beneath some threshold or if that number sustains an injury/illness or other condition which the employer thinks they could replace with a cheaper more productive alternative (such as an employee who has earned significant paid vacation - cheaper to have a noob who gets the minimum).
> 
> In my job, according to the corporation's own accounting, there was an operating loss of hundreds of millions of dollars last year. So, what goes into making an operating loss? Some of my guesses are:
> -Interest on a huge multi-billion dollar loan that THEY decided that they needed to take on to replace equipment which still worked.
> ...


My buddy RG Keen likes to refer to "MBA disease" as the source of stuff like this. For my part, one will never lose confidence in management nearly as fast as when you visit a Chapters or similarly large bookstore, and see what it is management types and management wannabes are reading these days. My own initial reaction is usually "Wait a sec. You don't _*already*_ know this stuff? How is it that you're _in charge_ of anything?".


----------



## smorgdonkey (Jun 23, 2008)

djmarcelca said:


> Do I think Mcdonalds workers deserve 15/hour?
> 
> No.
> 
> ...


Perhaps your wage tiers are off then. Minimum wage can't even rent an apartment. $15 was a decent wage 20 years ago.

Here, I think, is the final word on this:

http://politicalblindspot.com/mcdonalds-employees-in-denmark-make-21-an-hour-heres-how-they-did-it/

*Employees of Mickey Dee's get at least $21 per hour in Denmark if they are over 18 years of age. $15 if they are younger than 18 years of age. apparently, a Big Mac is only $0.56 USD more expensive there.*


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

Minimum wage always needs to be more appealing and advantageous than either pogey or social assistance. The difference needn't be _huge_, but it needs to be there, and sufficiently motivating, because "honour" and "pride" sure as shooting ain't gonna do the trick to keep folks off the "public teat". The days of being ashamed because you don't have work are long over. For many, unemployment is an _inconvenience_ these days, not a source of humiliation. And with easy credit so readily available, tolerance for that inconvenience is increased.

I suppose one could increase the contrast between minimum wage and social assistance by making the social safety net more cruel. But then there are many who rely on that net that never asked to be there, and have no choice in leaving it (e.g., disabled, children, etc.). If it were easy to both identify, and regulate, who deserves a harder and softer landing on that net, that would be great. But it would require additional resources to manage such a system and, much like big charitable-fundraising machines, more would have to be shifted over to simply administering the system than doing what the system was established to do in the first place.

The eternal challenge is to find a balance between what the state provides, as an expression of the humanity we hope our state stands for, and what employers can provide. Employers still have to have incentives to employ, and shaving profitability to the bone in order to pay inflated wages will not accomplish that. It's a tough mid-point to find.


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

mhammer said:


> Minimum wage always needs to be more appealing and advantageous than either pogey or social assistance. The difference needn't be _huge_, but it needs to be there, and sufficiently motivating, because "honour" and "pride" sure as shooting ain't gonna do the trick to keep folks off the "public teat". The days of being ashamed because you don't have work are long over. For many, unemployment is an _inconvenience_ these days, not a source of humiliation. And with easy credit so readily available, tolerance for that inconvenience is increased.
> 
> I suppose one could increase the contrast between minimum wage and social assistance by making the social safety net more cruel. But then there are many who rely on that net that never asked to be there, and have no choice in leaving it (e.g., disabled, children, etc.). If it were easy to both identify, and regulate, who deserves a harder and softer landing on that net, that would be great. But it would require additional resources to manage such a system and, much like big charitable-fundraising machines, more would have to be shifted over to simply administering the system than doing what the system was established to do in the first place.
> 
> The eternal challenge is to find a balance between what the state provides, as an expression of the humanity we hope our state stands for, and what employers can provide. Employers still have to have incentives to employ, and shaving profitability to the bone in order to pay inflated wages will not accomplish that. It's a tough mid-point to find.


I agree with this.
that said, it was one of the reasons I liked the workfare concept, at least in theory. It's a test to see if someone really is sincere about wanting to work or just a mooch full of excuses.
if anything I think there should be more of a stigma to being on social assistance, while able bodied.
i used to know a welfare house where the mom who was on welfare most of her life had 2 daughters, both of whom went straight onto welfare as soon as they finished high school, and occasionally supplemented their " incomes" working at bingo halls under the table. Sickening. My friend dated one of the daughters. There was no reason that any of them couldn't work.


----------



## Adcandour (Apr 21, 2013)

1. Getting fired from a mcdees was the best thing that ever happened to me.

2. You reap what you sew. Your parents may have fvcked the farm up before you started working it. You can fix it, if you dig up a clue.

3. I dont care what people say - there's opportunity to be had. I love calling a spade.a spade - people are fvckin' retarded.

4. It's a shame about communism. 

5. "Baby Steps" a la Bill Murray would be AWESOME if people knew which direction to go. 

6. Who here likes guitars?


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

Diablo said:


> first of all, "middle class" isn't a constant or easy thing to define. But its nowhere near as clear as you make it out to be.
> In terms of examples, I already gave you some (access to education, healthcare, safe working conditions etc). Additionally, theres never been a time in this country when theres been so many single homeowners. And I wouldn't call them rich or 1%. I was one of them. Theres also fewer renters and more homeowners than ever.
> 
> Anecdotally, I see more ppl with luxuries like new shiny cars and fancy smartphones than I see ppl starving in the streets, in spite of what the media tells me is happening.
> ...



Middle class is what my family was and most everyone that grew up on my street. Factory workers with good union level pay with health benefits and paid vacations. Those jobs are long gone. Long gone. The new middle class is two people working for maybe $13 or $14 an hour with no benefits and no pension.


----------



## ne1roc (Mar 4, 2006)

GuitarsCanada said:


> Middle class is what my family was and most everyone that grew up on my street. Factory workers with good union level pay with health benefits and paid vacations. Those jobs are long gone. Long gone. The new middle class is two people working for maybe $13 or $14 an hour with no benefits and no pension.


Were they Union or payed Union level wages for excellent performance in a non unionized environment? I am on the same page as you regarding all your posts. I grew up the same way but no one was ever unionized. We all just worked our asses off and got paid very well for our work ethic. Unions are the only reason good paying jobs are no longer available in Canada and now they are chasing McDonald's employees to make up for their loses, 

Sent from my SGH-I717M using Tapatalk


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

ne1roc said:


> Were they Union or payed Union level wages for excellent performance in a non unionized environment? I am on the same page as you regarding all your posts. I grew up the same way but no one was ever unionized. We all just worked our asses off and got paid very well for our work ethic. Unions are the only reason good paying jobs are no longer available in Canada and now they are chasing McDonald's employees to make up for their loses,
> 
> Sent from my SGH-I717M using Tapatalk


I have a lot of issues with the union model as it stands today. But back in my father's day they were a god send to those guys. It brought them things we take for granted today. Like some human dignity. A place to eat. Clean water to drink. Etc etc today's model has chased a lot of companies away


----------



## smorgdonkey (Jun 23, 2008)

ne1roc said:


> . Unions are the only reason good paying jobs are no longer available in Canada and now they are chasing McDonald's employees to make up for their losses


That is the most ridiculous statement I have ever read on this forum. 

The only reason any non-union jobs paid well was because they had to compete with the wages and benefits that unions won. That is the thing that people never seem to get...unions won benefits and wages for their own workers (and overtime rates, the 40 hour work week, maternity leave, and on and on and on!!!) which also brought non-union workplaces' compensation packages up to either keep pace or to meet with legislation brought on by the gains.

Workplaces are in it for as much as they can get away with and will give to the workers as little as they can get away with. Unions made the employers more fair with their workers. They have their problems and corruptions but I can hardly imagine what being a working person would be like without even today's neutered union movement.


----------



## Adcandour (Apr 21, 2013)

smorgdonkey said:


> That is the most ridiculous statement I have ever read on this forum.
> 
> The only reason any non-union jobs paid well was because they had to compete with the wages and benefits that unions won. That is the thing that people never seem to get...unions won benefits and wages for their own workers (and overtime rates, the 40 hour work week, maternity leave, and on and on and on!!!) which also brought non-union workplaces' compensation packages up to either keep pace or to meet with legislation brought on by the gains.
> 
> Workplaces are in it for as much as they can get away with and will give to the workers as little as they can get away with. Unions made the employers more fair with their workers. They have their problems and corruptions but I can hardly imagine what being a working person would be like without even today's neutered union movement.


I realize we can't have a decent debate, if I'm always chiming in with, "all the issues with all our problems always comes down to the individual". So I pretty much don't. But, I've never felt stronger about any one point, because it always seems to be the case.

It follows that Unions would work, if unions (local whatever) weren't filled with asses trying to justify their day-to-day and the greedy who sit on top. AND, if the employees in the unions weren't sacks of lazy sh!t. 

When I was at Bombardier Aerospace, I couldn't believe the mentality of _almost _everyone. I copied the way the union workers behaved during my probationary period to 'fit in' and nearly got canned (I was a target cause there was no nepotism - I actually earned my place there). I could tell you_ that_ story over a couple beer (it started with a union employee grabbing the chair from under me and throwing it across the hangar - sheesh, right?). ...and don't get me started on unions and OPG. I've been involved with that shit-show for about 10 years.

Anyway, I totally get what unions are about (and I like the _idea_), but like I said, people are simply fvcked these days. We all need to fix our selves. The only issue with me spurting this babble, is that you guys are all very aware, but you represent a very small part of the population.

The real people we are talking about here are people very similar to my in-laws - they are the general population. Just unaware, mindless consumers who happily trudge through their days talking about what famous people are doing, or their dumb neighbours, or what they wish they could buy or do to the yard. I've been trying for over 10 years to try help them to no avail. Who am I? A guy who listens to their dreams and "wouldn't it be awesome ifs...". 

If I told you, "do this" and I can guarantee you $5000-$10K a month. You gotta work hard as hell for two years and then you can relax, would you do it? The general population wouldn't. I've tried this with about 10-15 people, and the last guy - an ambitious hungarian - is now making the cash that my family/acquaintances turned down. He bitches every day, but he gets it. 

Just so you know, I don't do the above, I was just in a position to help others (maybe two people, or three,...whatever)

This post is directly related to the amount of coffee I have just drank.


----------



## ne1roc (Mar 4, 2006)

smorgdonkey said:


> That is the most ridiculous statement I have ever read on this forum.


Sometimes the truth is ridiculous! 



Sent from my SGH-I717M using Tapatalk


----------



## smorgdonkey (Jun 23, 2008)

ne1roc said:


> Sometimes the truth is ridiculous!
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my SGH-I717M using Tapatalk


Sure, sometimes it is but your statement was not the truth.

If employers were fair with workers then there would have never been a union in existence. If it were not for corporate greed then corporations would not have outsourced or moved jobs.


----------



## smorgdonkey (Jun 23, 2008)

adcandour...I agree with much of what you said but the alternative to having no unions (even with the lazy sacks and power hungry wingnuts at the local or other level) is worse. The tire factory I worked at paid well. Never was unionized. The injustices there were unreal. Eventually pay limits and pay cuts were brought in and benefits were cut, then contract workers were brought in. They STILL built 2 plants in Mexico and just cut a bunch more jobs. The people working there only make what I made in 1995 when I left, MINUS a bunch of benefits.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

Clearly, unions HAVE been a godsend in past, and many instances now. The question is: How do some unions come to do what seems the opposite of their original, and best, purposes? What sends them off the rails, and how would we get them back on?


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

smorgdonkey said:


> Sure, sometimes it is but your statement was not the truth.
> 
> If employers were fair with workers then there would have never been a union in existence. If it were not for corporate greed then corporations would not have outsourced or moved jobs.


That is not entirely true. As states many times in the past corporations are created for one purpose only. To make money. They are not in business to send our kids to college. That is our responsibility. Unions played a huge roll in gaining the basic things that were lacking. Overtime. Clean areas to eat and wash up. Health benefits. Etc etc. They took it too far. Not enough to have one free pair of glasses a year you could get three pair and one pair of sunglasses. Two pair of boots ? How about 4. Pay half those braces. How about all of it. Free legal services. Free chiropractic free drugs. You could not get fired for being a total drunk or drug addict. Simply no way to get rid of people. I never saw a person get fired in 24 years . want the summer off? Just slip on a bar of soap in the shower room. No problem . Just took it too far. That is what the big unions did to us all. Unfortunately the company brass did not have enough balls to stand up to them when they needed to. So we all paid the price. 

In the 80's they would strike and the companies would buckle. By the end of the 90's there was talk of moving plants. The unions said bullshit you will. well, they are all gone now. I still remember the day they came and told us the foundry here was closing. Like yesterday. The union said don't give in boys they would not dare to close us. We have the best quality in the company. We did. The plant closed

Unfortunately things changed and we went global. I was heavily involved in many of those contracts in my auto days. The numbers were staggering that these companies were putting out. I predicted the bankruptcy of GM 4 years before it happened. There was simply no way they could survive under those contracts. $77 an hour for an AC Delco unskilled employee? We are talking janitors and floor sweepers here. Just not feasible in today's market. It was a big shit pie and we all took a bite from it. My company lost 3 plants and 1500 people over it. Those times are gone and they are not coming back. Not for factories and not for McDonalds. I bailed out in 2008 and am glad I did. But what if we all played our cards according to what we had to deal with. The models of the 70's and 80's were not going to work any longer. The big unions refused to deal with that reality and they lost heavily. Literally thousands and thousands of job. Shit even the plants I worked at and with added to over 10,000 high paying jobs lost. This area I live in has been totally decimated by plant closures.


----------



## Jimmy_D (Jul 4, 2009)

smorgdonkey said:


> ...Now one is a number which is targeted as soon as the performance of that number slips beneath some threshold or if that number sustains an injury/illness or other condition which the employer thinks they could replace with a cheaper more productive alternative (such as an employee who has earned significant paid vacation - cheaper to have a noob who gets the minimum).


A perfect description of non-union private industry and private business in Canada today, the sector in which the majority of Canadians work, the sector that directly funds the all the public sector unions and indirectly subsidizes all the private sector unions... crazy?...possibly, unsustainable? definitely.


----------



## smorgdonkey (Jun 23, 2008)

I said before and will say it again...they took things too far...but WHO took it too far? The guy who slipped on the soap in the shower for the summer off did his part to F everyone who came after him. One thing about unions is that the people who are members have to be involved. If the members of the union I belong to could get together on anything, I am sure that something could be changed but unity is a thing of the past and that is amplified by many degrees in this 'me' era.


----------



## Guest (May 25, 2014)

McDonald's workers in San Francisco start at $10.75/hour -- that's minimum wage in San Francisco. A Big Mac still costs the same in San Francisco as it does across the bay in Oakland.

In-N-Out starting salaries _across the entire state_ are $11.00/hour and you progress pretty quickly from there.

Clearly you can pay a living wage to fast food workers and still produce a profitable product. In the In-N-Out case not only can you produce a profitable product but it's f'ing delicious too.

I say give them their money. Give all the minimum wage workers their money. It's time for a higher minimum wage IMO.


----------



## Guest (May 25, 2014)

I agree on the increase, but, not that big, all at once. ~30% !?
If done in increments, it may not create too much chaos.


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

laristotle said:


> I agree on the increase, but, not that big, all at once. ~30% !?
> If done in increments, it may not create too much chaos.


chaos?
I don't think the workers would find it chaotic at all 

And there actually is a hidden benefit to the employer. Ppl forget how hard it is to find min wage workers for places like McDonalds, and how high the turnover is, costs to train, stigma etc. Its basically a "throw away job". A better wage would make these jobs more desirable and possibly balance out the leverage between the employer/applicant, possibly leading to better selection/quality of employees.

Look, Im a cheap, conservative guy who loves my fast food. But even I can see the benefits in moving away from slave labor in a particular industry.


----------



## ronmac (Sep 22, 2006)

It's all about perspective, isn't it?


----------



## smorgdonkey (Jun 23, 2008)

Ron, that picture says it all.

I just listened to a radio show last night and one of the main ideas being discussed was how the price of things never equals the cost. Like cheap coal to generate electricity...they were saying that big business would look at things completely differently if the medical bills of the people who needed treatment and died due to the pollutants from the burning of the coal were forwarded to them. The cost of the greener alternative is higher up front but the cost of the cheaper alternative (in that example, the coal) was far higher in the long term.

It was very interesting.

Another aspect was the discussion about economy(ies) in general and how many economists think it isn't ridiculous to be able to expect or achieve continuous economic growth.


----------



## Guest (May 28, 2014)

smorgdonkey said:


> Another aspect was the discussion about economy(ies) in general and how many economists think it isn't ridiculous to be able to expect or achieve continuous economic growth.


This has always bothered me. That the stock market doesn't reward constant healthy profit but only continuously increasing profit which is unrealistic and rewards the wrong behaviour in companies. Short term gain strategies win out too easily over long term success strategies.

I'm actually hoping the current place I work for holds off going public for a while so that profit margin pressure isn't as psycho and we can focus on the products and keeping employee moral high (which it is right now).


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

If I ever hear an economist use the word "estimate" as either a noun or a verb, I think I'm going to have to double up on my heart medication to avoid a cardiac event. :stirpot:

We seem to live in an era when ONLY growth is equated with profitability. Only a box store will do; an established, sustainable, consistently profitable neighbourhood store isn't good enough.

What the hell are business schools turning out these days?

But then....http://www.brookings.edu/research/p...d-wall-street-corporate-america-winograd-hais


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

iaresee said:


> *This has always bothered me. That the stock market doesn't reward constant healthy profit but only continuously increasing profit which is unrealistic and rewards the wrong behaviour in companies. Short term gain strategies win out too easily over long term success strategies.*
> 
> I'm actually hoping the current place I work for holds off going public for a while so that profit margin pressure isn't as psycho and we can focus on the products and keeping employee moral high (which it is right now).


its true. I work for a fortune 500 publicly traded company. pretty much no matter what is happening in our industry, or the economy in general, revenue expectations increase annually by 10-15%.
So what happens invariably, is good people miss their targets, get frustrated and leave for greener pastures. New hires come in, some endure the learning curve, some benefit from the ground work their predecessors did, and some walk away within a year or 2 if they cant make it up the hill. 
Generally speaking, the quality of service goes down. 1 or 2 higher ups will be thrown to the lions, replaced by an external crony of the bigwigs, and the middle managers who often did nothing to make things better other than shout at the already flight-risk employees, go on about their business.


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

mhammer said:


> If I ever hear an economist use the word "estimate" as either a noun or a verb, I think I'm going to have to double up on my heart medication to avoid a cardiac event. :stirpot:
> 
> *We seem to live in an era when ONLY growth is equated with profitability. Only a box store will do; an established, sustainable, consistently profitable neighbourhood store isn't good enough.*
> 
> ...


I often don't feel too sorry fo the neighborhood store.
All too often they talk the talk about service but don't walk the walk, and todays shopper is too savvy to pay huge markups for nothing.

When we bought our previous house, I was talking to the owner about the neighborhood. I commented that it must be really handy being close to a new plaza with a big Canadian Tire. He rolled his eyes and said "Ohhh.... we don't go there, we go to the little hardware shop on the main road....They don't always have what you need, but can usuyally get it within about 2-3 weeks....and the owner can be a little grumpy, depending on the day you go..." And I thought to myself "Why the Fk would I ever want to go there?? I did visit it once or twice....pretty much as described. Minimal selection, barely box-store level service, at premium prices. Didn't even know what was in their own flyer. As sad as it is to say, it couldn't even best the service I get from the pimple faced teenagers working at Can tire.
I firmly believe great stores can survive box stores. But they have to deserve it, they aren't entitled to it.


----------



## smorgdonkey (Jun 23, 2008)

It is the stockholder-driven system that has Wal-Marted us out of many of the things that life was made of. That idea that the growth has to be huge has made competition unhealthy (you know, there is such a thing as healthy competition and people in the same business NOT being cut-throat) and resulted in every business cutting to the core...in almost all cases causing customer service to suffer to a large degree and in many of those instances caused 'service' to disappear altogether.

The chase for more and more of one thing (profit) has resulted in less and less of many things which we all valued. Problem there is that most people will just take their cheap sh!t and shake their heads, more happy with the low price than the high cost.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

Diablo said:


> I often don't feel too sorry fo the neighborhood store.
> All too often they talk the talk about service but don't walk the walk, and todays shopper is too savvy to pay huge markups for nothing.
> 
> When we bought our previous house, I was talking to the owner about the neighborhood. I commented that it must be really handy being close to a new plaza with a big Canadian Tire. He rolled his eyes and said "Ohhh.... we don't go there, we go to the little hardware shop on the main road....They don't always have what you need, but can usuyally get it within about 2-3 weeks....and the owner can be a little grumpy, depending on the day you go..." And I thought to myself "Why the Fk would I ever want to go there?? I did visit it once or twice....pretty much as described. Minimal selection, barely box-store level service, at premium prices. Didn't even know what was in their own flyer. As sad as it is to say, it couldn't even best the service I get from the pimple faced teenagers working at Can tire.
> I firmly believe great stores can survive box stores. But they have to deserve it, they aren't entitled to it.


Couldn't agree more. But I've seen smaller stores that have exceptional choice, great service, fair prices (well, as cheap as you can get without the advantage that volume purchasing provides), and no intention of expanding to more outlets or a larger space. Good enough is good enough in that retailer's mind, and lord love 'em for that attitude.


----------



## Animalboy71 (Oct 13, 2012)

I've read the first 4 pages of this thread. I have a proposal that I strongly believe could "fix" the economics of the planet. Bear in mind I fully realize this will never happen.

*WAL-MART Stats 2013*
NET profits for 2013 = *$17,760,000,000.00* ($17.76 Billion)

People Employed by WAL-MART Worldwide *2,100,000* (2.1 Million)

50% of the NET Profits = *$8,880,000,000.00 *($8.88 Billion)

If every employee of WAL-MART was given an EQUAL share of 50% of the annual net profits that would be *$4,228.57 *This is a lot of money to the majority of the population. Before you start mocking me for this ludicrous suggestion just think about how this would effect the economy. That's a lot of money to most of us. That money would then be spent in all kinds of ways thus stimulating the economy. Those employees will feel better about their jobs and productivity will increase. Will i feel bad for the 7 or 8 people this would take profits from?* FUCK NO! They're BILLIONAIRES.*

Now imagine all big companies are forced to do this WORLDWIDE. What a great place the world would be.

Go ahead and tear it apart, I know it will never happen but *doesn't it make sense on some level?* I know it's completely over simplified but you get the idea.


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

Animalboy71 said:


> I've read the first 4 pages of this thread. I have a proposal that I strongly believe could "fix" the economics of the planet. Bear in mind I fully realize this will never happen.
> 
> *WAL-MART Stats 2013*
> NET profits for 2013 = *$17,760,000,000.00* ($17.76 Billion)
> ...


Very idealistic, but what's in it for Walmart? Why do they and their shareholders get burdened with saving the economy ( it wouldn't). 3 grand or some more annually after tax, really doesn't change someone's lifestyle that much. It's nice to think they'd all save every dime of it for their kids education, but in most cases it would just result in buying a slightly nicer Japanese car, and a few more cases of beer throughout the year.
Socialist charity schemes really aren't very likely in the real world.


----------



## Animalboy71 (Oct 13, 2012)

You're right, Wal-Mart shareholders wouldn't be quite as wealthy. The only win that I can think of is having a work force that feels pride and respect from it's employer. I don't see a lot of happy people working at Wal-Mart but I do know that a happy employee is a good employee.


----------



## Guest (Aug 3, 2014)

You know, if companies would give their employees a discount card, say 5-10%, 
to shop with at their own stores, that would enhance morale and still add to profits.


----------



## TA462 (Oct 30, 2012)

laristotle said:


> You know, if companies would give their employees a discount card, say 5-10%,
> to shop with at their own stores, that would enhance morale and still add to profits.


Most stores do that as well as most of the bigger manufacturers.


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

yeah yeah, except that totally ignores the friedman doctrine. a holy scripture to the man of means. the basic premise of it is the idea that the sole social responsibility of a business is to maximize profits. anything less is a tax on the owner. john q public likes to envision this utopian corporation that has a social conscience as being possible within the free enterprise system. of course it's a fantasy. it comes from the ridiculous notion that there is such a thing as "enough" personal wealth. john q public looks at the acquisition of money as a task one might complete. _once i have amount x, i can relax. _


----------



## Chitmo (Sep 2, 2013)

You can indeed raise a family on a McDs salary, it's just a matter of standard of living. For some reason everyone today wants to live like a King/Queen. To quote Will Smith. "Too many people buy shit they don't need to impress people they don't know!" Before I got my current job I always lived off random part time gigs, working 1-3 jobs at a time, always on the hunt for something better. There were months that I lived off of as little as $500. The fluffy Hippie bull S#!% idea that everyone should get a fair wage doesn't work, the soviet union tried that and it didn't work out so well. You wanna make $50K/year then you should have went to school or at least put in the effort to find a good job. Places like McDs should just be a stop-gap while looking for a real job or going to school and if that's good enough for you then deal with it!!! I don't mind having someone experienced making sure there is no mustard on my burger! Sure it sucks, but you made the choice that it was good enough. Oh and the tax issue, why should I pay more taxes out of my hard earned money just so that some lazy schmuck can ride the system?(Completely separate rant, I know!!) I can rant about this all day long. And finally my biggest peeve is figgin charity, generally people look out for themselves unless it suits them. This little video says it all!!!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBuC_0-d-9Y

IF YOU WANT SOMETHING GO EARN IT AND STOP COMPLAINING ABOUT WHAT YOU DON'T HAVE!!!!!

Peace out!!!


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

If McDonalds employees successfully unionize and receive the increases they want, watch for prices to rise in a directly proportional way.

The added costs will not come from the profit margin.

As I don't eat their food I probably wouldn't be directly impacted and so, don't care.

If it causes a few less people to eat that stuff on a regular basis and ultimately saves health care money, in this case it could he argued that a union truly helped society.


----------



## smorgdonkey (Jun 23, 2008)

Milkman said:


> If McDonalds employees successfully unionize and receive the increases they want, watch for prices to rise in a directly proportional way.


You would think so but it didn't happen in Denmark.


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

All increases in wages tend to be margin neutral. Therefore someone else is paying for it. Either in the supply chain or out of your pocket.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

GuitarsCanada said:


> All increases in wages tend to be margin neutral. Therefore someone else is paying for it. Either in the supply chain or out of your pocket.


Yeah they may try to push cost reduction pressure on to their supply chain, but at the end of the day it will be added directly to the cost of your Big Mac.


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

Animalboy71 said:


> You're right, Wal-Mart shareholders wouldn't be quite as wealthy. The only win that I can think of is having a work force that feels pride and respect from it's employer. I don't see a lot of happy people working at Wal-Mart but I do know that a happy employee is a good employee.


I thnk that sense of contentedness would last about 2 weeks. Then back to the same old, with both sides thinking " what have you done for me LATELY?".
fact is, walmart is not the only option for workers, even in retail.
costco pays it's staff quite well comparatively. If you're any good at your job, you should either get promoted to management or go work at Costco. If you just punch a clock, and mindlessly do the bare minimum to stay employed, then deal with it.

Maybe the work force isnt that different than the world of sports.
do we feel bad that an AHL hockey player gets paid a fraction of what an NHL player earns in spite of working just as hard?
you could apply the same rationale to music and the arts as well.
theres always an incentive to make more if you deserve, but noone is entitled to it just because they breathe and have a heartbeat.


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

Diablo said:


> I thnk that sense of contentedness would last about 2 weeks. Then back to the same old, with both sides thinking " what have you done for me LATELY?".
> .


i am currently really lucky, because i work in a place where their attitude is that they' don't want you to _have_ to come to work. they want you to feel as though you _get_ to come to work. most of that feeling comes (for me) just from being respected. that respect bleeds into so many other aspects of my job, and the impact it has on my every day is big. even on a tough day i go home in a better mood than i did with some other companies.


----------

