Yet another fast food worker strike

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,627
54,579
136
Well, here is the problem.

She went in. She was interviewed. She was offered a job. This job has these requirements. It pays this amount. Do you accept it?

She said yes.

Once on the job, she plans to strike and says she should be paid double what was offered to her initially? That's just deceptive practices. If they offered her $8.25. She should have said "I want $15". They'd go back to her and say "No thanks we can find someone else who will do this work." I'd like to know how long this chick has been working for the company.

No it isn't. I find it extraordinarily unlikely that her contract was for any set period of time. She can quit any time she wants for any reason or no reason, and she can decide she wants more money whenever she wants as well. That's just business.

The company is not doing her a favor, it is a business transaction with very specific parameters, none of which include promising to work for X period of time for whatever hourly wage you signed up for.
 

trenchfoot

Lifer
Aug 5, 2000
15,622
8,150
136
I wonder why she never looked into acquiring some kind of assistance from the local/federal gov't?

Oh yeah, that's right, she's doing the right thing, according to the majority of conservatives in this forum, by refusing to seek assistance and instead, is trying to make it on her own. She is also fighting the good fight by standing her ground and making a statement.

Also, this idea about these kinds of jobs belonging to teenage students or those seeking supplemental income is anachronism at its finest. In this present day and age when the "job creators" have decided to hoard, move jobs overseas and promote the hiring of illegals who are more than willing to work for pennies on the dollar, what we're now experiencing is a purposeful downward pressure on the working class in order to depress wages across the board, and that's been working beautifully for our so called "job creators".

As a result, millions of those folks who in the past could find higher paying jobs in manufacturing, the service industries, agriculture etc. have had to rely on acquiring jobs formerly thought of as "temporary entry level employment" for full time work, or if necessary, working two jobs or more.

IMO, it's a losing battle that the working class is fighting, unless they reverse the trend of (companies and the politicians they've managed to corrupt) pursuing a policy of wage depression and regression for higher profit and "leveling the playing field" against the likes of China and other countries that practice their own version of wage/currency depression.

What I see is the beginnings of a movement by the working class to reverse the aforementioned trend. The pushback has begun to take hold. Out of necessity, the resurgence of unions is about to happen/is happening.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,627
54,579
136
Wage is an agreement between company and employee. She has the choice to leave and reapply and ask for $15. They will tell her to get lost. Is that fair? I'd say so.

Why would she have to leave and reapply? Do you quit your job and reapply whenever you ask for a raise? If not, why should she be held to a different standard than you are?
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
8
0
She and six other protesters were given tickets for trespassing. Salgado thinks that $15 an hour would be a fair wage for her work.

I would be interested to know how she arrived at that conclusion?
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
8
0
I wonder why she never looked into acquiring some kind of assistance from the local/federal gov't?

Oh yeah, that's right, she's doing the right thing, according to the majority of conservatives in this forum, by refusing to seek assistance and instead, is trying to make it on her own. She is also fighting the good fight by standing her ground and making a statement.

Or because she is illegally in the country?:sneaky:
 

brandonb

Diamond Member
Oct 17, 2006
3,731
2
0
I wonder why she never looked into acquiring some kind of assistance from the local/federal gov't?

Oh yeah, that's right, she's doing the right thing, according to the majority of conservatives in this forum, by refusing to seek assistance and instead, is trying to make it on her own. She is also fighting the good fight by standing her ground and making a statement.

How do you know she isn't already receiving benefits? Do her kids get free lunch at school? You don't know. Stop assuming.

Also, this idea about these kinds of jobs belonging to teenage students or those seeking supplemental income is anachronism at its finest. In this present day and age when the "job creators" have decided to hoard, move jobs overseas and promote the hiring of illegals who are more than willing to work for pennies on the dollar, what we're now experiencing is a purposeful downward pressure on the working class in order to depress wages across the board, and that's been working beautifully for our so called "job creators".

As a result, millions of those folks who in the past could find higher paying jobs in manufacturing, the service industries, agriculture etc. have had to rely on acquiring jobs formerly thought of as "temporary entry level employment" for full time work, or if necessary, working two jobs or more.

IMO, it's a losing battle that the working class is fighting, unless they reverse the trend of (companies and the politicians they've managed to corrupt) of pursuing a policy of wage depression and regression for higher profit and "leveling the playing field" against the likes of China and other countries that practice their own version of wage/currency depression.

What I see is the beginnings of a movement by the working class to reverse the aforementioned trend. The pushback has begun to take hold. Out of necessity, the resurgence of unions is about to happen/is happening.

Its a free market.

I agree with you that a lack of manufacturing has turned many people to the service industry. There is a lack of unskilled jobs available. But striking isn't going to fix anything. They will just hire more unskilled workers which we have an abundance of.
 
Nov 29, 2006
15,813
4,339
136
Striking only works when there is a demand for workers. We have been in a recession for many many years and there is still a surplus of workers. Supply and demand dictates that workers get low pay. Once the unemployment rate goes down and there is a shortage of workers, the pay will automatically go up. Again, supply and demand. Trying to artificially create a higher than normal wage will cause company prices to go up or businesses to close their doors. You can't have it both ways.

It will most likely never get better. Job demand will always go down as we become more efficient with robotic assembly lines etc and at the same time population is booming. It will always go up. Population up, jobs down. Not a good recipe for success for Earth.
 

brandonb

Diamond Member
Oct 17, 2006
3,731
2
0
Why would she have to leave and reapply? Do you quit your job and reapply whenever you ask for a raise? If not, why should she be held to a different standard than you are?

She can find another job at another fast food restaurant, there probably is one across the street from her current employer. And ask for $15. If she is as good as she says she is, she may get more money.

That or McDonalds will offer her more when she resigns as a counter offer. I've had that happen plenty of times in my life. I have resigned only to have the company drop money on my lap to stick around. Happened 7 years ago, and I'm still at the same job. But then again I'm a skilled employee.

Or she can go to her boss and ask for $15. Only to have him say no and go away. Which happened and she was arrested. (I'm surprised she still has a job to be honest.)
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,627
54,579
136
She can find another job at another fast food restaurant, there probably is one across the street from her current employer. And ask for $15. If she is as good as she says she is, she may get more money.

That or McDonalds will offer her more when she resigns as a counter offer. I've had that happen plenty of times in my life. I resign only to have the company drop money on my lap to stick around. Happened 7 years ago, and I'm still at the same job. But then again I'm a skilled employee.

I'm really struggling to make any sense of this. Why not just ask her current employer for more money? Why the requirement to quit and reapply or to apply at a different business?

Is the only way you ever ask for a raise by quitting? If not, why do you want her to adhere to a different standard?
 
May 13, 2009
12,333
612
126
She refuses to go out of her comfort zone by learning a skill or going to a job that pays more but thinks McDonald's should give her a raise just because? Hell she could have worked her way up into management at McDonald's and be making a decent wage.
 

Londo_Jowo

Lifer
Jan 31, 2010
17,303
158
106
londojowo.hypermart.net
She can always ask for a raise and should the manager decide she's not worth it, so be it. Going a strike is the worst thing she can do as it will more than likely result in her getting fired.
 

trenchfoot

Lifer
Aug 5, 2000
15,622
8,150
136
How do you know she isn't already receiving benefits? Do her kids get free lunch at school? You don't know. Stop assuming.

Agreed. The assumption was derived from the fact that there was no mention of her receiving assistance, of which I thought would have been included in the article due to the article's content and the relevance of its inclusion.

That being said, don't you think you're making an assumption yourself? ;)

Its a free market.

I agree with you that a lack of manufacturing has turned many people to the service industry. There is a lack of unskilled jobs available. But striking isn't going to fix anything. They will just hire more unskilled workers which we have an abundance of.

IMO, her striking was her way of making a statement about her predicament. Right or wrong is in the eye of the beholder. If anything, her striking may encourage others to do the same. It may not be the right time or the right place, but I think we'll see more and more of these kinds of protests the further the quality of life for the middle class and the poor are driven down.
 

bshole

Diamond Member
Mar 12, 2013
8,315
1,215
126
She refuses to go out of her comfort zone by learning a skill or going to a job that pays more but thinks McDonald's should give her a raise just because? Hell she could have worked her way up into management at McDonald's and be making a decent wage.

McDonald's managers make 40K/year. You call that a decent wage?!! And that is her very very top end. Pathetic.
 

brandonb

Diamond Member
Oct 17, 2006
3,731
2
0
I'm really struggling to make any sense of this. Why not just ask her current employer for more money? Why the requirement to quit and reapply or to apply at a different business?

Is the only way you ever ask for a raise by quitting? If not, why do you want her to adhere to a different standard?

She asked, she did not receive.

And

I've never asked for a raise in my life. I'm 38. Every company I've worked for has offered me more money without a peep from me. In fact, I keep telling them "I'm not motivated by money." Just this last year, I was given a 13% raise.

The reason I left here when they dumped money on my lap is because my boss kept throwing me under the bus, and I got sick of it. I resigned. They dumped money on my lap, reassigned me under a different manager, and demoted the existing manager. In 7 years I'm paid over double what I was when I started. Never once asked for anything.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,627
54,579
136
She asked, she did not receive.

And striking is now asking in a more forceful way.

And

I've never asked for a raise in my life. I'm 38. Every company I've worked for has offered me more money without a peep from me. In fact, I keep telling them "I'm not motivated by money." Just this last year, I was given a 13% raise.

The reason I left here when they dumped money on my lap is because my boss kept throwing me under the bus, and I got sick of it. I resigned. They dumped money on my lap, reassigned me under a different manager, and demoted the existing manager. In 7 years I'm paid over double what I was when I started. Never once asked for anything.

You're probably willingly sacrificing money then. While that's certainly your choice, it seems very odd to require that she do the same. On the other end, in order to give anyone less money per hour should McDonalds be forced to fire the entire store and interview everyone again, or are they just allowed to tell employees that they want to pay them less? (forget minimum wage)
 

Oldgamer

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2013
3,280
1
0
I think it is great to see a new revolution of this and it is damned time. The are organizing and creating Unions. I am all in favor of people working toward demanding better pay, better benefits, better working hours/conditions. I am also in favor of people participating in Unions. I 100% support these folks.
 

Oldgamer

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2013
3,280
1
0
McDonald's managers make 40K/year. You call that a decent wage?!! And that is her very very top end. Pathetic.

Exactly and this is the problem, plus there is a huge surge right now in wage theft of min. wage workers. It is corporate America that is ripping off the little guy and it is not right.
 

Exterous

Super Moderator
Jun 20, 2006
20,557
3,728
126
She refuses to go out of her comfort zone by learning a skill or going to a job that pays more but thinks McDonald's should give her a raise just because? Hell she could have worked her way up into management at McDonald's and be making a decent wage.

This makes me very curious. Whatever people may think of McDonald's starting pay the company has a rather impressive history of trying to get people to move up the ladder. To not get a single raise in 10 years seems completely out of the norm for them. With Franchise owners YMMV but I would be very interested to know her employment backstory
 

Exterous

Super Moderator
Jun 20, 2006
20,557
3,728
126
McDonald's managers make 40K/year. You call that a decent wage?!! And that is her very very top end. Pathetic.

Where do you get $40k is the top end? Everything I can see says the range of 'managers' is from $30k-90k and thats from 'Self reporting' wage places. Looking at job descriptions from places like this and this I see opportunities in excess of $50k for McDonald's managers which would put her above median income.
 

Gunslinger08

Lifer
Nov 18, 2001
13,234
2
81
While my thinking follows the typical "learn some skills and get a better job" path, I still feel bad for people who lost their higher paying jobs and had to take these positions. It makes me think about where technology will eventually take us. It seems like nearly all jobs could eventually be automated. I doubt this will happen in our lifetime, but what happens when nearly every job and every decision can be made better and quicker by machines? I'm a capitalist, through and through, but it seems like technology may eventually be its downfall - when there is no (or very little) demand for paid human workers, our system will need to change.
 

1prophet

Diamond Member
Aug 17, 2005
5,313
534
126
No I mean when Republicans CHANGED the laws to allow the outsourcing of those jobs. Republicans HATE and LOATHE american workers.

Keep drinking that democrat koolaid, maybe you'll pass out drunk and stop spewing that bullshit,

your democrat puppet masters work for the same Wall Street that the republicans do, they just aren't in your face about it and pretend to care about the middle class.

http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=10468

JAY: Millions of people unemployed, millions of people have lost their houses, and for a long time the left was saying the crash is coming, the crash is coming, the people will rise up. Well, the crash came, and some people rose up, but not in the kind of critical numbers that would have shaken or, as in the previous episode you said, terrified the elites. Why?

HEDGES: Because the traditional liberal elite divorced itself from the issue of justice to embrace for the last few decades issues such as gender equality, multiculturalism, identity politics, all of which I support. But while they busied themselves with these activities, the working class was being destroyed through NAFTA and the outsourcing of jobs, the stagnation, in essence reduction of the minimum wage.The Democratic Party used to watch out for the interests of labor and even for the poor. But that all changed under Bill Clinton. Although Clinton, like Obama, continues to speak in that feel-your-pain language of traditional liberalism, they've completely betrayed the very people that they purport to represent and defend.

JAY: And even the previous ones, I mean, Truman on, they had a chance many times, for example, to undo Taft-Hartley, you know, terrible anti-labor legislation, and they never undid it.

HEDGES: They never did, although Truman did try to push through universal health care.

JAY: The union movement and union leadership, you know, at times during Democratic administrations can get critical, but when push comes to the shove they never threaten the Democrats in any way. And maybe the worst example of it has been with the Obama administration where in the leadup to the election Obama promises them EFCA, the Employee Free Choice Act, which was going to make it easier to organize unorganized workers. In the first two years, where they control both houses, it doesn't come forward, and of course afterwards you never see it, and now we don't even hear it again. And I interviewed John Sweeney at the time, head of the AFL-CIO, and I said, what are you going to do if President Obama doesn't pass this? He's going to pass it. He's going to pass it. He's never going to betray us. And, of course, he did betray them, and the union movement was out again in the next election just as if nothing had happened.

HEDGES: Right. Well, these people, I mean, the heads of these unions pull down salaries that are five times what the rank and file pulls down. They negotiate deals, such as they did with the auto bailout, where their most senior unionized workers have their wages reduced and the auto companies are allowed to hire new workers at $14 an hour without benefits. So they sell out the younger workers to protect, to an extent, older workers. They have no kind of vision of what kind of a country they want to create, i.e. one that would actually respond to the needs of the working class. And, you know, I think they're pretty bankrupt. I mean, they have become part of the establishment. And rhetorically they can get up and say all the right things in the same way that Barack Obama can get up and say all the right things, but in the end, you know, it's Wall Street and the corporations that are pulling the strings on the puppets.

JAY: I talked to a behind-the-scenes organizer for the unions. He advises them on policy and things. And I asked him, why do you guys not contend for some kind of leadership of the Democratic Party? And his answer was: well, Wall Street is the only one--pro-Democratic Party Wall Street is the only one with enough cash to beat the Republicans, so we can't take them on.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-democrats-betrayal-of-labor-unions/25256

The Democrats’ Betrayal of Labor Unions



For decades unions have unwaveringly supported the Democratic Party, sticking with them through thick and thin. However, in recent years, the Democratic Party has repaid union loyalty by pushing through pro-corporate legislation at the expense of the working class. It very well may be time for the unions to break from the Democrats and form their own party.


The betrayal of labor by Democrats began with NAFTA, which would allow free trade between the US, Mexico, and Canada. It was touted as a great deal to expand and grow American’s economy, even though there was resistance to it not only from labor unions but from ordinary people.



Fear was part of the arsenal used to get the bill passed. Then-President Bill Clinton predicted that “international competitors [would] themselves forge free trade agreements with Mexico if Congress fail[ed] to approve the North American Free Trade Agreement, giving nations such as Japan an economic windfall at U.S. expense.” [1] However, he was quite incorrect. A New York Times article published at the time stated that “most European and Japanese companies [would] be much more interested in investing in Mexico if NAFTA is passed, so they can gain free access to the U.S. market.” [2] (emphasis added) There were also elitists such as Andrew Tobias pushing for NAFTA. In a Time Magazine article on the subject, he stated:


The problem with NAFTA is that, like almost any change, it will disrupt the lives of some Canadian workers, some American workers and some Mexican workers. They are a tiny minority, but anyone who thinks he or she might wind up in that tiny minority is understandably fearful and upset. And vocal. Compounding this, there are those who would play to those fears with demagoguery, rather than minister to them with reassurance and support. [3]


One can see his contempt for the working class, acting as if the lives of Canadian, Mexican, and American workers aren’t really that big of a deal, that what occurs to them is negligible. In that same article he states that “over the long run, NAFTA will employ more of everybody,” however, just as with Bill Clinton, he was quite incorrect.


A while after NAFTA was signed into law by Bill Clinton in the name of the “free market,” The US Department of Labor “certified that well over half a million U.S. workers lost their jobs due to NAFTA” [4] and the Economic Policy Institute stated that “The resulting $30 billion U.S. net export deficit with these countries [Mexico and Canada] in 1993 increased by 281% to $85 billion in 2002” [5] and that NAFTA has resulted in job losses in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.


Under President Obama, things have only gotten worse as multi-billion dollar corporations are given handouts and labor is left to suffer. Just last month, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner revealed that the Obama administration wants to lower “the top corporate tax rate from the current 35 percent to less than 30 percent and as low as 26 percent.” [6] The Democrats have now gone the route of the right-wing by allowing “the super rich to recklessly dominate the economy while giving them massive handouts.” [7]


All the while this is going on; unions are running a fool’s errand as they continue to support the Democratic Party when they are blatantly looking out for the interests of corporations instead of the worker.
Since unions can’t match the money that the super rich are able to give out to the political elite, the best thing for them to do as of now would be to cut their losses and break away from the Democratic Party in order to form a labor political party, funded and supported by unions to look out for union interests.



Only then will unions be able truly look out for their interests.
http://www.jillstein.org/obama_betrays_labor_again_signs_bill_that_guts_union_rights

http://www.jillstein.org/obama_betrays_labor_again_signs_bill_that_guts_union_rights

President Obama's recent signing of the FAA Reauthorization Bill —over the protests of at least 19 major trade unions including the UAW, Steelworkers, Transportation Communications Union (IAM) and Teamsters— shows once again the current administration’s true nature, say supporters of Jill Stein’s Green Party presidential campaign. “A betrayal of working America,” is how Jill Stein herself described Obama’s approval of significant anti-union changes to the Railway Labor Act erasing longstanding protections for thousands of railroad and airline workers. Stein said she would have vetoed the bill.

Backed by a majority of congressional Democrats, the “compromise” legislation raises the percentage of workers who must sign cards authorizing a union representation election from 35% to 50%. In addition, the new rules make it harder for unions to win run-off elections, aids employers in delaying elections and collective bargaining and removes privacy protections for union authorization cards which means companies can identify and intimidate workers who might otherwise vote to unionize.“

This should be a real wake-up call for labor regarding where we are headed," declared Stein, noting that this is but the latest act in the administration’s ongoing disregard of working people’s rights and a 180-degree reversal of President Obama’s promise in March of last year to veto any FAA Reauthorization Bill containing anti-union provisions. Stein added,

“Why should anyone give their trust and vote to a President who breaks his word to the men and women who work every day—sometimes at the risk of their lives—to keep our nation’s transportation systems operating?”
http://workerscompass.org/democrats-and-labor-a-tale-of-abuse/



Democrats and Labor: A Tale of Abuse


The Democratic Party’s participation in the recent national “sequester” cuts is yet another big dent in their love affair with organized labor. But break-ups are often a protracted process. Before a relationship ends there is usually a gradual deterioration based on irreconcilable differences, until the split becomes inevitable. The decades-long marriage of labor unions and the Democratic Party is nearing such a divorce. Labor unions are becoming frustrated as the Democrats flaunt their affair with corporate America and Wall Street.

What are some of the issues driving towards separation? It just seems that no matter how much labor leaders shower the politicians with money and affection, the Democrats just aren’t returning the love.

Although the Democrats were always a fickle partner, their coldness evolved into aggression under Bill Clinton, who oversaw a slew of anti-worker legislation, most notably NAFTA and welfare “reform.”

Obama has continued this rightwards trajectory, while portraying himself brilliantly as the “lesser evil” compared with the more honest anti-union rhetoric of the Republicans. He fulfilled none of his promises to labor in 2008, and essentially ignored all labor issues in his 2012 campaign. Labor leaders misinterpreted Obama as playing “hard to get,” when in fact the Democratic Party had already moved on.

To prove his fidelity to his new crush, Wall Street, Obama has made it a pet project to target the most powerful union in the country — the teachers’ union — for destruction. Obama’s innocent-sounding Race to the Top education reform is in actuality an anti-union dismembering of public education, with its promotion of charter schools and its mass closings of public high schools that Obama labels as “failing.” Bush, Jr.’s anti-union No Child Left Behind looks innocent compared to Obama’s education “reform.”

In fact, Obama has overseen the worst environment for organized labor since Ronald Reagan. But the problem is bigger than Obama. It’s the entire Democratic Party. For example, Democratic governors across the United States continue to work in tandem with Republicans in weakening public employee unions — the last bastion of real strength in the labor movement.

The Democrats have chosen to blame labor unions for the economic crisis and the consequent budget deficits affecting the states. These deficits have been used to attack the wages, health care, and pensions of public employees on a state-by-state basis, fundamentally weakening these unions while skewing the labor market in favor of the employers.

What some labor leaders fail to understand is that political parties like the Democrats are centralized organizations that share certain beliefs, and execute these ideas in a united fashion. It isn’t merely a coincidence that every Democratic governor in the United States has chosen a similar anti-labor path as its policy. There has been a fundamental shift in the Democratic Party’s relation to labor unions, and it is on display for everyone to see.

Not all labor leaders are feigning blindness to these facts. The president of the nation’s largest teachers’ union, Dennis Van Roekel, summarized teachers’ experience with the Obama Administration:

“Today our members face the most anti-educator, anti-union, anti-student environment I have ever experienced.” He was referring largely to Obama’s above-mentioned Race to the Top education program.

Van Roekel’s union, the National Education Association (NEA), also passed an excellent resolution at their national convention blasting Obama’s Education Secretary, Arne Duncan, for his anti-public education and anti-union policies.

But of course Arne Duncan is simply implementing the policies of his boss, President Obama. And Obama is simply implementing the policies of his boss, corporate America, which is insisting that market relations are imposed on public education. After passing the above resolution, the NEA leadership shamefully pressured its membership to campaign for the Obama Administration, akin to a survivor of domestic violence going to bat for the batterer.

The president of the large national public employee union American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), Lee Saunders, also lashed out against the Democrats recently:

I am sick and tired of the fair-weather Democrats. They date us, take us to the prom, marry us, and then divorce us right after the honeymoon. I am sick and tired of the so-called friends who commend us when they’re running for election, but condemn us after they’ve won. I am sick and tired of the politicians who stand with us behind closed doors, but kick us to the curb in front of the cameras. I’m here to tell you that’s bullshit and we’re not gonna take it anymore.

Accurate remarks, but they were limited to a couple of select Democratic mayors and governors. Again, there is more than a “few bad apple” Democrats who are anti-labor; the whole party is sick with this cancer.

In private, all labor leaders acknowledge this fact. Politico reports:

Top labor leaders excoriated President Barack Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in a closed session of the AFL-CIO’s executive board meeting…Furious union presidents complained about budget cuts, a new [free] trade agreement and what some view as their abandonment, even by their typically reliable allies among Senate Democrats.

Presidents of several unions and an AFL-CIO spokesman declined to repeat their private criticism to a reporter Tuesday, a sign that labor feels it must still try to maintain a relationship with the Democratic Party, even if it’s deeply troubled.

So while the presidents of these unions speak honestly amongst themselves, they feel obligated to mis-educate their membership about the above facts. Labor leaders consistently minimize the Democrats’ role in anti-union policies, while exaggerating any morsel that can be construed to be pro-union. A mis-educated union membership makes for a weakened union movement.

When President Obama gave a largely right-wing state of the union address that included more corporate free trade agreements, more education “reform,” cuts to Medicare, and no plan to address the ongoing jobs crisis, AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka responded shamefully by saying:

Tonight, President Obama sent a clear message to the world that he will stand and fight for working America’s values and priorities.

Again, Trumka knows better. He should tell union members the truth. The AFL-CIO and other unions have lied about President Obama’s role in the national “sequester” cuts, blaming the whole thing on the Republicans. The truth, however, is that Obama formed the “the deficit reduction committee” that gave birth to the sequester. He failed to take any significant action to prevent the cuts, because he agrees with them.

Rank-and-file union members aren’t stupid. They realize it when their paychecks shrink, when their health care costs skyrocket, when their pensions are destroyed, when they’re laid off, or when they campaign for Democrats who betray them post-election. Union leaders are creating distrust within their membership as they continue down a political road that has left labor weakened and politically tied to a “partner” that’s abusing it.

The Democrats have gone “all in” with Wall Street and the corporations. The big banks now feel as comfortable throwing campaign donations towards the Democrats as the Republicans. Labor unions can’t compete with Wall Street’s cash.

Breaking with the Democrats is long overdue. And once this is done union members will likely choose the path taken by labor unions in nearly every developed country: the creation of a labor party, with its own platform, funding, and member activists.

Such a party could appeal directly to all working people by demanding that a federal jobs program be immediately implemented to put those unemployed to work as well as fighting to save and expand Social Security and Medicare, while taxing the rich and corporations to fully fund public education and other social services. Such a platform would create a massive contrast to the mainstream corporate-bought parties that exist today, and thus attract millions of members and millions more voters.
I can keep going and going but this should be more than enough to wake up the rank and file as to how they have been betrayed by the democrat party while they conveniently were pointing the finger at the no good working class hating republicans,

that is unless you die hard democrats suffer from that conservative brain defect you like to constantly point as the cause of all your woes.
 

PliotronX

Diamond Member
Oct 17, 1999
8,883
107
106
The reason I dont have sympathy is because at least they are giving her 40 hours. The retail industry has much more volatile hours and instead of whining or parking myself I landed a second job while attending college full time. She opened her legs to make that child not corporations.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,562
9
81
There are two separate issues here, the minimum wage and striking/unionization. Maybe she can get someone to pay her more than $8.25 an hour by striking with others. If she feels like that is a good idea for her, she should do it.

Agreed. I've as often said here, unions are the organization of labor as corporations are the organization of capital. More power to both of them, whatever they can work out between the two of them

As for minimum wage, to me it seems like the conservative alternative to a national income. (which is where I think we should be going)

I've quit caring about the minimum wage issue. I'm done arguing, if you want to raise it to $15, or $20, or $30, be my guest. Just don't come whining to me about the results.

As for national income/mincome/guaranteed income, it would make for an interesting experiment, but I could also see it falling flat on it's face.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,562
9
81
Exactly and this is the problem, plus there is a huge surge right now in wage theft of min. wage workers. It is corporate America that is ripping off the little guy and it is not right.

How exactly are they ripping anybody off?

Companies sell products at price X, consumers can choose to pay that price or not.

Companies hire employees at price Y, workers can choose to work there or not.

Nobody is a slave.