McDonald's,
Burger King, Wendy's, KFC, Papa John's, Taco Bell, Arby's, Hardees,
and presumably several other fast food companies will have people
demonstrating against the wages they pay their employees next week,
in a planned protest taking place in 150 U.S. Cities, as well as 30
other countries.
Funny part is, people are calling on these companies to raise wages to a point where people can support a family with them. Here we go again...
Notice anything “special” about these companies? I do – there is not a one of them that requires an ounce of actual skill to work for them.
These are entry-level jobs, primarily intended for young people. You're not supposed to raise a family with what you get paid working these jobs. The purpose of these types of jobs are exactly what the term “entry-level” implies - entry into the workforce They're to be used as a stepping-stone to a better job with better pay after you put in some time. You acquire the better job and pay with experience and/or education. You don't walk into a high paying job working at places like these when just about anyone can walk in off the street and do that job.
The protesters are calling for a “living wage” of $15 an hour. Yep, you read that correctly - $15 per hour. Oh, by the way – these protests aren't being organized by the workers of the companies. They're being put together by outside forces, primarily the SEIU, in an attempt to unionize the workers. What that means is that it's less about the wages than it is about a union trying to force it's way into the industry.
Let's assume for a minute that the protests and unions are successful in their attempts. The workers get what they want – more money – and the unions get what they want – more people paying them union dues. What are the unintended, yet totally foreseeable, consequences of these “successes?”
Well, one consequence would be that a good chunk of the additional pay a worker would receive is likely to disappear because of the union dues. How long before the workers start complaining about the exorbitant dues, then clamoring for even more money to make up the difference yet again?
The second consequence would be the higher prices that would necessarily follow any wage increase of the size they're asking. This, in turn, would have a myriad of effects. As prices rise, fewer people would pay them. Fast food isn't a necessity in life, like gas for your car. It can be cut out of one's life fairly easily. Higher wages would also mean fewer jobs. Companies have to operate under a certain profit margin or it's not worth being in business, and the fast food industry historically has a small profit margin. How long before it becomes ridiculous to stay open as profit margins shrink further? Franchises having to pay more for jobs that aren't worth the amount of pay being demanded for them would lower the already small profit margin to the point of unsustainability, forcing first layoffs, then closures.
I would be remiss in my duty if I didn't mention that the individual restaurants that will be targeted by these protests are franchises, owned and operated by regular people, just like you and me, and not the parent company. McDonald's, for example, only owns about 11% of its restaurants. The franchisees are the ones responsible for setting the wages they pay their workers. The executives, salaries are under such scrutiny by those outside influences organizing the protests, have little to do with the individual franchises except to set the overarching company policies, the menu, etc. The only thing forcing the individual restaurants to pay ridiculously high wages would lead to is the closure of the franchises. It certainly won't hurt the parent company.
Earlier I said that no skill is required to work for most of these companies. I would know. About 20 years ago, I worked for Pizza Hut. I started as a delivery driver/dish washer. In about three months, I made assistant manager, despite having nothing more than a high school diploma. I didn't go “on strike” or protest for higher pay: I worked my butt off to be the best damn delivery driver/dishwasher the company had ever seen. Was I? I have no idea. But I showed my willingness to work hard, no matter what I was doing. That's why I made assistant manager as quickly as I did.
I know I'm probably going to catch hell for this post, but I don't care. Any basic business economics class will tell you that wages are based on what the market is willing to pay based upon averages of what a job is worth. Yes, there's high and low extremes, but economics is economics. You wouldn't go spend $800 for a flatscreen TV that you can get elsewhere for $350, would you? Why, then, should employers be expected to pay more than a job is worth paying?
Yes, it really IS that simple. ~ Hunter
Funny part is, people are calling on these companies to raise wages to a point where people can support a family with them. Here we go again...
Notice anything “special” about these companies? I do – there is not a one of them that requires an ounce of actual skill to work for them.
These are entry-level jobs, primarily intended for young people. You're not supposed to raise a family with what you get paid working these jobs. The purpose of these types of jobs are exactly what the term “entry-level” implies - entry into the workforce They're to be used as a stepping-stone to a better job with better pay after you put in some time. You acquire the better job and pay with experience and/or education. You don't walk into a high paying job working at places like these when just about anyone can walk in off the street and do that job.
The protesters are calling for a “living wage” of $15 an hour. Yep, you read that correctly - $15 per hour. Oh, by the way – these protests aren't being organized by the workers of the companies. They're being put together by outside forces, primarily the SEIU, in an attempt to unionize the workers. What that means is that it's less about the wages than it is about a union trying to force it's way into the industry.
Let's assume for a minute that the protests and unions are successful in their attempts. The workers get what they want – more money – and the unions get what they want – more people paying them union dues. What are the unintended, yet totally foreseeable, consequences of these “successes?”
Well, one consequence would be that a good chunk of the additional pay a worker would receive is likely to disappear because of the union dues. How long before the workers start complaining about the exorbitant dues, then clamoring for even more money to make up the difference yet again?
The second consequence would be the higher prices that would necessarily follow any wage increase of the size they're asking. This, in turn, would have a myriad of effects. As prices rise, fewer people would pay them. Fast food isn't a necessity in life, like gas for your car. It can be cut out of one's life fairly easily. Higher wages would also mean fewer jobs. Companies have to operate under a certain profit margin or it's not worth being in business, and the fast food industry historically has a small profit margin. How long before it becomes ridiculous to stay open as profit margins shrink further? Franchises having to pay more for jobs that aren't worth the amount of pay being demanded for them would lower the already small profit margin to the point of unsustainability, forcing first layoffs, then closures.
I would be remiss in my duty if I didn't mention that the individual restaurants that will be targeted by these protests are franchises, owned and operated by regular people, just like you and me, and not the parent company. McDonald's, for example, only owns about 11% of its restaurants. The franchisees are the ones responsible for setting the wages they pay their workers. The executives, salaries are under such scrutiny by those outside influences organizing the protests, have little to do with the individual franchises except to set the overarching company policies, the menu, etc. The only thing forcing the individual restaurants to pay ridiculously high wages would lead to is the closure of the franchises. It certainly won't hurt the parent company.
Earlier I said that no skill is required to work for most of these companies. I would know. About 20 years ago, I worked for Pizza Hut. I started as a delivery driver/dish washer. In about three months, I made assistant manager, despite having nothing more than a high school diploma. I didn't go “on strike” or protest for higher pay: I worked my butt off to be the best damn delivery driver/dishwasher the company had ever seen. Was I? I have no idea. But I showed my willingness to work hard, no matter what I was doing. That's why I made assistant manager as quickly as I did.
I know I'm probably going to catch hell for this post, but I don't care. Any basic business economics class will tell you that wages are based on what the market is willing to pay based upon averages of what a job is worth. Yes, there's high and low extremes, but economics is economics. You wouldn't go spend $800 for a flatscreen TV that you can get elsewhere for $350, would you? Why, then, should employers be expected to pay more than a job is worth paying?
Yes, it really IS that simple. ~ Hunter
No comments:
Post a Comment