Yet another fast food worker strike

[theeedude]

If you read the link you would realize that child care costs were factored in. $15/hr still isn't a living wage.

At least it's not poverty wage.

 

[nehalem256]

At least it's not poverty wage.

Signs clearly say they want a living wage. So why aren't they fighting for a living wage?:hmm:

 

[BoberFett]

Keep it up, nonsenseamp. If we're lucky, these people will all get the boot, and we can hire some of your vegetable picking friends from south of the border to do their jobs for $3/hr.

 

[Linux23]

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.

then have them close their fuggin doors. regardless of anything, the worker is still going to be on government assistance, and maybe, just maybe, we get some quality food out there that costs reasonably, but has still pays it's workers a living wage.

 

[Angry Irishman]

Why does anybody work at all? We should all just get our stipend from the government and live in the perfect utopian collective. Never mind having any skills or contributing rather than taking due to poor choices in life....that's just crazy talk. :hmm:

 

[werepossum]

Note the Living wage signs, $15/hr signs/shirts and McD in the picture.

Apparently those fighting for a living wage don't even know what a living wage is. No wonder they get paid so little ^_^

Wealth and income are relative, so anyone already living on $8.25/hour would see $15/hour as a much better living wage. Given that she's already living on $8.25/hour, she could certainly live better on $15/hour.

Personally I'm betting that if fast food restaurants are forced to pay $15/hour, her happy ass is unemployed. For that kind of money employers are not going to settle for employees who can spend ten years at the same job and provide no perceived increased value for the employer.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Why does anybody work at all? We should all just get our stipend from the government and live in the perfect utopian collective. Never mind having any skills or contributing rather than taking due to poor choices in life....that's just crazy talk. :hmm:

To be honest, 6-figures is my ideal salary for my intense workload. I have analyzed the situation and have come to the conclusion that it is a fair assessment. At this point, I believe an automatic raise to that amount (regardless of people that currently worked to that amount) is a fair settlement, with no further work on my part.

In order to have this motion passed, I will continue to no longer work my agreed upon salary contract terms. I will sit outside of my office building while chanting that my employer does unfair practices, hold up insulting signs, and distribute flyers to passing pedestrians. Many of which, will probably be somewhat sketchy in truth and/or lies. All of this seems like a completely legitimate argument, without a doubt. I'm sure everyone agee's :sneaky:

 

[Veliko]

Some do.

What was the point of this little story? Are you agreeing or disagreeing with this part of what I said:

You seem to have bought into the idea that women en masse are having kids en masse just so they can claim a few extra pennies from the state.

If you are in poverty you should probably be taking extra care to ensure you don't get pregnant. Birth control is a choice. If you aren't in poverty and can afford a child without it dropping you below the poverty level then by all means, have as much unsafe sex as you want to have - guilt free even.

Again: regardless of their socio-economic status people are going to have sex and they're going to have children. They always have done and they always will.

 

[Zaap]

Personally I'm betting that if fast food restaurants are forced to pay $15/hour, her happy ass is unemployed. For that kind of money employers are not going to settle for employees who can spend ten years at the same job and provide no perceived increased value for the employer.

Stop being realistic.

Put your rose-colored glasses on, we're dealing with fuzzy-brained, wishful thinking here.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Keep it up, nonsenseamp. If we're lucky, these people will all get the boot, and we can hire some of your vegetable picking friends from south of the border to do their jobs for $3/hr.

:biggrin:

Senseamp's mental gymnastics are a source of great comedy.

 

[nehalem256]

Again: regardless of their socio-economic status people are going to have sex and they're going to have children. They always have done and they always will.

Aren't liberals always saying that having a child is 100% a woman's choice?

So why are you apparently so opposed to holding her responsible for making the wrong one?

Do you think women are entitled to have as many children as they feel like, regardless of any reasonable ability to feed them, and extort money from society to pay for their choices?

 

[nehalem256]

Wealth and income are relative, so anyone already living on $8.25/hour would see $15/hour as a much better living wage. Given that she's already living on $8.25/hour, she could certainly live better on $15/hour.

While I am sure that this woman is just a useful idiot and didn't actually figure out that $15/hour was the correct living wage. Its awful funny that the living wage activists behind her couldn't figure it out either. Says a lot about liberalism I think.

 

[Veliko]

Nehalem's fuckwitted logic has escaped again.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Nehalem's fuckwitted logic has escaped again.

Hate to break it to you, but the whole concept of a "woman's right to choose" is connecting the logic that liberals see.

The fact that liberals often deem minimum wage as not enough to support a family with children connects completely with your concept of being able to choose when a good time to have one is and is not.

Not that I completely condemn abortion, but putting it under "women's rights" - never mind the fact that there may also be a father involved that loves the child - is one of the dirtiest, most scumbag concepts I've ever heard.

 

[nehalem256]

Nehalem's fuckwitted logic has escaped again.

Sounds more like its logic that makes you butt-hurt and is irrefutable.

If having a child is 100% a woman's choice how in the world is she not responsible for the consequences of that choice?:hmm:

 

[nehalem256]

Hate to break it to you, but the whole concept of a "woman's right to choose" is connecting the logic that liberals see.

The fact that liberals often deem minimum wage as not enough to support a family with children connects completely with your concept of being able to choose when a good time to have one is and is not.

Not that I completely condemn abortion, but putting it under "women's rights" - never mind the fact that there may also be a father involved that loves the child - is one of the dirtiest, most scumbag concepts I've ever heard.

What is funny is when conservatives want to ban abortion liberals will cry about poor women being forced to have babies.

Then when you turn it around and go so since abortion is legal doesn't that mean poor women are responsible for having babies they can't feed it somehow become "fuckwitted logic"

 

[Veliko]

Sounds more like its logic that makes you butt-hurt and is irrefutable.

If having a child is 100% a woman's choice how in the world is she not responsible for the consequences of that choice?:hmm:

It makes my brain hurt because it doesn't make any sense.

 

[Veliko]

Hate to break it to you, but the whole concept of a "woman's right to choose" is connecting the logic that liberals see.

The fact that liberals often deem minimum wage as not enough to support a family with children connects completely with your concept of being able to choose when a good time to have one is and is not.

Not that I completely condemn abortion, but putting it under "women's rights" - never mind the fact that there may also be a father involved that loves the child - is one of the dirtiest, most scumbag concepts I've ever heard.

Just how many logins does Nehalem have?

 

[nehalem256]

It makes my brain hurt because it doesn't make any sense.

I really don't know how to make it any simpler.

According to liberals the choice to have a child is 100% a woman's. She has complete 100% control over preventing a child being born.

So if she chooses to have a child she cannot feed how the fuck is she not responsible for CHOOSING to have that child?

 

[Veliko]

I really don't know how to make it any simpler.

According to liberals the choice to have a child is 100% a woman's. She has complete 100% control over preventing a child being born.

So if she chooses to have a child she cannot feed how the fuck is she not responsible for CHOOSING to have that child?

I literally have no idea which point(s) in this thread you're responding to here.

It's like you've seen the individual words 'woman' and 'child' appearing in the discussion and just started blurting out whichever random thoughts appear in your head.

 

[fskimospy]

I really don't know how to make it any simpler.

According to liberals the choice to have a child is 100% a woman's. She has complete 100% control over preventing a child being born.

So if she chooses to have a child she cannot feed how the fuck is she not responsible for CHOOSING to have that child?

Because society is not giving money to take care of the mother, it is taking care of the child.

I like that your "irrefutable" logic can be refuted in literally a single sentence, leaving you looking like a moron, yet again.

 

[nehalem256]

Because society is not giving money to take care of the mother, it is taking care of the child.

I like that your "irrefutable" logic can be refuted in literally a single sentence, leaving you looking like a moron, yet again.

Which has nothing to do with whether or not the mother is responsible for choosing to have a child she cannot feed.

Also what you are saying is easily refuted anyway by looking at government websites:

The Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) provides Federal grants to States for supplemental foods, health care referrals, and nutrition education for low-income pregnant, breastfeeding, and non-breastfeeding postpartum women, and to infants and children up to age five who are found to be at nutritional risk.

http://www.fns.usda.gov/wic/women-infants-and-children-wic

Are you saying that non-breastfeeding postpartum women are children? ^_^

 

[Linux23]

Dropping a bucket of frozen fries into a bucket of grease, sadly, isn't going to get you anywhere. Maybe the guy that flips the burgers can start working his way into real sit down restaurants? (Chili's, etc.)

Frankly, I don't understand why it's so hard to go over to the nextdoor neighboor Burger King and say "Hey, I'm busting my ass over at McDonalds, I see you are in need of some hard workers that are willing to work. I have a 10 year history with McDonalds..." those statements alone are enough to start the process of "working your way up the ladder" in life. I guarantee you won't start with minimum wage with that statement.

It's like people expect life to be like Walmart: "Where is my electric scooter to do my work for me?!"

yes, you are correct. instead of starting you at minimum wage, they start you $1.00 above minimum wage. big jump there dude.

 

[WackyDan]

Wealth and income are relative, so anyone already living on $8.25/hour would see $15/hour as a much better living wage. Given that she's already living on $8.25/hour, she could certainly live better on $15/hour.

Personally I'm betting that if fast food restaurants are forced to pay $15/hour, her happy ass is unemployed. For that kind of money employers are not going to settle for employees who can spend ten years at the same job and provide no perceived increased value for the employer.

More importantly is don't forget these fast food workers are pawns. They didn't print those signs, they didn't pay to buy those T-Shirts. They are being manipulated by a political/union action group otherwise you wouldn't see these fast food strikes at all.

The question is whether these political groups are going to pay these workers after they are fired for striking. Seems fair no?

 

[nehalem256]

More importantly is don't forget these fast food workers are pawns. They didn't print those signs, they didn't pay to buy those T-Shirts. They are being manipulated by a political/union action group otherwise you wouldn't see these fast food strikes at all.

The question is whether these political groups are going to pay these workers after they are fired for striking. Seems fair no?

And apparently those political/union action groups are unable to calculate what a living wage actually is.

Rather embarrasing :\