Raising minimum wage -- $15/hr fast food emplyees

While I have no current grounds and I may sound naive saying this, but I am confident that I can get through it despite the difficulties that I may have to overcome. I've gotten this far, I don't see why I can't get any farther
That is all

 

"A McDonald's restaurant is operated by either a franchisee, an affiliate, or the corporation itself. McDonald's Corporation revenues come from the rent, royalties, and fees paid by the franchisees, as well as sales in company-operated restaurants. In 2012, McDonald's Corporation had annual revenues of $27.5 billion, and profits of $5.5 billion"

Now let's not forget my aim here is to provide non-students over the age of 21 with this wage increase, even though "ageism" i.e people who need it, would be significantly lower.

McDonald's does not release how many employees it has, let a lone how many employees are paid the minimum wage. However, if this could be calculated and would still be in profit where's the issue?

Walmart is the primary target of unions and groups that claim that low-paid workers at the retail company do not make enough to live above the poverty level.

The reason they are targeting the minimum wage is because the workers cannot afford to live above the poverty level. How you can sit back and watch your fellow countrymen live like this is beyond me.

All of these points relate to your salary, and the increase in salary compared to your employees. They do not justify a prize.

As I said to the above, if the profit was $5.5Billion annually, and is possible to do so without leaving a negative balance should this not be possible..? If they made $.5Billion annually, it would only affect shareholders and the guy at the top. Who are already, wealthy and not struggling to feed themselves.

Well firstly you'd need to find employment, a place to live, everything that comes with a child and if your girlfriend is tasteful, expect to have big pockets. As well as that, you need to now constantly support your new bills which require more than full-time employment to achieve, whilst still studying and completing your education? I am not saying it's possible, but you would understand someone reducing their chance to succeed for the sake of more than 2 hours sleep a night.

 

Who do you think sets the limit on how much employees get paid? These guys. I don't get what point your trying to make in these discussions. Sure mcdonald's makes a lot of money as a company. But if we were to increase everybodies wage by 50% the company would go under. The margins you are talking about are massive. You have to understand that mcdonald's hires millions and millions of people. Stores profit ranges a lot but I'll try to throw some %'S at you.


The regular franchisee makes at bottom line 10%-15% of their sales.

Labor accounts for roughly 30% of that after benefits, manager pay ect.

So you raise their minimum pay another 50% there goes literally all of your profits unless your store is moving absolutely massive amounts of products.

Also all of the points I made directly relate to my salary yes. But It was also one of my terms of hiring that I would receive bonus. (I'm actually going to be making the bonus program for our store)

One of the things you have to realize is that these people accept this job at what is given to them. I value myself a he'll of a lot more than 10.25 an hour and would not accept that as a wage.

 

they don't have to give a 50% wage increase, that's pretty high. however raising minimum wage slightly wouldn't make the company go under. they constantly make sales and increase their profits, traffic and product sales. they can figure out ways to save money. i don't think most of the fast food chains are career jobs, its mainly for students, part timers etc. but they do work that's for sure, sometimes very hard. i would def agree to raising the minimum wage like i already said, it would most def not make them go under

 

I did ask you quite early on that if your employees that make minimum wage were to be increased, if your store would still be profitable. I then furthered your answers to if no; then of course it cannot happen, if yes then it should be considered.

I'm not the best with figures, I just want someone to work out what they can be paid, and if they're not making enough money to support their families, they should be paid more.

I don't really think it is a lot to ask, as they are working people struggling to survive.

I'm not trying to be the guy that goes fuck McDonald's you can liquidate. I want the best for everyone, but when I see corporations making an absolute fuck-ton of pointless money that only brings power to the few, it should be diluted down so everyone wins for working with that corporation.

EDIT: I am also fairly certain that McDonald's do not have more than 1,000,000 employees that are in the United States and are paid minimum wage. I think you'd find that figure to be well below that.

 

Dont feed his ego. He has no employees, he's making chump change "managing" a burger king.

Look at my earlier post. Im interested in why you are "against" bonuses.

 

I did already reply to this post

That's my relative argument between the two, as one is less harmful than the other for the guys beneath.

But, overall. You are employed to do a job, it's pretty hard to understand why you should be "tossed peanuts" when you receive a wage packet. It makes little sense that you should receive a prize when others do not.

For instance, I receive price work. That too could be considered a bad thing in the eyes of my peers as If my company sets to make £100 from a job I set to make £40, where'as others will get paid 8til8 or whatever shift patterns they work. But that is my contract, and if the work dries up, so do I. That's the risk from my end.

But where you save the company money, yes it's all good and well but isn't that your job? And is it really justified that you should get it for the sake of you liking it?

I'm not trying to be argumentative, I'm trying to get a good answer to why a bonus is justified then perhaps I'll change my mind.

 

Missed this in the sea of argumentative BS.

You are misconstruing what I said entirely. I am a working foreman, I AM the guys on the ground and me increasing profits has NOTHING to do with my or my guys safety. There is a difference between increasing my companys profit margins and cutting corners..

My job is make sure the guys stay busy and get the job done in a timely manner as well as a plethora of other tasks. I run the crew, I have more responsibility than they do..

I go above and beyond what is asked and or expected of me and I am rewarded for it. The other day a job called for a certain material. I realized I could acheive the same result EASIER and cheaper using a different material without sacrificing any aesthetic or structural integrity. After some paperwork it was OK'ed.

I saved my company $12,000 in material and labor by doing this. I received a $400 bonus on this weeks check. What the fuck is wrong with that?? If the incentive for bonuses wasnt there I probably would of just played ball and done it the way it was specced. However I took the blueprints home and streamlined and simplified every fucking thing I could.

I layout the jobs. If a wall or door ect ect is in the wrong spot it is MY ass. Not my workers, with these risks there are rewards.

 

Without sounding ungrateful I understand what you are saying, but I would not be mistaken to say your hourly rate surpasses your workers. That is enough, for the responsibility and taking on the extra work.

However, the blueprints and saving your company money, was and is that part of your job role, or were you rewarded for finding an alternative measure without the assumption of a prize, but you were awarded it for your find and expense of time?

As far as your blokes working hours and management, I would put that down to the job role, and inclusive in your hourly rate. I believe completion time is not ultimately and solely you alone therefore the prize should be shared between your group if it is necessary to award prizes.

Sorry to keep calling them prizes but that's what they ultimately are.

For your cash reward saving the company $12,000; if that was based on no knowledge of reward then I can accept that, where'as I cannot accept it based on the assumption of reward. Yet I do believe most would advise their company in their find if not to only be thought of a little better for future prospects, or at least that is how I would deliver the information. Not based on reward.

But like I say, this is my opinion. It's a hard argument when both of our basis is "why the fuck not?" and "why the fuck so?" so really, it's probably best if we agree to disagree. I do not think less of anyone who receives a bonus, I just don't believe they're good working practices. Because as receiving a reward is nice, not receiving an award you expect can have an adverse affect on the person and reduce morale.

 

Yeah, the $5.5 billion profit means they would go into the negative increasing the wage.

It's not meant to be a permanent job for non-students. Your life and any possible skills are wasted there, which is why people don't expect you to consider it a permanent job.

Their numbers look pretty accurate when you take the average employees Mcdonald's employs globally. Their numbers are near mine as well, and $8 billion increase means they go into the red when they only profit $5.5 billion. Even if you say that 30% of the employees there already receive $15 an hour, they still are in the red or make no profit at all.

That is not counting franchise owners, they stand to lose more after the 4% sales fee.

Doesn't mean you should only focus on them when there are around 2 million more employees and dozens of companies that will be affected. Companies that could potentially be sent into the red because all people like you see are "walmart is so rich, lets raise the min. wage because they can afford it and not consider the other companies caught in the crossfire". You don't just focus on walmart solely because it suits your argument. You probably don't know that they only control around a third of the minimum wage workers. Why ignore the other 65%?

Then do the math, and so should everyone else, don't just blindly agree with such a stupid decision of increasing minimum wage by so much. The kickback of this could be pretty bad if you think about it. If companies go bankrupt that will just raise unemployment levels higher when some choose to downsize or close indefinitely.

The reason I'm not supporting it isn't because I don't care for the people. I don't support it because I am one of the few that didn't walk in blindly and agree, I did the numbers and thought about the consequences. If they gave a more realistic raise, then perhaps I'd agree.

 

Wages should reflect the level of difficulty a service provides. Why should they raise the wage if it's a job that anyone can do? It's viewed as a startup job to fill up your resume where I live.

 

Tl;Dr you're ineligable for bonuses. The incentive of a bonus drives people (like me) to go above and beyond. The lure of me getting ANY sort of bonus drove and drives me to find ways to save my company money by reducing material costs and labor times. The little bonuses I get pay off in spades to my company. Its a mutual win win situation, I feel you are only against bonuses because at your current payrate you ineligable for them.

I earn every penny I make. Bonus or not.

This. Shit job shit pay.

I still insist in this day and age $10 is a more appropriate minimum wage. You simply cannot be independent on sub $8 wages.

Its TOUGH on $10... but barely doable atleast in my region.

 

Fast food jobs weren't exactly intended to make long term careers.

 

I actually earn more than my manager, believe it or not. As is, in the workplace I'm at, I am paid price work. So therefore, I make my own salary. Depending on whether there is a large or small amount of work flow. So it's not an envious opinion as you seem to be implying.

We wont agree on it so let's just end it there.

I already stated early on in this debate that if it were to turn the company non-profit then it cannot be done. But alternative measures should be taken.

Such as, paying people enough to live without depending on handouts from the state would be a good start.

This is all opinion; "consider", "expect", "meant to be"... Fact is, a permanent job is one you take without the contact stating it being temporary. If you are taking a job not stating then then you are taking a PERMANENT job, regardless of opinion.

The numbers do not appear to be accurate, as they are not accurate. They are estimates. So you estimate that there are a total of (estimated) x employees who of which (estimated) y amount of employees receive then minimum wage; therefore, (estimated) z will now be the annual profit and therefore cannot be achieved.

You cannot get an answer based on estimates on a judgement that leaves the poor people in society struggling to survive. These figures should be publicly transparent for a start and therefore should be cross referenced by people who are qualified to make an assessment on the issue, resulting in a better salary for those who currently don't receive it.

You couldn't be more wrong, people like "me" focus on people supporting families and how their time which in my opinion is invaluable is treated less than the ability to survive in a monetary system.

I don't use Walmart because it suits my argument, I use Walmart because they equate to 35% of the issue, which is not a small figure.

How can I literally sit here in the UK and do the math, I would be concerned if my math were to be considered where peoples lives are concerned. But what I don't see is people doing the math on how these people are supposed to survive? I see many providing the maths for these companies generating mass amounts of wealth for the people at the top of the pyramid and no math for the people at the bottom, almost as if you expect me to have sympathy for the people who are rolling in it. Whereas, it's quite the contrary.

So as I provided earlier, if they said. "We're going to raise the minimum wage for those people who are non-students over the age of 21 to $15". Now at least you can throw another 'unknown' into your formula and have a result that in no way reflects the actual reality and see if you come up with a figure that suits you.

How about raising it enough to survive?

 

You can survive on $8 per hour.

 

Then that's the end of your argument. No point in arguing any further. It will turn a lot of companies near non-profit and send others into bankruptcy.

This is what I already said, when I mentioned increasing it but not by an absurd amount.

No one expects you to work there indefinitely, but the chains allows you to work as long as you'd like. They can't be based on temporary jobs. You are taking a permanent job if you choose to make it one, which they give you the option to but they don't really encourage it.

You're really going to pull that argument throughout the whole thread? It's opinion or estimates, no hard proof. Do the research yourself then, I laid it out in front of you and you still cannot get a grasp of it, or work with numbers that are likely close to the real when you actually think about it.

I'm saying, with confidence, that even if 30% of mcdonald's staff were paid at least $15, and assuming the other 70% is paid minimum wage, then they would make very little to no profit, if any, at all. Now saying 70% of the employees getting min. wage is very realistic. You can even compensate it to something like 60% and the other 40% getting more than min. wage but not $15.

I won't really argue with you any further. You're a hopeless case that wants hard proof which obviously no one on Sythe can provide you with. I've given you realistic estimates, yet you still want something you know that no one on Sythe can provide. I give you a realistic opinion which a lot of people share, you brush it off as simply an opinion and nothing more. As far as I'm concerned, you're not even arguing at this point. I have no idea what you're trying to achieve now.

Edit:

This caught my eye and I just had to reply. How many people dies of starvation in America? My sources say it's in the low 3 digits per year (maybe even 2 if you exclude neglect). The other millions are surviving. Your point? You came into this thread supporting higher min. wage. At the same time you think people can't survive on min. wage right now. This alone just shows the kinds of argument you make.

 

Id say that is pretty close to impossible unless you work 15 hours a day. Look lets put it this way ,a normal person works about 40 hours per week ($320 week/$1280 month)

-You've got water, electricity, phone bills, groceries, internet, insurance, gas,
clothes, a place to stay, - taxes

Youd definitely wouldnt be living a good life as youd be too stressed financially to get enough money to not be kicked out on the street. But I guess it depends on what you actually mean with making surviving on $8/hour? Do you plan on living on the street? Having no cars, phones, vechicles?

 

The word is survive, he never said comfortably. $10-11 would take a great deal of stress away and would definitely be more comfortable. $15 would be a dream come true for them, because it's just too high. A protester actually said something along the lines of them being very happy with 11-12, 15 being a dream.

 

Google "How to live on minimum wage?"

There are many success stories that provide a breakdown budget for your earnings.

Are we suppose to sympathize others for earning low income? Do we protest to raise minimum wage, and in doing so, fraction off available jobs?

Why should jobs raise their output to support, and overly cater each individual person? It's the persons job to compromise their living with the earnings they get, based off the job they work.

 

^want more do something about it, many people survive on min wage with family