This is topic Starbucks workers go on strike! in forum Film-Yak at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.
To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=004374
Posted by Peter Berrett (Member # 672) on 11-24-2005, 04:06 AM:
From
http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3488833a11,00.html
(see below)
At the prices Starbucks charges I think they can afford to pay these guys more than $NZ10 an hour. Viva la revolution.
cheers Peter
World first for Starbucks as staff at 10 cafes strike
24 November 2005
A small-scale "symbolic" strike at Starbucks coffee store on Auckland's Karangahape Rd today heated up when workers at nine other stores spontaneously joined the picket line.
The strike - which the union claims is a world first for the multinational company - was organised as part of the Unite union's SuperSizeMyPay.Com campaign to boost public awareness of the plight of low paid fastfood industry workers.
Union coordinator Simon Oosterman said he was "absolutely disgusted" at the company's heavy-handed reaction to what was legal industrial action.
"They actually threatened to fire any worker who was not back at work within an hour, which is just an unacceptable bullying tactic," he told NZPA.
"It was supposed to be a small symbolic strike in the heart of Auckland's cafe counter-culture.
"But what happened was, the company paid managers from around the city to do the work of the striking workers.
"When other employees got to hear about this, the text messages went all over the city, and we ended up with about 200 workers from 10 different Starbucks outlets joining us."
AdvertisementAdvertisementThe union served free Fair Trade coffee to demonstrators and passersby.
But the party atmosphere was ruined by the reaction of management, Mr Oosterman said.
The starting wage at Starbucks was $10 an hour - 50 cents above the minimum wage - but the Unite workers union wanted it lifted to $12, Mr Oosterman said.
He said Australian Starbucks workers earned about $5 an hour more than their New Zealand counterparts.
Giving secure hours and other minimum entitlements were other campaign goals.
Mr Oosterman said Unite had been in negotiations for several months with Restaurant Brands, which owns Starbucks, KFC and Pizza Hut in New Zealand.
"Just because there are others that treat their workers more badly, that doesn't mean it's good enough.
"These are companies that are making huge profits by exploiting the most vulnerable in our society: mainly women, Pacific Islanders, Maori, students and young people, and they are being subsidised by the taxpayer.
"Most of these workers are on family benefits and other Government handouts because they simply cannot survive on what they earn."
He said the casualisation of the workforce (fastfood outlets in New Zealand have a 70 per cent turnover), had traditionally made these industries very hard to organise.
Internationally, Starbucks has only 300 union members out of 80,000 workers globally. One third of the union members are in New Zealand.
"There has been very little unionisation, these workers cannot afford to go on strike for long periods.
"I am blown away by the courage of these people in doing what they have done in standing up to a huge multi-national corporation."
The union will be campaigning outside fastfood outlets in Queen St during the Santa Parade, and will also be maintaining a presence at the Grey Lynn Festival to encourage community support.
Green Party MP Sue Bradford, a long-time advocate for low-income workers, said she supported Unite's campaign for a higher minimum wage and better conditions for all workers.
"Starbucks workers are typical of those who have been left to languish in the low wage sector of the economy," she said in a statement.
"All workers in New Zealand, including those aged 16 and 17, should be getting $12 an hour as an absolute minimum.
"Taxpayers should not be subsidising employers through Working for Families and the Accommodation Supplement.
"Employers should pay enough for their workers to live on and not leave it to the Government to make up the difference."
She said workers in the fastfood industry where "particularly vulnerable", as they had little or no job security.
"These workers deserve significant wage increases, rather than the taxpayer subsidies offered to some by Labour.
While the Government had promised to raise the minimum wage, three years was too long to wait, she said.
The Council of Trade Unions (CTU) is also putting its weight behind the campaign.
CTU president Ross Wilson said New Zealand was in the grip of "a low wage crisis", and the $12 per hour wage claim was "clearly reasonable".
"Workers in the fast food industry are often on, or close to, minimum wage levels.
"Workers deserve a fair share of corporate profits, and a lift in the minimum wage to $12 an hour and the removal of youth rates will make a real difference to the incomes of these workers."
Restaurant Brands spokesman Alan Brookbanks said on Tuesday the company was "disappointed" by the union's action when negotiations had been going on some time.
He was unavailable for comment yesterday.
Restaurant Brands said it was "surprised and disappointed" that the Unite Union targeted its coffee stores to launch a campaign aimed at raising the minimum wage.
"We have an excellent relationship with our partners (staff) and respect their rights to belong to the union - it's a personal choice," said Restaurant Brands chief executive Vicki Salmon.
"We pay above the minimum wage and in addition to the higher pay rate, Starbucks and Restaurant Brands offers well respected staff training programmes, a strong career path to management positions and flexible work hours for those that want them."
She said she believed "only a handful" of Starbucks' 7000 staff were involved in the rally.
In response to the union's claims that some striking staff members were threatened with losing their jobs, a Starbucks spokeswoman said this allegation was "completely inaccurate".
"Starbucks respects their staff's rights to belong to the union and bullying is not an approach they would take with their staff," she said.
While some staff had been told that they had to advise their managers if they intended to take part in the strike, it was not true that people had been told they would be fired if they were absent for more than an hour, she told NZPA.
Posted by Dave Williams (Member # 299) on 11-24-2005, 04:48 AM:
No offence here, but when the guy pouring my coffee thinks he deserves to make more money than I make as a financial analyst, it's time for a reality check.
I am unsure about how US dollars translate into your currency, but our minimum wage is under six dollars an hour. No where livable, and our government allows entitlements as well. This is the problem, people think they are entitled to stuff, you know, because.
Even here in the states, Fast food is costly enough as it is, and I have no intention no matter where I go in this world of putting a Hummer in the driveway of every soda jerk on the planet, when I cannot afford one myself. I know you cannot afford a hummer on ten dollars an hour, but to think that anyone is deserving of special consideration for pouring my coffee. Sure, if it will keep you from spitting in it! Hell for the price, I will make it myself, and use my own spit.
I pay high prices for food at a restaraunt, where I sit down dressed in a suit or a tux, and am served by someone dressed as well as I am, treats me with the kind of respect I am paying for, and my meal tastes like it was cooked by god himself!
Fast food workers want more money? Great!!! Just don't expect the consumer to be even remotely concerned. When a burger costs seven dollars US at the drive through, there is no drive through. Coffee at starbucks is costly enough. The company has a right and a responsibilities to its shareholders to drive a return, so the higher pay would be passed on to each cup of coffee. Everyone ready for nine, ten, twenty dollar coffee???
Ciao
Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 11-24-2005, 05:15 AM:
quote: Peter Berrett
She said workers in the fastfood industry where "particularly vulnerable", as they had little or no job security.
Maybe that's because they have little or no job skills?
Posted by Dick Vaughan (Member # 540) on 11-24-2005, 05:54 AM:
Their coffee tastes like ![[bs]](graemlins/bs.gif)
anyway.
FYI $10NZ is about $7US
Posted by Kevin Baglow (Member # 721) on 11-24-2005, 06:43 AM:
Yep, of cource they need to be paid more - to pass that stuff off as ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
coffee
Posted by John Walsh (Member # 168) on 11-24-2005, 08:59 AM:
I thought that was sort of the way a person's 'working-life' progressed: You work at a low-paying job at first, then learn some skills, get a better job then learn some more skills, get an even better job ....
Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 11-24-2005, 11:20 AM:
I don't exactly know what their entry-level employees make here but it's above Oregon minumum wage which is currently $7.25/hr (increasing 1/1/2006). Isn't the idea to start as a barista (or whatever they call the servers) and work your way up to a management position? Starbucks store and district managers probably make good money.
I have a Starbucks cash card and go there several times a week, so they know me. One morning I placed my order (coffee and a pastry) and then realized I didn't have my wallet. They were like "No problem, pay us next time you come in." Another time their cash card reader was acting up and they couldn't process my card, so they said "No problem, your order is on us today." And if they screw up your order so you have to wait too long they give you a voucher for a freebie on your next visit.
Did you know they throw out their brewed coffee if it sits for more than 1 hour? Look at the urns - They have a digital timer counting down the minutes. When the timer expires, they dump the coffee. So you never get coffee from Starbucks that's been sitting for any longer than an hour.
They also donate their day-old unsold pastries (which are perfectly good) to charities that feed the homeless.
As for the taste of Starbucks coffee, I've found that the people who think it sucks usually prefer Folgers. Enough said. ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-24-2005, 11:37 AM:
quote: Dave Williams
No offence here, but when the guy pouring my coffee thinks he deserves to make more money than I make as a financial analyst, it's time for a reality check.
I don't know about other parts of the world, but the United States has some very perverted economic values floating around in the top tier and bottom tier income brackets.
People who drive Hummers? They sure as hell are NOT any fast food workers. I don't mind any snide remarks against Hummer drivers, but let's get the damned income group right. The people I know who drive Hummers are real estate guys, people with oil field interests, some doctors and a lawyer or two. $6 or $10 an hour. No. Try $100 per hour and up. Some of these guys bitch about "socialism" in America and doing what they can to keep the minimum wage from rising at all. Can't have that cutting into their ability to pay those $5000 per month country club fees, right? This is the same group that loves seeing Tiger Woods in those commercials for that firm that ships jobs overseas to slave labor markets by the thousands.
Perhaps some guy who owns a number of restaurants might be able to afford to drive around in a $55,000 SUV and live in a $200,000 home but it sure as hell is not an "employee."
At the bottom end of the income scale we have another set of nonsense values. It's all that "I wanna roll like 50 cent and be a gangsta and get high all the time and only show up for work when I feel like it" bullshit. There's an endless number of white kids around my area with that stupidity floating around in their skulls.
Both groups, the greedy assholes and the lazy druggie gangsta wannabes, are screwing up the back-bone of this country: small business.
I work for a small business of around 20 employees. We certainly pay well above minimum wage. That's because we want the jobs to be at least a bit competitive.
Our costs for materials, fuel, various pieces of hardware have gone up and up and up. We constantly have to monitor the prices of steel, plastic and more for all the volatility in the market. Some of that's due to some corporate guys wanting to eek out those extra few percentage points on that next quarterly report. So let's stick small business people in America with a nice price hike. The health care industrial complex in the United States is more guilty of punishing American small business than any other industry.
With higher costs of doing business, we need to be able to do more. But it's damned hard to find good employees!
If you've got your shit together, American business culture now says you are a complete idiot and socialist scumbag if you work for someone else. So the people who are productive are constantly moving around trying to start their own businesses instead of joining up with someone else and getting a real team going.
When we need to hire new employees, we probably get 1 or 2 good candidates out of maybe 50 or more who apply. So many have felony convictions, drug offences and other things that just knock them right out of consideration.
Because of changing DOT rules, we're probably going to have to start a company wide drug testing program. We need as many employees as possible carrying CDL licenses so they can drive crane and service trucks. But we're honestly worried that once we enact the company wide program, we could wind up losing a few metal workers in the shop during the process. That's all thanks to the low end of our perverted culture relentlessly promoting drug use.
quote: Dave Williams
Fast food workers want more money? Great!!! Just don't expect the consumer to be even remotely concerned.
No one else has said it, but I'll point out the fact: food service jobs are SHIT. You could not pay me enough to do one of those thankless jobs. They're awful.
I worked a couple of those jobs when I was in high school and hated them with a purple passion. They're not easy jobs to do either. At Wendys, I had the duty of hauling grease buckets out from under the grill out to these big oil drums in the back. I'd have lift those heavy bastards up and pour them into the drums. The stink was unbearable. Lifting the lid on one of those barrels often brought up the gag reflex -or I just puked outright. It was never a neat job either. I'd always come back inside with some of that shit-stinking grease poured on the front of my clothes.
I find it a lot easier to sit behind a desk, do computer graphics work and above all other things stay clean. I remember those fast food days when the first thing I had to do when getting home was taking a shower.
Fast food employees, movie theater employees and more very often and very wrongfully get the blame whenever a company raises the price of their products. "Oh those lazy fast food workers just want more money," will often be the comment if the price of a Big Mac goes up. No one ever thinks that maybe the CEO wants to buy out some supplier, or a new GulfStream jet or some other shit like that.
For example, we have seen movie ticket prices increase over the years. But minimum wage has been stuck around the same level for a long time. And I know a lot of movie theater workers are not making any better than minimum wage. Even some assistant managers are making only 25 or 50 cents an hour above it. Yet, you can count on many customers blaming the employees there in the lobby for any ticket price or concession price increases.
Posted by Peter Berrett (Member # 672) on 11-25-2005, 06:02 AM:
It's been said before
If you pay peanuts you get monkeys. Maybe that is why the coffee tastes bad in the US Starbucks stores. Over here I've found it ok.
Here in Australia Starbucks coffee is an above average price i.e $3-4$ or so. A nice cappucino at a cafe (and we have lots of very nice, clean cafes with nice cheap food & clean toilets here) cost $2.50 or less.
So from where I sit Starbucks coffee is a bit on the expensive side so I see no reasons why Starbucks should not pay a bit more to its employees. Some for example are likely to be struggling students studying at university so they are trying to get skills and an education.
Regards
Peter
Posted by Dave Williams (Member # 299) on 11-25-2005, 06:50 PM:
quote: Dave Williams
I know you cannot afford a hummer on ten dollars an hour
The Hummer reference is meant as an allegory to point out that there are those with few skills in menial jobs that actually believe that they deserve the same ability to have as those that own the locations. I never meant to actually mean that I believe that fast food workers can or should afford hummers.
That bieng said, I completely agree with you on your views on the matter. Point well made.
Ciao
Posted by Andy Muirhead (Member # 712) on 11-25-2005, 06:51 PM:
Starbucks aside, I'm all for fast food employees to be paid what their worth. The ones i have dealt with though are fucking appalling in terms of customer service and politeness. Usually a grunt and vacant expression as hello. I'm talking McDonalds here by the way. A panic stricken face usually follows when i ask for a plain quarter pounder with nothing on it. Notice i have to say 'plain with nothing on it' as just saying plain doesn't seem to work. Even then they ask 'cheese?' Then i have to explain again that i'd like a quarter pounder with nothing on it, not even cheese, because clearly cheese doesn't qualify as nothing. About 50% of the time i'll get back to work with my 'plain nothing on it' quarter pounder to find some cheese. Which i throw in the bin. The whole burger, not just the cheese, which i find must have some kind of chemical additive that binds to meat at a molecular level. Thats not cheese.
And all this without any courteous service, no smiles, no banter. If they can't get that right they can stick with their minimum wage.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-25-2005, 07:51 PM:
quote: Andy Muirhead
Notice i have to say 'plain with nothing on it' as just saying plain doesn't seem to work. Even then they ask 'cheese?'
Most counter help is required to upsell. I'm used to such treatment in many kinds of restaurants and other businesses as well. Certain theater chains have very strict upselling rules; if a checker visits the counter and the employee doesn't try to upsell that employee can be fired on the spot.
I don't expect much from minimum wage employees at fast food restaurants -but then I hardly visit fast food restaurants anymore (trying to be a little health conscious). They don't have any business acting rude toward me, but I'm not going to expect an orgasmic smile and snappy song and dance attitude from them either. Inflation has eroded away the buying power of the $5.15 rate since the last minimum wage rate increase in 1997. In 1995 dollars the current minimum wage is equal to $4.23, which is just lower than the $4.25 minimum wage rate at that time. The current minimum wage has slipped to 33% of the average hourly worker wage in the United States -its lowest level since 1949.
It is a little more shocking to find out all the other kinds of businesses that pay most of their workers $5.15 per hour. For example lots of banks in this state pay many of their tellers minimum wage. Some businesses in Oklahoma are allowed to pay employees as little as $2.00 per hour if they meet certain criteria.
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 11-25-2005, 07:54 PM:
I didn't know Starbucks was unionized. Can't you go to jail and get raped in the ass if you strike and are not part of the union? And isn't it people who ARE in a union that do the raping?
Posted by Jack Ondracek (Member # 1466) on 11-25-2005, 08:07 PM:
I operate one 3-screen drive-in theatre. In the big picture it's no big deal, but it's the foundation upon which my wife and I have raised 3 daughters and kept ourselves in hamburger.
As is common in our part of the country, our theatre is open a little over half the year. The concession operation IS fast food... or as some company is advertising these days, great food served quickly.
My place is a career for me, a work ethics training ground for my kids, the financial support structure for their education, and potentially, a career opportunity for any of them that might choose to succeed my wife and me down the road.
So how do I fit in the rest of the staff, all of whom start at a little over minimum wage (with small annual increases for those who come back), and who have to find other things to do after the end of September?
I tell them right up front that I recognize the place as an entry level opportunity for young people just entering the workplace, and an additional income for more experienced people looking to make an extra buck with their spare time. It's a fun place to work. At times, it can be very demanding. Operating it at its busiest depends on teamwork, learned over the slower weeks at the beginning of the season. There's plenty of potential to learn nearly all the basics of customer service, cash handling, kitchen operations and field security. Providing that training is my job. I ask my employees to show up on time, be ready to work, have an open mind toward learning the job the way I need it done and maintain a positive outlook toward the time they're here. With a few rules applied, they get to bring their family and friends to the movies, pass along some concession discounts and "show off" their job and how they fit into the place. There IS value in that, which has to be added to what they make in cash.
Recognizing that none of them will pay their rent, buy their cars, feed their families or pay their college tuition totally on what they make here, I tell them I expect they may eventualy take what they learn from this place and use it to move to a better job. In return for reasonable notice (which is not required in my state) and applying themselves to the job as we ask while they're here, I tell them I'll give them one of the best references they'll ever get when they apply for their new job, and I give them a phone number to pass along if necessary.
In the end, I get probably the same ratio of idiots to "jewel in the haystack" prospects. I feel no remourse when sending the idiots down the road. I did lay out the program up front, after all. The ones who stick with it get a basic background in several disciplines, they get paid for it, they learn work ethics and skills that can serve them well throughout their lives, most of them have a hell of a good time, and some of them become part of a family that's been here for 20 years.
Sometimes you have to look past just the hourly wage.
Posted by Aaron Mehocic (Member # 15) on 11-25-2005, 08:12 PM:
quote: Peter Berrett
"These are companies that are making huge profits by exploiting the most vulnerable in our society: mainly women, Pacific Islanders, Maori, students and young people, and they are being subsidised by the taxpayer.
I'm a little confused here. Not that I'm an apologist for Starbucks, but isn't this the same company that also gives its part-time workers benefits too. At this point I'd paint this Mr. Oosterman as a communist and simply click the next thread.
Posted by Peter Berrett (Member # 672) on 11-26-2005, 12:28 AM:
Actually Aaron the quote is from the article, not from me.
On the subject of whether people who believe that they are entitled to a reasonable wage are communists I would say that wages and conditions are not necessarily a matter of ideology. On the other hand being anti-unions IS a matter of ideology.
Here in Australia we have long held views that recognise the reality that we all aren't born with an equal capacity to get a good income. Some people, despite trying hard, just aren't business savvy or talented in areas demanded by the economy. So our solution to this is a mixed economy where we recognise that whilst people should be free to run their businesses and make money, on the other hand the strong have social obligations and this means the strong helping the weak both financially and in other ways. This also means protecting the weak from those who exploit them.
The outcome of this is that children of financally disadvantaged
parents at least have a chance of bettering themselves and are not stuck in a rut from which they cannot extricate themselves. For example if your family is so poor that you have to work to leave school to support them how can you get an education? Worse still your low wages caused by your lack of skills limit your capacity to pay for an education to better yourself.
The unfortunate truth is that many middle and upper class families do not understand the reality of poverty traps.
Here in Australia you rarely see beggers on the streets. When you do they are rarely genuinely needy people as we have alternative social support mechanism (i.e unemployment benefits, rent assistance.) I was shocked the first time I went to the USA to see the level of poverty there in the form of beggars at many major places. It is ironic that one of the most christian nations in the world still has beggars on its streets.
Is redisributing wealth socialism? No, the idea that some wealth and social benefits needs to be redistributed to the poor is not exclusively a matter of ideology. Open your Bible or yoru Koran. I regard it as simply a matter of human decency.
Having said the above I recognise the tensions that exist between running a profitable business and paying reasonable wages. However the Australian experience is that you can do both and still keep unemployment reasonably low.
Regards Peter
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-26-2005, 12:52 AM:
quote: Peter Berrett
I was shocked the first time I went to the USA to see the level of poverty there in the form of beggars at many major places. It is ironic that one of the most christian nations in the world still has beggars on its streets.
It's just another example of the arguably cosmetic morality we have here. Window dressing values.
A major corporation will wave the American flag and exude patriotism in its marketing, yet move factories over to Red China to exploit an impoverished and persecuted labor force. We talk a big game about things like "freedom," but when our quarterly report is involved in the equation we look the other way when human rights crimes are committed.
There's an endless example of moral contradictions in our society. The contradictions only make sense when one understands profit is the only motive.
Posted by Matt Fields (Member # 3211) on 11-26-2005, 01:13 AM:
Minimum wages laws are simply a price control on labor.
Price controls produce:
1. Increased demand
2. Decreased supply
3. Lower quality
4. Black Markets
Take for example the recent Muslim riots in France. 40% of the young male Muslim population in France is unemployed, not because of discrimination, but because of the mandatory wages and benefits the government of France places on employment.
These young Muslim men have little job related skills, and are not worth hiring at the high costs of the French price controls on labor.
Also, the minimum wage in America was originally enacted to stop black from getting construction jobs during the depression. The blacks would work cheaper then the Whites.
Here is a column I read about the French situation that also talked about the history of the US minimum wage.
Economist Thomas Sowell column
Posted by David Buckley (Member # 2600) on 11-26-2005, 03:56 AM:
quote: Dave Williams
Even here in the states, Fast food is costly enough as it is, and I have no intention no matter where I go in this world of putting a Hummer in the driveway of every soda jerk on the planet, when I cannot afford one myself.
The reality is that these "jerks" cant actually afford a driveway, let alone anything to place on one.
The other point is that minimum wage is what the worst employers in the worst industries can just afford to pay their workers before their business collapses. It is not a target to be aimed for, its a line of disgrace below which you need to go out of business. To be fair, Starbucks pay a little above minimum wage here.
Starbucks are a premium brand, which has premium pricing, and therefore I expect their outlets to be better "quality", serving better fare in a better manner in better locations, and for them to pay their staff better than some shed somewhere with flies crawling all over it.
Posted by Peter Berrett (Member # 672) on 11-26-2005, 04:09 AM:
quote: Matt Fields
Minimum wages laws are simply a price control on labor.
Price controls produce:
1. Increased demand
2. Decreased supply
3. Lower quality
4. Black Markets
Take for example the recent Muslim riots in France. 40% of the young male Muslim population in France is unemployed, not because of discrimination, but because of the mandatory wages and benefits the government of France places on employment.
These young Muslim men have little job related skills, and are not worth hiring at the high costs of the French price controls on labor.
Also, the minimum wage in America was originally enacted to stop black from getting construction jobs during the depression. The blacks would work cheaper then the Whites.
Whether a wage is $4 or $0.40 an hour, the price does not determine whether a white worker gets a job rather than a black worker or whether a white French worker gets preference for a job over somebody of North African origin. It is racism and discrimination that causes that.
It is accepted that dropping wages means that more businesses can become more profitable and more workers can be hired however the downward shift on wages also could cause reduced demand for goods and services because working class employees have less income to spend. Here in Australia we have a high minimum wage yet have a much lower amount of unemployment than France and certainly much less of the social problems. Mr Sowell's wage cutting proposal is the wrong solution for a complex social and economic problem.
Rather than cutting wages what needs to be done in France is firstly to address the issue of discrimination with tougher anti-discrimination laws. Next opportunities for education need to be expanded to the most disadvantaged groups (economically and racially) in society so that they are more employable or have a greater capacity to start their own businesses.
Also, what is needed is that their social welfare mentality (not necessarily a bad thing) needs to add the right to a job to the right to support when unemployed, to govt assistance in various forms, to a free education ect. There is scope for pruning government welfare outlays and using the resultant savings to invest in large scale national work for the dole type schemes as existed in the USA of the thirties. Schemes such as the building of the Hoover dam provided a foundation for decades of future properity in the US.
One must also take into account that some unemployment can be attributed to the bulge in the population due to the baby boom of the 50s and 60s. As these generations retire one can reasonably expect that unemployment will fall of its own accord. Here in Australia we have already started to see this occurring with labour shortages appearing in certain industries. Lowering wages won't solve these problems. Educating unemployed people so that they can fill vacant positions will.
In the case of the USA I would argue for an increase in minimum wages as it would stimulate domestic consumption (domestic demand).
Regards Peter
Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 11-26-2005, 07:35 AM:
quote: Peter Berrett
In the case of the USA I would argue for an increase in minimum wages as it would stimulate domestic consumption (domestic demand).
It would also stimulate unemployment and higher prices. Some jobs just aren't worth very much in monetary terms, and not all compensation comes in the form of dollars. Re-read Jack's post about his business--he is providing part-time jobs and seasonal jobs for students, not full-time career positions. The same can be said of many minimum-wage positions. Also, in the US at least, few people who take minimum-wage jobs continue at the minimum wage for more than a few months; instead, they either get raises or move on to other positions of greater responsibility (or are students or other part-time workers).
I do support the right of the Starbucks workers to go on strike, but I also support the company's right to replace them.
Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 11-26-2005, 07:48 AM:
quote: Scott Norwood
I do support the right of the Starbucks workers to go on strike, but I also support the company's right to replace them.
But wouldn't that make striking pretty much pointless?
- We are on strike for more money!
- OK, noted. Now get out.
I have no opinion about this. I do understand that striking is a valid form of protest for workers to underline their demands. I personally would feel silly being on strike for wanting more money for working as a coffee maker. I have always tried to improve myself, and usually only asked for a raise when I felt I deserved more because I could do more. If I didn't get the raise, I usually left and looked for a better job. I think it's somehow a self-organizing market. Your work has a certain value and you try to sell yourself as well as the market permits. It is good there are minimum wages so that people don't get exploited (or at least not too much!). But the whole issue is rather pointless when, as it is here in California, countless of people can come over the border who work for less than minimum wage and without benefits and all that.
Posted by Dennis Benjamin (Member # 1137) on 11-26-2005, 07:53 AM:
One lesson that I have learned over the years:
When looking for a job - pay attention to how long the current employees have worked there. If they have been there for long time - it means the company cares (somewhat) for their employees. If the company has a high turnover, remember there is a reason for it.
I have seen the 'corporate mentality' take over a majority of the large companies in the U.S. Pay the people as little as possible, work them to near death - until they wake up out of their coma and realize they are getting screwed.
Posted by Matt Fields (Member # 3211) on 11-26-2005, 08:30 AM:
quote: Peter Berrett
Whether a wage is $4 or $0.40 an hour, the price does not determine whether a white worker gets a job rather than a black worker or whether a white French worker gets preference for a job over somebody of North African origin. It is racism and discrimination that causes that.
I will repeat:
It is a fact of history, reguardless of how one feels about the issue, that the minimum wage in the US was started by racist politicians to keep blacks from getting jobs. The politicians were racist, they knew that the wage increase would hurt blacks the most.
If the Muslims in France entered the job market at the price there skills are currently worth, they would gain skills and eventually move up the ladder, causing better economic conditions, leading to less disontent over time. The problem is not complex. You don't see riots in Beverly Hills. Economic difficulties breed discontent.
Today minimum wages and government taxes like social security do the same thing with illegal immagrants in the US. They work under the table (in the black market, an effect of price controls), because both employees and employers find it in their best interest to do so.
To be honest, striking, minimum wages, and other corporate/government issues are all political issues. Everyone here is giving political opinions. You can just about tell about how people would vote. This thread should probably be shut down.
Posted by Greg Mueller (Member # 17) on 11-26-2005, 10:56 AM:
My you can sure tell who's in business for themselves and who aint.
I agree with Jack's statements 100%
....and I'd add that most of the fast food workers I've been served by, aren't worth minimum wage. That goes for bank tellers too.
Unions have out lived their usefulness. All they do now is ferment discontent, and get in between people who want to work and people who want to employ them. Heaven help us if a guy had to be paid upon his own personal merits instead of some blackmail negotiated contract. It's just plain unbelievable that the idiot machinists at Boeing (who make tons of money for doing relatively nothing) go on strike during the most stressful of times for the airline business. Thanks to the unions there's always an adversarial position between employer and employee and they "we've got them over a barrel" attitude. Like they aren't affected by their screwing the company into the ground?
Raising the minimum wage just takes away jobs. Little businesses that barely bump along can't afford to pay big wages, so they eliminate the job and have to work harder themselves.
I worked for minimum wage at my first job. I got $1.50 per hour 20 hours a week. It was a good education and gave me a little pocket change. It was not meant to provide enough money to live on, no minimum wage job is
As far as being political, you can make anything political if you try hard enough, specially the socialists
Posted by David Buckley (Member # 2600) on 11-26-2005, 12:37 PM:
Its interesting this discussion, as you guys are arguing about something happening in NZ with attitudes, values and from life experiences that are distinctly American.
Matt argues that this disucssion is political, and yes it is, but not in terms of Republican versus Democrat (ie it fails the Brad test), but rather from "The American Way" versus "The European Social Model" perspective.
The interest to the USA from this storm in a teacup a universe away is that both Starbucks USA management and the fledgling union of American Starbucks workers (who was on telly here a few days back and spoke fairly ineloquently, so I guess he's new at his job) are interested in how this plays out.
Starbucks in NZ isnt the same as I'm ASSuming Starbucks is in the USA - I'm ASSuming USA Starbucks are either franchise stores or Starbucks owned stores. Here in NZ Starbucks is a brand run by a company called Restaurant Brands , who in addition to Starbucks also own the KFC and Pizza Hut stores nationwide.
There is (so the informed opinion goes) no question that Restaurant Brands could afford to pay their staff more, but obviosuly they dont want to. And of course Starbucks USA doesnt want their workers to have something achieved elsewhere to come back to haunt them back home...
Posted by Bruce Hansen (Member # 281) on 11-26-2005, 12:59 PM:
quote: Greg Mueller
Raising the minimum wage just takes away jobs
WRONG! Clinton proved this wrong some years ago, when the minimum wage was raised to get the economy started (and it worked). I remember, at that time I heard the whine about raising the minimum wage cauing companies to fire people, but that is NOT what happened. Companies had to hire MORE people, here is why: 3/4 of our economy is consumer spending. When you raise minimum wage it puts money into the hands of people who will spend it. This causes business to hire more people to fill those orders, which puts more money in the hands of consumers, and the economy grows. If you know about the "just in time" principal that business works on, business will not hire people to build product or provide services until there are orders. Where do the orders come from? Remember, 3/4 or our economy is consumer spending.
One thing to think about: it's the employees that do the work that brings in the money. It's the employees that should be making the money. The upper management pays the employees as little as possible, so they can give themselves multi million dollar raises. The employees are making the money that is paying the upper management, not the other way arround. Upper management does not do anything that directly brings in money.
By the way, the communists did not allow unions, and decided what you would do for a living, and how much you would get paid. Unions are a product of the free market, and you are not working in a sweat shop today thanks to the unions.
And another by the way, I have been in business for myself for close to 20 years, and have done quite well, thank you.
Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 11-26-2005, 01:36 PM:
Bruce said "The upper management pays the employees as little as possible, so they can give themselves multi million dollar raises."
Yes and when they screw up they get let go with a multi million dollar golden handshake or misrepresent the net worth of the company's performance and assests to get a bigger bons that isn't earned
Posted by Aaron Mehocic (Member # 15) on 11-26-2005, 02:21 PM:
quote: Bruce Hansen
When you raise minimum wage it puts money into the hands of people who will spend it.
Yes, but what about those of us who make only a few dollars more than minimum wage? We see no cost-of-living adjustments when businesses raise prices to cover labor costs. I'm all for the working man living the "American dream", but I still cringe everytime there is even the hint of a raise in the minimum wage.
And believe me . . . there are millions out there who feel the same way I do.
Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 11-26-2005, 02:45 PM:
Up here at least one usually doesn't see a "massive"price hike after an increase in minimum wages in fact it is often some period of time down the road that there will be a small adjustment
Posted by Mike Spaeth (Member # 524) on 11-26-2005, 03:58 PM:
quote: David Buckley
Its interesting this discussion, as you guys are arguing about something happening in NZ with attitudes, values and from life experiences that are distinctly American.
Common sense is common sense regardless of where you reside.
quote: David Buckley
The interest to the USA from this storm in a teacup a universe away is that both Starbucks USA management and the fledgling union of American Starbucks workers (who was on telly here a few days back and spoke fairly ineloquently, so I guess he's new at his job) are interested in how this plays out.
Starbucks in NZ isnt the same as I'm ASSuming Starbucks is in the USA - I'm ASSuming USA Starbucks are either franchise stores or Starbucks owned stores. Here in NZ Starbucks is a brand run by a company called Restaurant Brands , who in addition to Starbucks also own the KFC and Pizza Hut stores nationwide.
There is (so the informed opinion goes) no question that Restaurant Brands could afford to pay their staff more, but obviosuly they dont want to. And of course Starbucks USA doesnt want their workers to have something achieved elsewhere to come back to haunt them back home...
Actually, in the United States, Starbucks is one of the most generous, employee-friendly employers. They even offer health insurance to part-time employees!
quote: Bruce Hansen
One thing to think about: it's the employees that do the work that brings in the money. It's the employees that should be making the money. The upper management pays the employees as little as possible, so they can give themselves multi million dollar raises. The employees are making the money that is paying the upper management, not the other way arround. Upper management does not do anything that directly brings in money.
What about the business owners that RISKED their own money in starting up a business? There are far more business that fail/lose money than are successful. Yet, when the successful business owner that risked his own money in a venture profits from it, he becomes the evil one. Most upper management did not START in upper management, but worked their way up. Damn then for their personal achievement/reward!
Posted by Aaron Mehocic (Member # 15) on 11-26-2005, 04:26 PM:
But I think most of us can agree that they didn't start on the shop floor either. Just because you get a degree in X doesn't necessarily mean you understand all of the idosyncracies of Y. Not saying upper management is evil and nobody is downing personal achievement / reward. Just saying that most are clueless for the first couple of years of employment and that is when the most damage is inflicted.
Posted by Mike Spaeth (Member # 524) on 11-26-2005, 04:31 PM:
Agreed. But they don't earn those nice bonuses during those formative years, either.
Posted by Greg Mueller (Member # 17) on 11-26-2005, 04:43 PM:
"WRONG! Clinton proved this wrong some years ago, when the minimum wage was raised to get the economy started (and it worked). I remember, at that time I heard the whine about raising the minimum wage cauing companies to fire people, but that is NOT what happened. Companies had to hire MORE people, here is why: 3/4 of our economy is consumer spending. When you raise minimum wage it puts money into the hands of people who will spend it. This causes business to hire more people to fill those orders, which puts more money in the hands of consumers, and the economy grows. If you know about the "just in time" principal that business works on, business will not hire people to build product or provide services until there are orders. Where do the orders come from? Remember, 3/4 or our economy is consumer spending."
Nice try Bruce...
Are you saying that if minimum wages go up today that orders also increase today to cover their wages? Fraid not. There's that thing called "lag time". In case your business experience hasn't covered that one, things just don't happen instantly in the business world. Economic measures set in motion today take months or years to have effect. You are right about putting more money in the hands of consumers, that's what Bush's tax cut plan has done and it has worked. But it is a slow process.
When a small business with one or two employees is hit with a pay hike situation the money has to come from somewhere so something's got to give. Maybe orders will pickup in the future (maybe not) but you can't pay todays wages with wishes for future. So someone has to go and they do.
"One thing to think about: it's the employees that do the work that brings in the money. It's the employees that should be making the money. The upper management pays the employees as little as possible, so they can give themselves multi million dollar raises. The employees are making the money that is paying the upper management, not the other way arround. Upper management does not do anything that directly brings in money."
What a load of crap. Sounds like it came right out of "the little red book"
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 11-26-2005, 04:56 PM:
quote: Greg Mueller
Raising the minimum wage just takes away jobs
No, it just increases inflation.
Posted by Aaron Mehocic (Member # 15) on 11-26-2005, 05:57 PM:
quote: Greg Mueller
You are right about putting more money in the hands of consumers, that's what Bush's tax cut plan has done and it has worked.
There was a tax cut? Nah, quit screwing around with me. Seriously? Well shit, I better call the company accountant and find out why its not indicitive on my pay stub.
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Posted by Peter Berrett (Member # 672) on 11-26-2005, 06:03 PM:
Hi again
It is interesting to note the attitudes towards workers that exist among some business owners in the US.
Here in Australia my experience is that fast food restaurant staff, be it McDonalds, KFC or elsewhere are generally well-trained, polite and well dressed. There are always one or two bad eggs in any bunch but by and large I have always been very impressed with the standard of service I get at fast food restaurants. By contrast there are some self-owned businesses (i.e a U-pick strawberry farm I visited recently) where the owner's customer skills were sadly lacking.
Take the Lunar drive-in at Dandenong as an example of a typical Aussie business employing young staff. The staff there are always polite and you can see that they work hard to earn their wages. They seem to enjoy what they do also. I am sure that they are not treated badly by their employer.
Now consider what would happen if there were no checks and balance on employer's power. Other less ethical cinema businesses might hire staff for less $per hour and undercut the Lunar. Before long the Lunar would need to cut its wages or go out of business. Faced with low wages many of the staff might quit or look or work elsewhere. Result - a situation much like seems to exist in the USA.
Minimum wages put a floor under wages and temper the antics of less ethical, exploitative employers. Faced with a minimum wage employees have the choice of who they will work for and they certainly will not stay with a boss who does not treat them well.
Why, if posts are to believed, do you get poor customer service in the USA while we get great customer service most of the time? Maybe its a cultural thing, I don't know. But then again we have so many different cultures in Oz that I don't think it can be explained away simply by that. Perhaps it is more due to the history of unionism in this country wherein staff have demanded, and gotten a level of respect for their work and for themselves as people and not let themselves be downtrodden. Building a culture of downtrodden, financially disadvantaged employees is not conducive to customer service or social harmony. When employees feel treated well they will be more inclined to treat their customers well.
Regards Peter
Posted by Jim Ziegler (Member # 86) on 11-26-2005, 08:07 PM:
quote: Greg Mueller was the last to post
WRONG! Clinton proved this wrong some years ago, when the minimum wage was raised to get the economy started (and it worked). I remember, at that time I heard the whine about raising the minimum wage cauing companies to fire people, but that is NOT what happened. Companies had to hire MORE people, here is why: 3/4 of our economy is consumer spending. When you raise minimum wage it puts money into the hands of people who will spend it. This causes business to hire more people to fill those orders, which puts more money in the hands of consumers, and the economy grows. If you know about the "just in time" principal that business works on, business will not hire people to build product or provide services until there are orders. Where do the orders come from? Remember, 3/4 or our economy is consumer spending.
Um.. No..
The economy would have grown faster without a minimum wage increase. Minimum wages hikes are nothign more than inflation hikes. An employee may be making an extra $1 an hour, but when the price of everything goes up 50 cents, where does that leave him? Consumer spending may go up, but, the cost of labor, and, as a result, the cost of materials goes up as well. The net result is that consumers are spending more for the same item, but their savings has been devalued. By your logic, requiring a minimum wage of $100 an hour should cause an economic boom. It won't. It will cause a depression and economic collapse.
Really, for those of you backing higher minimum wages, how much is enough? $10? $20? $100? Why should someone with no skills earn even remotely close to someone that is skilled? If I can make the same amount being a french fry maker as a computer engineer, why waste time with all the schooling? How would a society of french fry makers survive in the global economy?
quote: Greg Mueller was the last to post
One thing to think about: it's the employees that do the work that brings in the money. It's the employees that should be making the money.
Its the investors who risk millions in starting the business. They are the ones who should be making the bulk of the money.
quote: Greg Mueller was the last to post
Upper management does not do anything that directly brings in money.
Other than start the business, buy the property, build the building, pay the taxes, pay for R and D, pay for advertising and marketing and incur millions of dollars in expenses and risk. Starbucks do not just grow up from the mud on thier own. Someone has to find the site, buy it, and pay for the building, the equipment, etc. before the first worker can make a cup of coffee.
quote: Bruce Hansen
And another by the way, I have been in business for myself for close to 20 years, and have done quite well, thank you.
How much are you paying your employees? Don't you think you can afford to pay them more? After all, you are doing quite well because of their hard work. Don't they deserve all the profits? After all, they made them, not you!
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 11-26-2005, 08:28 PM:
quote: Jim Ziegler
How would a society of french fry makers survive in the global economy?
Dunno...French Fry workers seem harder to out-source! They already out source computer engineers.
Posted by Greg Mueller (Member # 17) on 11-26-2005, 09:06 PM:
Jim
The stuff in quotes is my way of quoting Bruce's, uh, thoughts.
Just want to make sure you didn't think it was me
Yep if you PAY taxes, you got a cut. I saved about $3k, with which I bought toys and helped toy manufacturers make a profit.
(PAYing taxes means you don't get everything you've paid in back at the end of the year)
Peter
I can see how you'd say that (about your workers) when we were down there we noticed that everybody we met had a good, happy attitude. If I ever get tossed out of this country I'll be moving down
Posted by Aaron Mehocic (Member # 15) on 11-26-2005, 09:34 PM:
I don't get everything back that I paid in during the year, but when the Federal government is taxing approximately $1000 on every $5000 earned, I'd hardly call that a tax cut.
Those people who founded our nation spent $50,000,000; 15,000 lives; and almost 10 years of war over a freakin penny. Now yesterday I heard the Interstate Highway fund will go bust by 2007 if anymore hybrids are sold (bullshit ... I know), nevertheless, what I wouldn't give to see a new generation of Hancocks, Jeffersons, and Franklins in this country.
Posted by Mike Spaeth (Member # 524) on 11-26-2005, 09:47 PM:
quote: Aaron Mehocic
I don't get everything back that I paid in during the year, but when the Federal government is taxing approximately $1000 on every $5000 earned, I'd hardly call that a tax cut.
Are you counting your 7.65% Payroll Taxes in there?
Posted by Matt Fields (Member # 3211) on 11-26-2005, 10:26 PM:
Back on the minimum wage issue...
I would agree, and some studies have shown, that small (lets say .25 or .50 cents) increases in the minimum wage do not have
an a large impact on umemployment. That is because the price of labor is somewhat elastic. The demand does not go down if the prices go up a little.
But its plain common sense that drastic increases in the minimum wage would simply make people or positions who are not worth the new minumum wage unemployable. And Joes right, it also adds to the cost of goods (inflation).
Posted by Greg Mueller (Member # 17) on 11-27-2005, 10:03 AM:
Noticeable tax cuts depend on how much you pay in taxes. The more you pay, the more noticeable the cut. You can always ask your accountant how much you would have paid before the cut and give that much extra when you pay your taxes. I'm sure the government would be glad to take it. Isn't a cut better than an increase?
Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 11-27-2005, 10:58 AM:
Jim said "An employee may be making an extra $1 an hour, but when the price of everything goes up 50 cents, where does that leave him?"
hmm by my math that leaves him 50 cents ahead if he chooses what he purcahses
Posted by Dave Williams (Member # 299) on 11-27-2005, 01:56 PM:
That math would work Gordon if the person only purchased 40 things each week. I know I buy too many things, as it is.
quote: Bobby Henderson
A major corporation will wave the American flag and exude patriotism in its marketing, yet move factories over to Red China to exploit an impoverished and persecuted labor force. We talk a big game about things like "freedom," but when our quarterly report is involved in the equation we look the other way when human rights crimes are committed.
There were a lot of things to reply to, but this one raised my eyebrow quite a bit. We can all agree that China is not the poster child for supporting human rights, however there is a much larger picture that is often overlooked when the object is to attack "big buisness".
Would it be better that the planet cut off a country like china? If we isolated them and treated them like complete criminals, this would lead to eventual war when they decide they have had enough of being cut off.
By allowing American companies to do business in a country like China, we end up with our foot in the door, and a stake in how things are. As we do more business there, more people become aware of the plight of the people there. Pressure begins to build, not in the threat of loss of business, but rather that the country knows to keep the increase to thier economy, they must begin to make changes. Things in china are improving. Human rights ovbservers have noticed this as well. It could still take decades more, and with a country the size of china, war to liberate the people is not an option.
The last thing we would want to do is isolate this country. Better to do business with the devil and keep him at bay, then to cut him off and suffer the rath. In time, the devil looses steam, as people realize that freedom is what they want, not rigid communism. It happened to the USSR, it will happen in China.
The process of opening up China has taken decades. It is not going to be over quickly. China is not a threat to the US, however if we were to concentrate solely on thier human rights violations and cut them off, they could easily become a threat.
Ciao
Posted by Jim Ziegler (Member # 86) on 11-27-2005, 04:39 PM:
quote: Steve Guttag
Dunno...French Fry workers seem harder to out-source! They already out source computer engineers.
Problem is, if everyone is a french fry maker, who are you going to sell fries to?
quote: Greg Mueller
The stuff in quotes is my way of quoting Bruce's, uh, thoughts.
Just want to make sure you didn't think it was me
Not at all.. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I pulled them out of Bruce's post, the system just got confused, apparently.
quote: Gordon McLeod
hmm by my math that leaves him 50 cents ahead if he chooses what he purcahses
So by raising his wage, the only way he comes out ahead is to buy less? He can still buy the movie ticket, but, if he buys the Coke he endeds up behind.
Posted by Richard Hamilton (Member # 321) on 11-27-2005, 06:15 PM:
Dave,
Very well said. I have a hard time when I hear people say shit about China. It rubs me the wrong way, so to speak. Some of my best friends are Chinese, and they are no different than you or me. They only speak a different language, thats all. I could go on and on about unions and labor rates in the states. I will tell you from personal experience, the people there want to work. I would rather hire somebody who is happy as hell to get 100 dollars a month, than somebody who thinks he "deserves" 50 dollars an hour just because he is in a union. Moving factories to China creates big business for them, and a good opportunity for everyone.
Just my 2 cents, Rick
Posted by Jeremy Jorgenson (Member # 2989) on 11-27-2005, 10:14 PM:
Mmmmm, I just finished drinking some Starbucks.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-28-2005, 12:05 AM:
quote:
Most upper management did not START in upper management, but worked their way up. Damn then for their personal achievement/reward!
This is true in most smaller corporations and small business. But when it comes to major "Fortune 500" level multinational corporations, the executives tend to be journeyman free agent types.
One example is Carly Fiorina, the former president and CEO of Hewlett-Packard. She spent 20 years at AT&T before getting the lead job at HP. Micheal Ovitz had a really short tenture running Disney (about half a year) -and got a 9-figure paycheck for doing it. Apple had a couple different executives that made bad decisions (John Sculley) and even worse decisions (Gil Amelio) before co-founder Steve Jobs came back to take control of the company and get it on the right path. Jobs cared a little more about the health of his venture while other executives tended to care more about the amenities in the company lear jet.
quote: Dave Williams
Would it be better that the planet cut off a country like china? If we isolated them and treated them like complete criminals, this would lead to eventual war when they decide they have had enough of being cut off.
I'm not talking about cutting off China. However, what we are doing is the extreme opposite of that. We're letting the Chinese government do whatever they want. They can pirate or counterfeit any American intellectual property they choose. They can freely break any trade rule without worrying about any consequences. They can manipulate their currency to put American made products at an even worse price disadvantage. They can operate factories in as cheap, filthy and dangerous a manner as possible and pay workers as little as possible with impunity.
We turn a blind eye since they own more than $700 Billion in T-Bills and have so many labor and manufacturing deals with very wealthy international corporations.
quote: Richard Hamilton
Very well said. I have a hard time when I hear people say shit about China. It rubs me the wrong way, so to speak. Some of my best friends are Chinese, and they are no different than you or me.
My slams on China should not be read as racist. The Chinese government is indeed doing a lot of unethical things. My being a White American should not make it off limits for me to point out some of those disturbing facts. To add to all the business problems I listed, the Chinese government is selling plenty of arms to countries like Iran and Syria -who then smuggle those weapons into Iraq and kill our soldiers.
As for Asian-race citizens in this country, I tend to refer to them as Americans. I've got a bunch of Irish blood in me, but I'm not Irish (as to be mistaken for an Irish citizen). I'm an American. Not a hyphenate.
Posted by Matt Fields (Member # 3211) on 11-28-2005, 08:13 AM:
It is my understanding that in many developing countries, the US and other international corporations provide many of the best available jobs, compared to the other options workers have, which is often no job.
One could make the arguement that the people in China, ect. would be worse off if not for the US corporations.
Economic development does not happen overnight, nor did all of the luxuries that we have here in the US.
I agree with Dave. The chinese situation is slowly improving and we are on the right course.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-28-2005, 08:23 AM:
Some may insist "we're on the right course with China." Meanwhile, we're undermining the middle class of the United States. 75% of our economy is consumer spending. At some point, all the downsizing and outsourcing along with completely uncontrolled price spikes in various sectors like education, medical, fuel, etc. are going to bike our economy right in the ass.
This country is not going to outsource its way to prosperity, especially when a great deal of outsourcing is happening to college level white collar "information technology" jobs.
Can America survive if we're an entire nation of waitors and burger flippers?
Posted by Matt Fields (Member # 3211) on 11-28-2005, 02:23 PM:
It is countries that are shut off from the world trade markets that are poor and undeveloped...The US is affluent because it trades with other countries all over the world (China included), not the other way around.
Remember, we also insource jobs and money from international companies. Look at the car industry: Toyota, Honda, ect. build cars here, giving Americans jobs at the expense of the Japanese.
There are no solutions to problems in economics, just trade-offs between various painful options.
Thats why economics is sometimes called "the dismal science".
Posted by Greg Mueller (Member # 17) on 11-28-2005, 04:17 PM:
Ragging on company boats, planes, trains......
If a company buys one of these as a tax write off, it has to be used for business purposes (to be a write off). A lot of the time to entertain clients. Yes the company guys get to have fun on it too. But I think about it this way...
If Joe Boeing entertains Mr Chang (on his boat, plane, train) and sells him 80 billion dollars worth of jets, because Mr Chang had a good time and got drunk or laid or both, more power to Joe Boeing. Because all those jets that Mr Chang bought are putting 80,000 workers to work. And they are spending 80,000 paychecks, buying cars and food and houses and movie tickets. If letting Joe Boeing write off his boat, train, plane and it results in this type of money changing hands, I say "Why not buy a couple of boats, trains, planes?" "Go Joe, Go."
I think a lot of people are just jealous because they don't understand that this is the way business gets done and they aren't on the boat, train, plane. There are reasons why things work the way they do
Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 11-28-2005, 04:26 PM:
Company train -- why the heck don't I have one of those. That could be fun. I always wanted to pilot a train. The CRA is going to have a fit. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Posted by Chad Souder (Member # 343) on 11-28-2005, 04:59 PM:
Dave, don't look now, but I totally agree with you on all the points you've made this thread. Thank that crook Nixon for getting things going with China, by the way.
Minimum wage is a retarded idea and what's worse is that the states aren't even all the same. There can be dollars of difference across state lines, so where do you think the kids will want to work? That of course forces the businesses on the other side to raise wages to compete and then people in that community eat those costs and they're not even the ones that live in the more retarded state to begin with.
Posted by Richard Hamilton (Member # 321) on 11-28-2005, 05:14 PM:
If I remember correctly, the Toyota plant in Southern Indiana ...never mind, i lost my train of thought.
Posted by Bruce Hansen (Member # 281) on 11-28-2005, 07:13 PM:
quote: Greg Mueller
things just don't happen instantly in the business world.
Actually, this is an advantage that small business has over big business, they can, and do react instantly to changing demands. And yes, that is something I have learned in my many years in business.
Let's see if I can fix some fuzzy math. Let's say there is a 50 cent hike in MW. You go to Burger King, the order taker, and cook (to use the term lightly) spend about 2 minutes each on your order. That's a 3.3 cent increase in your $6.60 order, or a 0.5% increase. Not a 50 cent increase on a $1.00 item.
quote: Greg Mueller
What a load of crap. Sounds like it came right out of "the little red book"
Greg, that comment is beneath you. If you cannot find anything specific to argue with, then I must be right.
Posted by Travis Hubrig (Member # 1745) on 11-29-2005, 12:10 AM:
I agree with most of the posts on this thread, except the anti-union comments.
I have worked for about 18 months for a very large company and I am a member of a large union. It is hard to read these comments because I am very happy with my union. The airline unions are a bad example, the industry has had some very difficult times. If it was your job and your wage being cut, would you stand by and allow it? Many think the union is being greedy and trying to get more money or benefits for its members. I think the airline unions are trying to save jobs and wages. Time to downsize? No matter how hard the unions fight, union employees working for the airlines will probably lose jobs anyway.
My experience so far with my union has been a good one. I receive annual COLA raises, and a decent wage. I also get good benefits and vacation time. The union also keeps the company from eliminating jobs.
The company I work for constantly negotiates with the union trying to cut labor costs. This is ok on the business side, except the industry has set records for revenue for the past 2 years. I am glad the union will not allow them at this point to cut my job or someone else's job when they are making more money then ever. There are many laws regarding employment and labor unions. If the company or union are not being fair or negotiating fairly, arbitrators and the court system is brought in to settle cases and prevent strikes.
Overall most of the people I work with like their jobs. There are always a few who will never be satisfied to go to work. Many have the attitude that the company is bad or greedy. At the same time they go to work and do a very good job and are extemely professional.
BTW, The company does have a corporate train!
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2