APP - This Labor Day: The Renewed Labor Movement?

Howey

Banned
Will the fast food strikes help restore union power?

Over the past several months, a new kind of labor activism has emerged from some of America’s poorest-paying and least-unionized industries. Fast food workers have stood near the forefront of the movement, waging a nationwide strike campaign which began in December with about 200 New York-based fast food employees and now encompasses thousands of workers spread across 58 cities.

The affected cities range from New York to Seattle, and from Detroit to Memphis. The strikers come from a variety of different backgrounds, but the majority of them are poor people of color, forced to scrape by on what they can earn from one or two low-wage jobs and a bit of public assistance. When they walk the picket line, many of these striker carry signs with expressions like, “I AM A MAN,” a reference to the 1968 sanitation workers’ strike and a sign that many workers consider this campaign to be as much about human dignity as it is about wages.

Few would deny that something significant is happening at the bottom rungs of the fast food industry. What remains unclear is whether those workers can save organized labor, let alone themselves.

One of America’s biggest unions is staking millions of dollars on the answer. The Service Employees International Union (SEIU), which lays claim to over two million members worldwide, has poured its substantial resources and manpower into growing the spontaneous fast food strikes from a local phenomenon to a national campaign. Hundreds of other unions and political organizations have also pledged support, but SEIU remains the nascent movement’s most prominent institutional benefactor.

If the fast food workers achieve tangible results, it could transform low-wage fast food and retail in the same way that the United Auto Workers (UAW) and other unions helped to transform manufacturing during the 1930s. Their efforts, combined with the stimulative impact of World War II, helped birth a new American middle class and an organized labor Golden Age.

more...this time on why the right hates workers...

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/02/opinion/krugman-love-for-labor-lost.html?_r=0

No, what’s unimaginable now is that Congress would unanimously offer even an empty gesture of support for workers’ dignity. For the fact is that many of today’s politicians can’t even bring themselves to fake respect for ordinary working Americans.

Consider, for example, how Eric Cantor, the House majority leader, marked Labor Day last year: with a Twitter post declaring “Today, we celebrate those who have taken a risk, worked hard, built a business and earned their own success.” Yep, he saw Labor Day as an occasion to honor business owners.
 
We will see. I support their efforts and I will not cross their picket lines.... But that's just me. What about the rest of America?

Nobody cares. AFL/CIO is just trying to replace lost membership. Trumka is sweating bullets. But nobody wants to pay $8 for a Big Mac. Or half those folks will get canned and it will force them to automate even more
 
I think I want some Newman's own Organic dollar coffee. Or a Big Mac. Wait do they have bacon on them? Don't do bacon.
 
Everyone's worked fast food at one time. I think these strikers are getting support.

I don't think so Howey. I think many of the people who are gainfully employed beyond the fast food level feel that fast food is still a teenager type job and either do not know, or refuse to believe that so many people in this country are trying to raise a family on that kind of income...oft times through no fault of their own, contrary to popular right wing opinion.
 
I don't think so Howey. I think many of the people who are gainfully employed beyond the fast food level feel that fast food is still a teenager type job and either do not know, or refuse to believe that so many people in this country are trying to raise a family on that kind of income...oft times through no fault of their own, contrary to popular right wing opinion.

I love the "through no fault of their own" like they have no control over what happens in their lives. It is like the "rich" forced them to raise a family.

It is irrelevant that they are trying to raise a family on that income. What someone is paid is not determined by the size of their family. That kind of thinking has no basis in rational economic thought. What someone is paid is directly proportional to how easy it is to replace that person.

The reason McDonald's or any other business pays $7.25/hr is because that is what the market will bear. As I posted before, there is a McDonalds in North Dakota that is paying $15/hour. Why? Is the owner that magnanimous? No. It is because that is what the market will bear.

The oil boom (thanks to President Bush) has caused unemployment to drop to 3% and there are plenty of good paying jobs. People don't need to take McDonald's jobs. In order to compete for labor, McDonalds has to pay a competitive rate.

Whether or not someone is trying to raise a family is not the employers concern or problem and should factor ZERO into the wage someone earns.

Here is a thought, now I am just riffing here so bear with me. But, if one cannot afford to have a family, maybe they should wait until they can. I know it is crazy right? Who would ever think of such a thing?
 
I love the "through no fault of their own" like they have no control over what happens in their lives. It is like the "rich" forced them to raise a family.

It is irrelevant that they are trying to raise a family on that income. What someone is paid is not determined by the size of their family. That kind of thinking has no basis in rational economic thought. What someone is paid is directly proportional to how easy it is to replace that person.

The reason McDonald's or any other business pays $7.25/hr is because that is what the market will bear. As I posted before, there is a McDonalds in North Dakota that is paying $15/hour. Why? Is the owner that magnanimous? No. It is because that is what the market will bear.

The oil boom (thanks to President Bush) has caused unemployment to drop to 3% and there are plenty of good paying jobs. People don't need to take McDonald's jobs. In order to compete for labor, McDonalds has to pay a competitive rate.

Whether or not someone is trying to raise a family is not the employers concern or problem and should factor ZERO into the wage someone earns.

Here is a thought, now I am just riffing here so bear with me. But, if one cannot afford to have a family, maybe they should wait until they can. I know it is crazy right? Who would ever think of such a thing?

Ever think of how many people already had families started when the decent paying jobs went bye bye? Or when the financial sector collapsed?

You see, I don't think you conservatives understand how large scale economics work. A business owner is only going to make money if...

A. He has someone to do the job for him(besides the self employed, of course)
B. He has customers to purchase his goods or services.

Are you with me so far?

What do you think will happen if a large segment of our population who are employees of other businesses lost their jobs because the owner decided to get greedy and move their operations to a place where they can get labor for pennies on the dollar?

That puts a HUGE burden on the economy. Fewer people with disposable incomes, more people struggling just to make it through the week with food...or the month without getting their utilities turned off.

Then in turn....those same businesses kept their profits in those places...never to return to the United States, the place where those profits were made?

That's called EXTRACTION. And it happens....trillions of dollars every year. These big multi-national comglomerates are extracting the wealth from this country on a large scale.

So....you have more and more people working for less than it costs to live here, and more and more of the profits leaving the country.

So..if the workforce is struggling....eventually, there won't be money to buy those goods and services. You can get a 50" flat screen down to $200 and if it comes down to a flat screen or feeding your family, it isn't going to matter how cheap you make it.

This has nothing to do with "what the market will bear" it has to do with greed at the top and their power to write their own rules through the rigged political system that relies on massive campaign donations to get elected.
 
So how many McDonald's workers were in the situation described above? I wont deny it does happen, but I doubt those are the ones striking willingly.

I don't understand the mindset of 'Tax the people, and then inflate the economy to make it look better'. Its not sustainable.
 
Ever think of how many people already had families started when the decent paying jobs went bye bye? Or when the financial sector collapsed?

You see, I don't think you conservatives understand how large scale economics work. A business owner is only going to make money if...

A. He has someone to do the job for him(besides the self employed, of course)
B. He has customers to purchase his goods or services.

Are you with me so far?

What do you think will happen if a large segment of our population who are employees of other businesses lost their jobs because the owner decided to get greedy and move their operations to a place where they can get labor for pennies on the dollar?

That puts a HUGE burden on the economy. Fewer people with disposable incomes, more people struggling just to make it through the week with food...or the month without getting their utilities turned off.

Then in turn....those same businesses kept their profits in those places...never to return to the United States, the place where those profits were made?

That's called EXTRACTION. And it happens....trillions of dollars every year. These big multi-national comglomerates are extracting the wealth from this country on a large scale.

So....you have more and more people working for less than it costs to live here, and more and more of the profits leaving the country.

So..if the workforce is struggling....eventually, there won't be money to buy those goods and services. You can get a 50" flat screen down to $200 and if it comes down to a flat screen or feeding your family, it isn't going to matter how cheap you make it.

This has nothing to do with "what the market will bear" it has to do with greed at the top and their power to write their own rules through the rigged political system that relies on massive campaign donations to get elected.

You have a child like understanding of economics. Someone's life history has zero relevance to what an employer should pay.

For example do you think a man who has a wife and four kids should be paid more than a single woman?

Do you think one of your colleagues who does the same exact job but has two kids should make more than you who has zero?

That is what you seem to be saying.

As to businesses moving jobs overseas it is sometimes labor costs and sometimes it is other inputs. For example, thanks for sugar cane subsidies, the US pays five times the world market for sugar. Yay for sugar cane farmers right? But not so yay for folks who use sugar cane as an input. So candy makers move their factories overseas where the cost of their input is cheaper.

Business seeks to make profit. Without profit there is no business and there is no job. The only entity that can pretend profit is irrelevant is the US gobblement which utilizes coercion and force to extract its earnings
 
So how many McDonald's workers were in the situation described above? I wont deny it does happen, but I doubt those are the ones striking willingly.

I don't understand the mindset of 'Tax the people, and then inflate the economy to make it look better'. Its not sustainable.

I don't know how many....do you? The AVERAGE age of a McDonald's worker is 29 years old. Plus...why limit it to one fast food company? Or just one low income sector?
 
You have a child like understanding of economics. Someone's life history has zero relevance to what an employer should pay.

For example do you think a man who has a wife and four kids should be paid more than a single woman?

Do you think one of your colleagues who does the same exact job but has two kids should make more than you who has zero?

That is what you seem to be saying.

As to businesses moving jobs overseas it is sometimes labor costs and sometimes it is other inputs. For example, thanks for sugar cane subsidies, the US pays five times the world market for sugar. Yay for sugar cane farmers right? But not so yay for folks who use sugar cane as an input. So candy makers move their factories overseas where the cost of their input is cheaper.

Business seeks to make profit. Without profit there is no business and there is no job. The only entity that can pretend profit is irrelevant is the US gobblement which utilizes coercion and force to extract its earnings

And without labor there is no business. Talk about a child like understanding.

Where did I say ANYTHING of that sort about life experiences dictating wages? Oh....that's right, I didn't you made that up as a strawman you can easily knock down.
 
I don't know how many....do you? The AVERAGE age of a McDonald's worker is 29 years old. Plus...why limit it to one fast food company? Or just one low income sector?
[/quote]

Topic at hand. Are the people described by you 'go getters, business owners, and etc.' the ones making careers out of a cashiers job? or is it one whose ambition fell short. Arent there several shift supervisors in each store and even a few managers? Then doesn't MC offer help in obtaining a franchise?

When I want I new job, I go to monster and look. Isnt it safe to say that a person who has started a family while financially secure and want a to make ends meet will find the highest paying job, or a t least one that pays? Why did they stop at McDonald's? why did all of these motivated individuals stop looking?
 

Topic at hand. Are the people described by you 'go getters, business owners, and etc.' the ones making careers out of a cashiers job? or is it one whose ambition fell short. Arent there several shift supervisors in each store and even a few managers? Then doesn't MC offer help in obtaining a franchise?

When I want I new job, I go to monster and look. Isnt it safe to say that a person who has started a family while financially secure and want a to make ends meet will find the highest paying job, or a t least one that pays? Why did they stop at McDonald's? why did all of these motivated individuals stop looking?[/QUOTE]

And you know that they "stopped" at McDonald's....how?
 
And without labor there is no business. Talk about a child like understanding.

Where did I say ANYTHING of that sort about life experiences dictating wages? Oh....that's right, I didn't you made that up as a strawman you can easily knock down.

Actually that isn't true. Lots of businesses can survive without labor. There is automation and maybe they are mom and pop shops.

As for this so called strawman, why don't you go back and read post #9?

Did you not say that we don't understand that people are trying to raise families on these wages? What were you implying if not that their situation should dictate what they earn

This is why you are lucky I abstained from the "debate"
 
I don't know for sure. But you don't either.

I presume they would have moved to greener pastures if they were interested in their family's income. You can't say these McDonald's employees are motivated to do better, because they would have at least made a horizontal movement if they had the ambition. Plenty of jobs pays more than minimal wages, even for entry-level.

The jobs are there, one must just reaaaaach out and take initiative instead of trying to elect others to do it for you.

'Fortune favors the bold, after all.
 
Back
Top