# NLRB Ruling with "Joint Employers"



## Wannabe

Has anyone been following this case and this weeks ruling against McDonalds?

I was having my Friday afternoon discussion with a local High Profile Atty and this decision was discussed. Basically it interprets what a "joint employer" is pertaining to franchises but I asked "How would this ruling apply to the P&P Contractor who is not a franchise but a glorified sub-contractor being told where to go, what to do, why to do something and have it done in a defined timeframe?"

His answer was "That's an employee so why do you ask?"

My reply "Want another HUGE case?"

The wheels are turning. 

If you haven't read the decision you should. Change the word franchisee to sub-contractor.


----------



## safeguard dropout

If you haven't read the decision you should. Change the word franchisee to sub-contractor.[/QUOTE]

OK, I just read the ruling and it makes my skin crawl. I don't understand these things well but here's what I see.

Franchise owners just got screwed. They will now be under much tighter corporate control because they are now under threat of unions. Unions have there place but when they so often make it impossible to fire a total loser they are out of place. Gone are the advantages of be "locally owned and operated".

How good a similar ruling in our industry be a good thing? Possibly bringing some crooked gnats and regionals to a place called honesty would be good, but what I see is more regulation, standardized pricing, and less negotiation. The ability to negotiate is the one big tool we still have in the bag and I don't want to lose it to some silly union that doesn't allow me to set myself apart from the rest of the craigslist losers out there. (Not you Craigslist Hack:vs_smile

Like I said, I know my knowledge is limited, so I am all ears to any other opinions on how a similar ruling in our industry would play out.


----------



## Wannabe

No this isn't a good thing IMO either. I think the franchises just got screwed and it will affect a ton of related businesses.


----------



## Zuse

To Quote: "Thomas Sowell"

While capitalism has a visible cost -- profit -- that does not exist under socialism, socialism has an invisible cost -- inefficiency -- that gets weeded out by losses and bankruptcy under capitalism. The fact that most goods are more widely affordable in a capitalist economy implies that profit is less costly than inefficiency. Put differently, profit is a price paid for efficiency.

The NLRB is there to protect the employee from the over reach of Business, also to help provide the voice for the voiceless. But like most Government run bureaucracies in the end they become huge money makers for lawyers and bureaucrats in Washington. And most importantly they hurt the least fortunate people among us trying to make it out of poverty and the young, mostly the young.

While its a well known fact that the NLRB is unfairly stacked with socialist masquerading as Democrats under this current administration with the intention of putting as many business out of business as possible. While at the same time putting as many people on the government payroll, if the form of more red tape, rules and regs, unemployment, EBT cards, welfare,ETC.

Remember Twinkies, a perfect example, before they declared bankruptcy the NLRB tried to sue hostess to stop the sale off and bankruptcy to save the union jobs. The unions refused to renegotiate the contract's which was mathematically impossible to sustain under the current business climate. It took a judge to come in and over ride the law suet and allow the sale off the company. So in the end all the Unionized employees lost their jobs. 

Here is another example of Government bureaucrat's involved in the free market. Remember when the told you that health insurance was going to go down when the government took it over.. Great idea was it not.. yeah gonna make insurance affordable for everyone right!! 

Well take a look at this graft below of the increases in policy is just some states not all.










Oh and it only going to get worst from here on out.

And this house McDonald's is going to deal with the new NLRB ruling see pic below. Meet your new cashier. Yeah all fast food companies gearing up for the new rules 









Just one more so you get the point.










Government is so smart, so broken, so self serving, because they know best right.

So the unintended consequence is less jobs.. working as planned..


----------



## Yeah

This ruling seems like a good candidate to be thrown out later in an appeals court.


----------



## safeguard dropout

Yeah said:


> This ruling seems like a good candidate to be thrown out later in an appeals court.


The unions have way too much clout and I doubt they will let this one get tossed. With this new opportunity to reach into corporate franchises and organize unions, no way they will pass up the potential billions of $ in the coffers. ...just my opinion.


----------



## Trey9007

A few things need to be said about this ruling.

1. The ruling simply makes it so that MCD is partially liable when their franchisee commit wage and hour violations.

2. IMO, this ruling gives unions very little help in organizing. The only thing this ruling does that could be viewed as good for unions, is it pust a more responsible entity (Corporate MCD) in the line of fire when/if Franchisee violate labor laws when workers attempt to organize. This could soften franchisees because they would no longer use *illegal *tactics such as captive audience meeting and threats of dismissal as a tool stop organizing. If they did MCD corporate would also be liable and be very upset with that Franchisee. This ruling gives no power or right to unions they didn't already have.

As far as the new kiosk. Everyone knows they're coming, regardless of what employees are paid. As someone who used to be a POS tech for MCDs, I can tell you taking orders is not as big a part of what those employees do, as some may think.

When someone wants to return their food for whatever reason, lobby needs cleaning, bathrooms need cleaning, trash taken out of lobby trash can, etc... kiosk cant do that and these are all things that folks who take orders, do. Its very sad to once again see on here the attitude that American workers should basically be thankful to have any job that pay anything. Very sad.

This is a good ruling. But as with any positive ruling for low paid workers, it makes those who feel they are skilled workers look in the mirror. It makes some people finally realize that they are probably getting screwed more than the MCD workers as many so called "skilled" workers are getting paid much less than was paid for some of these same jobs 20-30 years ago. This is why many people frown on min wage workers seeing improvements in their pay.


----------



## Wannabe

I believe Minimum Wage should be abolished. Let the workforce determine the wage scale---if the employer is offering $3.00 an hour then don't take the job and economic conditions will require the employer to hire at higher rates or fail due to no workforce. 

I think the ruling will ruin the current franchise model. Say you own a franchised campground with 5 FT employees now that small business will be required to supply all the benefits of their "joint employer". That will apply to all the small mom & pop franchise business owners. With this ruling the small franchise owner becomes nothing more than an employee of the Master Franchise. 

You can't repeal a NLRB ruling since it's not a LAW. It can be thrown out AFTER a franchise sues the NLRB and it works its way through the court system. Years in most cases. Another Government Agency who "legally" has no right to impose a "law" without Congressional vote. Ahhhh our Government at its best.


----------



## Cleanupman

Wannabe said:


> Has anyone been following this case and this weeks ruling against McDonalds?
> 
> I was having my Friday afternoon discussion with a local High Profile Atty and this decision was discussed. Basically it interprets what a "joint employer" is pertaining to franchises but I asked "How would this ruling apply to the P&P Contractor who is not a franchise but a glorified sub-contractor being told where to go, what to do, why to do something and have it done in a defined timeframe?"
> 
> His answer was "That's an employee so why do you ask?"
> 
> My reply "Want another HUGE case?"
> 
> The wheels are turning.
> 
> If you haven't read the decision you should. Change the word franchisee to sub-contractor.


Tell your attorney to contact me...I'm actually writing an article on this and I'm involved in two lawsuits involving Nationals on the IC/employee issue.
FAS has already settled....AMSMCS are now in the sites

and If I may...I'd like to use your statement in the article???


----------



## Cleanupman

Actually I think you guys are reading more into this then what it is...

What you have to worry about is if you are subbing the work back out...
for those of you completing the services or what is known as Labor/W-2 company like ours you'll be in for benefits etc...

I'm not sure why everyone sees doom and gloom in this respect. everyone bitches about pricing and the fact you can not really negotiate numbers or bill for your services according to your costs of doing business. Yet everyone balks at coming together and standing together in a Union type fashion to achieve better conditions....

The bottom line is the Nationals, Regionals, and otherwise unspecified order mills have been leading you around like a bull with a ring in it's nose for the past 8 years...Ever since Eric Miller has been involved with NAMFS...and let's face it...the Membership of NAMFS are the ones providing the work to your company's.

If you are a true IC then you say f*** off to the nitwits...We refuse to bow to any of the pressure they spit out...In addition we have found several clients in the private sector that could care less if you're an ex-felon they want quality timely service...Oh and BTW neither do the Mortgage company's we work with directly...

In regards to this ruling...this is nothing more than a clarification of WHOM is an employer....and yes everyone providing you with a work order is an employer....

While it will have a serious affect across the board as I have filed a complaint on the industry with the NLRB and so have others I know...if you're one of the 7,000 people receiving WO's from SGP you're probably in line for some back pay and benefits....

Let me pose this...would it be so terrible to for your company/you to be paid $125 for a wint? $50 a yard????? That is what a Minimum standard for pricing would do...

Not sure why everyone wants to fight the organization issue in this industry....but it is going to happen with or without those whom do not want it....

NAMFS has serious IRS issues and will be exposed for the fraud the members have perpetrated upon Labor while the organization did nothing to investigate the bad members and remove them from the organization per the Bi-Laws of NAMFS

NAMFS has been caught filing fraudulent IRS 909 form about the organization and in fact has illegal members listed as Board of Director Members. so.....

How exactly this is going to affect all of us????? I believe we are all going to be ruled an employee...The courts have already ruled on this issue and it is only a matter of time...so why not start organizing in your local areas???
If you organize before any Union people come in then you tell them...sorry but we have it handled....

Look at the bigger picture here if you will....this is not a bad thing or ruling...
Not only will the numbers come into line the theft and graft but illegal back charging will stop....

Just food for thought...


----------



## Cleanupman

PS...if anyone is on right now and you do not want your comment used in an article please contact me ASAP as I'm writing an article and will publish in about 2 hours....

THANKX...

[email protected]...

Just place "please dont use me" in the subject line and of course your screen name here so I know...


----------



## Trey9007

Wannabe said:


> I believe Minimum Wage should be abolished. Let the workforce determine the wage scale---if the employer is offering $3.00 an hour then don't take the job and economic conditions will require the employer to hire at higher rates or fail due to no workforce.
> 
> I think the ruling will ruin the current franchise model. Say you own a franchised campground with 5 FT employees now that small business will be required to supply all the benefits of their "joint employer". That will apply to all the small mom & pop franchise business owners. With this ruling the small franchise owner becomes nothing more than an employee of the Master Franchise.
> 
> You can't repeal a NLRB ruling since it's not a LAW. It can be thrown out AFTER a franchise sues the NLRB and it works its way through the court system. Years in most cases. Another Government Agency who "legally" has no right to impose a "law" without Congressional vote. Ahhhh our Government at its best.


Abolishing the min wage is just a talking point for one of the political parties. Its really easy to see. Compare the countries with no min wage, to countries who do have a min wage, and its pretty easy to see why the min wage should not be abolished.

From what I know of labor law, the ruling is not used for all situations. This ruling is for this single situation of MCD and their Franchisees. Many people get caught up in names Contractor, employee, Franchisee, etc... But what many forget its the nature of the relationship that determines these classification. Names and tittles are irrelevant. So although the MCD - Franchisee relationship is ruled as being joint employers, the examination of campground franchisees may be seen as a true franchise -franchisee relationship. Im sure the power MCD has over its franchisees was a major reason the NLRB ruled they are joint employers. Its very possible the end result could be MCDs loosening the reigns a bit on its franchisee. The ruling can be null and void if MCD changes the nature of their relationship with their franchisees.

The NLRB ruling is based on existing law. It did not make a new law for all to follow. The NLRB examined the relationship of MCD and its franchisees, and made their determination based on the laws on the books. IMO, its a good ruling.


----------



## safeguard dropout

*Minimum wage simplfied*

What's wrong with everyone getting at least $15 hr.? What's wrong with a $15 dollar happy meal? Get the idea? Corporations aren't there to give you a job. They exist to make money. If they don't make money, um, they close.


----------



## Trey9007

No one is saying everyone should earn 15 an hour. But who's to say MCD can't afford to pay it. Who's to say their prices would go up by no more than nickel.

The unions want a chance to engage in good faith bargaining to find the answers to these question. What's so wrong with that. Their starting may be 15 hr. But that's what it is. A starting point.

MCD and others exec pay has grew tremendously in the past 30-40 years while the workers pay has flat lined. This fact alone is proof 15 an hours is a decent starting point. Just do the math of comparing today's wages and cost of living to the wages and cost of living 30 yes ago. Then do the same with CEO and exec pay.


----------



## safeguard dropout

Trey9007 said:


> No one is saying everyone should earn 15 an hour. But who's to say MCD can't afford to pay it. Who's to say their prices would go up by no more than nickel.


The ONLY one that should answer these questions is MCDs...Not the feds, not the state, not the union. If you don't like where you work, LEAVE! No one forces anyone to work anywhere. If you don't like how much the big boys make then start your own multi-million dollar corporation. I'm pretty sure it's a simple 3 step process.


----------



## Trey9007

Leaving is certainly an option. But its not the only option workers in America have.

Leaving really does no good. Its just allows the low wage ideology to spread. If you look at American history you will find that the middle class boomed at a time when about 40% of American workers bargained their wages and not simply accept wages dictated by employers. Current day 90% of workers accept employer dictated. This has been the trend for the past 30 years or so. So we've tried things the union way and the non union way. The facts tell us that workers get better compensation when their compensation is bargained for and not dictated.

If you have any factual data that proves otherwise please share it.


----------



## safeguard dropout

When minimum wage was 4.25 you could get a big mac meal for around 4.25. Minimum is now, what, $7-8hr, and a big mac meal is around, what, $7-8? Forget all the damn data and plug in the common sense. If wages go up, so do prices, so how does it help the low income earner? It doesn't! Everything at WalMart MUST HAVE A PRICE INCREASE to pay the higher wages, thereby wiping out the new purchasing power. And if wage bargaining is so good for America, then I guess the mass exodus of manufacturing jobs was good too. As the union strength got bigger, so did the number of imports, but I suppose they aren't related.


----------



## safeguard dropout

Trey9007 said:


> If you have any factual data that proves otherwise please share it.


Her's the data I found. Where's the middle class "boom"?


----------



## GTX63

Capitalism 101-Including part time service industry or entry level jobs in the conversation of whether the minimum wage needs to be increased creates a false positive. Whether Mcduds can double their starting wage and maintain similar pricing should not be determined by someone outside the company.
Markets dictating change is usually a good thing, but when change is dictated to a market, the unexpected happens and it isn't always good.


----------



## Trey9007

Safeguard, your graph clearly shows there was no middle class boom during the times your graph represent. During the same time period your graph represents, the percentage of workers who's wages were determined through collective bargaining took a dive.

The middle class boom occurred the previous 30 years. Find this same data for 1930 - 1970.

Thanks for bringing facts. As your facts support what my point. As the percentage of workers whos wages are determined from bargaining decreases, wages have flat lined while CEO and exec pay has boomed.


----------



## Trey9007

> Myth: The federal minimum wage is higher today than it was when President Reagan took office.
> 
> Not true: While the federal minimum wage was only $3.35 per hour in 1981 and is currently $7.25 per hour in real dollars, when adjusted for inflation, the current federal minimum wage would need to be more than $8 per hour to equal its buying power of the early 1980s and *more nearly $11 per hour to equal its buying power of the late 1960s.* That's why President Obama is urging Congress to increase the federal minimum wage and give low-wage workers a much-needed boost.


http://www.dol.gov/minwage/mythbuster.htm






> Adjusted for inflation, the federal minimum wage peaked in 1968 at $8.54 (in 2014 dollars). Since it was last raised in 2009, to the current $7.25 per hour, the federal minimum has lost about 8.1% of its purchasing power to inflation. The Economist recently estimated that, given how rich the U.S. is and the pattern among other advanced economies in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, “one would expect America…to pay a minimum wage around $12 an hour.”


http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/07/23/5-facts-about-the-minimum-wage/


----------



## safeguard dropout

So why not make the minimum wage $20 hr? No wait, 35. No, 100 bucks and hour! That would be awesome! And for once the little guy gets paid. Yep yep that will fix everything. 

It's none of my biz what you make, none of yours what I make, and none our biz what any CEO makes or how he spends or hoards his money. I would like to have that like that kind of cash but in the end WE ARE WORTH WHAT WE PRODUCE.


----------



## Wannabe

Who cares what CEO wages/bonuses are? If the shareholders/partners/investors allow it then it isn't anyone to judge-- I don't think any of them are worth those huge pay rates so it's my option to not use their companies service or buy their product. 

You can't manipulate wages without consequences. Raise minimum wage? Employers find ways to reduce workforce and/or raise the rate/cost of their product thus less buying power of the wage earner. 

For every action there is a reaction. 

Has nothing to do with politics....economics.


----------



## david

*Hi*

IF mcdonalds decide to pay 15 an hour since im 5 minutes from 2 im out of this business quick lot less hassle and more free time to enjoy.


----------



## Trey9007

safeguard dropout said:


> So why not make the minimum wage $20 hr? No wait, 35. No, 100 bucks and hour! That would be awesome! And for once the little guy gets paid. Yep yep that will fix everything.
> 
> It's none of my biz what you make, none of yours what I make, and none our biz what any CEO makes or how he spends or hoards his money. I would like to have that like that kind of cash but in the end WE ARE WORTH WHAT WE PRODUCE.


Or how about it keeping the min wage the same as it was during the time the middle class was at a peak in this country. That would be $11/hr, which ironically is about the middle of the difference to what the min wage is now and the $15/hr some are suggesting.

I think we some what agree we are worth what we produce. I think where we disagree, how and who thats determined.




> Who cares what CEO wages/bonuses are? If the shareholders/partners/investors allow it then it isn't anyone to judge-- I don't think any of them are worth those huge pay rates so it's my option to not use their companies service or buy their product.
> 
> You can't manipulate wages without consequences. Raise minimum wage? Employers find ways to reduce workforce and/or raise the rate/cost of their product thus less buying power of the wage earner.
> 
> For every action there is a reaction.
> 
> Has nothing to do with politics....economics.


I dont think anyone looks at CEO pay to "judge" them. I think CEO pay is looked at as a gauge. For example, during the time the middle class was at its peak in this country, CEOs made about 35 times more than the average worker. CEOs now make 300 times the average worker, and now is a time where the middle class is shrinking. 

I find it interesting that you seem to be implying that wages are being manipulated only when you put an upward pressure on wages. But you dont seem to think lobbying for a LOWER min wage, decreased number of workers who actually bargain their wages, and an increased percentage of profits going to CEO/exec is not a manipulation of wages. If this aint manipulation, WTF is??

I also agree that every action has a reaction. 
Action: Corporations successfully lobby to flat line the min wage.
Reaction: Min wage is about 25% lower than what it was during the boom of the middle class.
Action: Companies systematically bust unions and/or deny workers their right to collective bargain their wages.
Reaction: Union membership among American workers goes from 40% to 10%, and during this time wages stay flat as shown in Safeguard's graph, while Executive compensation goes from 35 times the average worker to 300 times.

Facts are facts. Has nothing to do with politics... just economic facts.


----------



## Trey9007

david said:


> IF mcdonalds decide to pay 15 an hour since im 5 minutes from 2 im out of this business quick lot less hassle and more free time to enjoy.


BINGO!! A change like that could cause many to think the same as you. So there are employers upstream from MCDs that would then have an incentive to raise their wages over $15 hr to keep their people from leaving and attract new talent to their company.

When you adjust the min wage for 2015, many people ARE making min wage and LESS. As I stated in an earlier post, an increase in the min wage would highlight this fact and some wont like the truth when this fact is brought to light.


----------



## GTX63

Wannabe said:


> Who cares what CEO wages/bonuses are?
> 
> Has nothing to do with politics....economics.


Other than trying to comingle the two.
The aftershocks of FDR and his New Deal are still felt today with continuing variations of the playbook being spawned.
Bargaining rights is a code word used by those afraid of individualism. Rather than reward the faster runner or the talented achiever, it installs a scale based on curves. A union will bash a shop for their low wages yet they demand a contract that won't allow for individual merit raises. 
The United States is the greatest model for opportunity and financial success ever in the history of earth and proves capitalism works in spite of all the chokeholds, yet is still bashed as unfair by those who prefer a country with a more collectivistic culture.
The physics/chem grad can spew all sorts of formulations about why the sky should really have a pink tint when they could have saved their parent's tuition and just looked up.


----------



## Trey9007

GTX63 said:


> Other than trying to comingle the two.
> The aftershocks of FDR and his New Deal are still felt today with continuing variations of the playbook being spawned.
> Bargaining rights is a code word used by those afraid of individualism. Rather than reward the faster runner or the talented achiever, it installs a scale based on curves. A union will bash a shop for their low wages yet they demand a contract that won't allow for individual merit raises.
> The United States is the greatest model for opportunity and financial success ever in the history of earth and proves capitalism works in spite of all the chokeholds, yet is still bashed as unfair by those who prefer a country with a more collectivistic culture.
> The physics/chem grad can spew all sorts of formulations about why the sky should really have a pink tint when they could have saved their parent's tuition and just looked up.


Interesting post. But Ill ask you the same question Ive asked others. Can you please point to a country, at anytime in history, that had a great economy where workers were not represented by unions or guilds, and where only the free market dictated compensation.

From what I can tell, this fairy tale has never existed. I can find no great economy where workers in that economy were not represented. It makes 100% sense to me. Its just common sense. Name one situation in life where you would actually argue that its best to let one side dictate all the terms, instead of 2 sides bargaining from equal positions of power. Bargaining almost always will yield better results.

Individualism is fine. It has its place and should continue to be encouraged. Individualism is also part of unionism as a union is only as strong as its weakest link. Management will also refer to the bottom producers when bargaining wages, which is why unions not only promote improving individual skills, they have created thousands of JATC programs that have some of the best and well respected training offered in this country. 

But please, if you respond to nothing else from this post, please point to any example where your definition of individualism and capitalism has produced a great economy.


----------



## Trey9007

http://fortune.com/2014/10/05/most-powerful-economic-empires-of-all-time/

Heres my example. Check out this list of the 5 greatest economies ever. Notice the economy on this list that produced the largest percentage of global output. Then examine how the workforce looked during that time.

I noticed GTX has some great things to say about the US economy. But please dont let pride blind you.



> Is it easier to obtain the American Dream in Europe?
> 
> By Katie Sanders on Thursday, December 19th, 2013 at 1:33 p.m.
> 
> Oh, sweet America, ye land of opportunity, home to the time-tested formula in which hard work + perseverance = success, in spite of family background.
> 
> "In fact, statistics show not only that our levels of income inequality rank near countries like Jamaica and Argentina, but that it is harder today for a child born here in America to improve her station in life than it is for children in most of our wealthy allies, countries like Canada or Germany or France," Obama said. "They have greater mobility than we do, not less."
> 
> "We have fallen way back," Rattner said. "We're behind many countries in Europe in terms of the ability of every kid in America to get ahead. It's a real problem.
> 
> Krueger compared income inequality of 10 developed countries with the correlation between a parent’s income and their children’s (it’s more complicated than we described, check out the details in Krueger’s presentation or this Bloomberg infographic). The "Gatsby Curve" showed economic possibilities for children in European countries such as Finland, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Germany and France were much less connected to their parents’ income than in the United States and United Kingdom.
> 
> http://www.politifact.com/punditfac...ttner/it-easier-obtain-american-dream-europe/


GTX gave some good advice. "Just look up" ;|


----------



## safeguard dropout

The total economic dominance of the fifties was tied to a coupe things. The world had just been crushed by the war to Europe was a one legged man in an ass kickin contest. Of course the US is the dominant world economy at that time and had nothing to do with the unions. If unions are so great, then why is membership so low when unions are more powerful than ever? People are wising up and fleeing these ridiculous organizations. 

Bear with 2 quick stories....
My father in law was late to work 96 times on his first union job in the 70s because he could get his drunk butt out of bed. The union saved his job for him each time and was never fired.

My dad was nearly fired from his Rockwell office job. A cabinet was delivered that he needed for organization sat disassembled in his office for 3 days before he said screw it, nobody's come to put this together. He assembled the cabinet and the union tried to get him fired because he did a union guys job.

The other most important factor that can't be seen on any graph or chart....The American spirit-rugged individualism. It's what the greatest country in the history of the world was built on, not safety nets for the collective. 

For just a second throw all the data out the window and look only at human nature. The vast majority of us are lazy by nature and would like as much as possible for as little as possible. You can't get much for doing nothing so you must work. Agree? So who are you to say what my work is worth? I could be as lazy as they come, but Uncle Sam says I'm worth 7 and change. I see minimum wage earners every day that aren't worth a buck ninety five....and I've seen food servers that bust there butt and are way underpaid, because they have to carry the weight of the slacker. 

Abolish the minimum wage a you will see productivity explode from the lower end. You will have to perform to keep making the wages you did before. Companies will compete for entry level workers. The best part is that a huge percentage of low earners would begin to realize their potential. They would begin to separate as individuals and not see themselves in a "pool of workers", and then start moving up to bigger and better thing they never knew they were capable of. Way too many people are looking to minimum wage jobs as a way of life instead of a stepping stone. 

I know we will never agree because you see charts and statistics and I see people and and the way we were created.


----------



## Trey9007

> The total economic dominance of the fifties was tied to a coupe things. The world had just been crushed by the war to Europe was a one legged man in an ass kickin contest. Of course the US is the dominant world economy at that time and had nothing to do with the unions. If unions are so great, then why is membership so low when unions are more powerful than ever? People are wising up and fleeing these ridiculous organizations.


While I agree the war played a part in making our outputs as high as it was, I still think we would have been number 1, just by not as much if you take away the war effects. Unions are at its weakest point, not its most powerful. Membership levels are at or near all time lows. Again you are making my point. As union membership has declined so have wages and upward mobility in America. If unions were the problem, wouldn't we see the opposite??? Its just commone sense. If unions are sooo bad why are wages lower now with 10% of workers being in unions, compared to wages when over 30% of workers were in unions. As GTX said, 'just look up'.



> My father in law was late to work 96 times on his first union job in the 70s because he could get his drunk butt out of bed. The union saved his job for him each time and was never fired.
> 
> My dad was nearly fired from his Rockwell office job. A cabinet was delivered that he needed for organization sat disassembled in his office for 3 days before he said screw it, nobody's come to put this together. He assembled the cabinet and the union tried to get him fired because he did a union guys job.


Cant really comment a lot on these stories, as Im sure you don't know the specifics. Now I mean no disrespect. But just going off what you've said here, you are either lying,or have been lied to, AND just really dont understand what unions can and cannot do. The only so called 'power' unions have is the enforcement of the contract. If the contract does not permit a person to be tardy, there's close to nothing a union can do. Also, unions can not fire anyone or get anyone fired. Only management can hire or fire. I would love to hear the specific of your stories, but to be honest they sound like the typical urban legends about unions.



> For just a second throw all the data out the window and look only at human nature. The vast majority of us are lazy by nature and would like as much as possible for as little as possible. You can't get much for doing nothing so you must work. Agree? So who are you to say what my work is worth? I could be as lazy as they come, but Uncle Sam says I'm worth 7 and change. I see minimum wage earners every day that aren't worth a buck ninety five....and I've seen food servers that bust there butt and are way underpaid, because they have to carry the weight of the slacker.


I dont fully agree with you. So I'll just leave it at this. Uncle same says LABOR is worth 7 and change, not the individual. If you're not doing the job and your manager keeps you on, its your MANAGER that says YOU are worth 7 and some change. Min wage laws has nothing to do with your argument. It actually hurts it by highlighting the fact that a non union, min wage, worker who is carry the weight of other employees is not being properly compensated, in a shop where management unilaterally makes all the rules. The slacker is an at will employee, meaning he can be fired at will. But yet he keeps his job. You gonna blame unions for that too?




> Abolish the minimum wage a you will see productivity explode from the lower end. You will have to perform to keep making the wages you did before. Companies will compete for entry level workers. The best part is that a huge percentage of low earners would begin to realize their potential. They would begin to separate as individuals and not see themselves in a "pool of workers", and then start moving up to bigger and better thing they never knew they were capable of. Way too many people are looking to minimum wage jobs as a way of life instead of a stepping stone.
> 
> I know we will never agree because you see charts and statistics and I see people and and the way we were created.


Again I have to ask, wheres the proof. According to your THEORY, Im asking you to show me proof that lazy workers without a min wage will perform better. Im pretty open minded. But in this last post of yours, you've requested that I disregard decades of facts & data, to see your point of view, all while you show no proof. Your theory is just that, a theory. Fairy dust. No economy has had shared prosperity without workers having a strong voice , and some kind of controls placed on wages. Once again I will say, If Im wrong please present some kind of facts that support your argument. Just give me ANYTHING thats factual. When you look through history, when your theory has been used, only the ruling class prospers. Sort of like what your chart is showing happened, since the decline of unions in this country. 

I get it, you don't like charts or stats. Fine. Show me anything that supports why you feel the way you do.


----------



## BPWY

Trey9007 said:


> Again I have to ask, wheres the proof. According to your THEORY, Im asking you to show me proof that lazy workers without a min wage will perform better. Im pretty open minded. But in this last post of yours, you've requested that I disregard decades of facts & data, to see your point of view, all while you show no proof. Your theory is just that, a theory. Fairy dust. No economy has had shared prosperity without workers having a strong voice , and some kind of controls placed on wages. Once again I will say, If Im wrong please present some kind of facts that support your argument. Just give me ANYTHING thats factual. When you look through history, when your theory has been used, only the ruling class prospers. Sort of like what your chart is showing happened, since the decline of unions in this country.
> 
> I get it, you don't like charts or stats. Fine. Show me anything that supports why you feel the way you do.






In reference to this one thing on min wage. 


You say it'll never work, but its so simple you are missing it. 



If company A is run by jerks that don't care about their workers and offer a ridiculous wage, which min wage is, and then company B a few blocks over offers a living wage.................... which company will have more applications than they know what to do with?????


IT IS SIMPLE ECONOMICS. 

i know what you'll say next, well when company B is fully staffed folks will have no choice but to work at company A for substandard wages so the gooberment will have to step in and make regulations. 
And all one has to do is point to 2015 and the mess we are in now with over regulations and a still substandard wage that is no where near a living wage.
One would have to work 3 min wage jobs in MOST areas in order to live at a "decent" standard of living. Except when would he sleep?

Your way works great doesn't it?


I am no fan of min wage because I believe it allows employers to artificially hold down wages based on the floor the gooberment has put in place.


----------



## safeguard dropout

Trey9007 said:


> Membership levels are at or near all time lows. Again you are making my point. As union membership has declined so have wages and upward mobility in America. If unions were the problem, wouldn't we see the opposite??? Its just commone sense. If unions are sooo bad why are wages lower now with 10% of workers being in unions, compared to wages when over 30% of workers were in unions.
> 
> Again I have to ask, wheres the proof. According to your THEORY, Im asking you to show me proof that lazy workers without a min wage will perform better.


OK, show me union productivity is higher than nonunion. A laborer must produce more than he/she takes or the system is unsustainable. Until then I have one fact, more of a truth in life that deals with the lazy overpaid minimum wage worker. Hunger without a safety net is a real SOB.


----------



## safeguard dropout

Oh, and please don't misquote the very wise GTX63. That's not what was meant "by just look up".


----------



## GTX63

MSNBC showcasing former administration workers and the author of the Gatsby Curve, for which the president adopted into his policies (yes wannabe, the politicians reach their hands everywhere) does little for credibility. The formulas for Mr. Kruger's theories were dubious at best and that is being polite. Data manipulation for the purpose of one's agenda? That's never been tried before. :vs_closedeyes:

Let's try and get this thread back on the rails or folks are welcome to start another one in the off topic section. Thanks everyone for your participation.


----------



## Trey9007

safeguard dropout said:


> OK, show me union productivity is higher than nonunion. A laborer must produce more than he/she takes or the system is unsustainable. Until then I have one fact, more of a truth in life that deals with the lazy overpaid minimum wage worker. Hunger without a safety net is a real SOB.


First, you show me where I made that claim. I didnt. But since you brought it up, it gives me a chance to tie all this back to the NLRB ruling. I never gave my opinion on whether union workers were more productive. But since you asked, Ill give you my view on this. As a whole, I do feel union workers are more productive than non union workers. Heres why.

1. Management...... Non union employers have less incentive to maximize the production of their workforce. Union employers have contracts with their labor force that outline wages and wage increases, so they must be as innovative as possible as they cant simply cut pay, hours, or lay off as easily as their non union counterparts. TNon union companies can cut wages, hours, and staff at will. They can just hire cheap bodies and have less incentive to run a tight ship.

2. Union employers usually have a better trained and better skilled workforce. The amount and quality of training union workers receive is usually FAR beyond the quality of training offered by non union companies.

3. Union employers usually have more experienced work forces. Because union workers typically see better compensation, their trade becomes their career and they seem to stick around. For example the 15 yr Costco worker vs 15 new hires a month, due to turn over, seen at Walmart. Non union employers are usually plagued with high turnover as the compensation and working conditions are usually sub par and can easily be matched.

A big factor to all this is not so much the tittle of union vs non union. I think its the environments that play the biggest factor. Unions typically create a better environment for workers. This case would not have gone in front of the NLRB if unions were not there to assist the MCD workers. If nothing else this ruling will do a few things. Either MCD will ease up the financial reigns on franchisees, which will give franchisees more financial freedom, which can equate to better compensation for MCD workers. Or, MCD keeps their franchise agreements the same,. But now having MCD corporate share in the responsibility of labor law violations may curb many of the illegal activities franchisee now par take in. Hopefully wage & hour violation, union organizing violations, and OSHA violations will decrease among MCD chains.

This ruling is, IMO, another example of unions making things better for labor. Kudos!


----------



## safeguard dropout

I think everyone is bored with this except for you and me. I will post a response in the off topic section later.


----------



## Zuse

That word USUALLY seems to be popping up a lot does it not, Governor Walker Broke the back of the Unions and his state and it’s better off because of it. He even survived a recall reelection, the only Governor to do so. Need I remind you the unions drove GM, Chrysler, Pontiac, and Hostess the makers of Twinkies into bankruptcy? The list goes on.


Why work for someone that doesn’t pay you what you want or you think you are entitled to, just leave. 


The SEIU has spent upwards of "$80 million attacking the McDonald's, that’s over a 3 year period. Most of the money went the 3 socialist Democrat’s on NLRB and Dems party and Obama fund raising. This very much is a political payback for the SEIU; to believe otherwise is to live fairly land. As Trey noted, this is a very narrow ruling dealing with existing law that has not been enforced to the extent this ruling has giving it. 
To date, the SEIU have rejected the notion of unionizing 100 or 200 McDonalds and negotiating higher wages to use as a model elsewhere, opting instead for a much grander goal.


Courtney rejected recommendations by some labor experts that the Fight for $15 seek to unionize 100 or 200 company-owned restaurants, and then pressure McDonald’s to sign a contract that pays $15 an hour or close to it – and then use that as a model.
“That’s too small an approach,” said Courtney, who also serves as the organizing director for the SEIU. “Our making a deal to organize 100 restaurants, that’s not going to happen. This is about lifting up the 64 million American workers who make less than $15 an hour, who aren’t making enough to live on.”


As noted by Heidi Barker Sa Shekhem, a McDonald’s spokeswoman, said the SEIU has spent over $80m in members’ dues money “attacking the McDonald’s brand and the independent franchisees who own 90% of McDonald’s restaurants, in an unsuccessful attempt to unionize workers”.
However, the payoff for the SEIU is potentially billions of dollars in possible dues revenue.


If the SEIU’s efforts pay off and the union succeeds in unionizing even one third (1,217,723) of the nation’s fast-food workers, the SEIU stands to rake in up to $34,336,521 per month, cuz we are here to help the little people help themselves.
That’s $412,038,252 every year in dues alone–or over $1.2 billion over the course of a three-year contract.


To the SEIU, the union primarily responsible for ObamaCare and the union movement’s current fight for “immigration reform,” spending millions of its members’ dues in order to achieve its desired goals.
Even under former union leaders John Sweeney–who went on to become the president of the AFL-CIO in 1996–as well as informal Obama advisor, SEIU president Andy Stern (who “retired” from the SEIU amid scandal), the ends have always justified the means, basically, we’re crooks and we know it. 


Very unlikely MDS will change its labor agreements and franchisees agreements considering the SEIU is behind suit in the first place, maybe change a few works in the contracts pay a few fines, reduce the labor force with more automations, reduce the working hours and raise the pay just like Walmart has done.


But in the end it will hurt entry level workers, this has been proving time and time again.


Money is like water running downhill it takes the path of least resistance.


"Welcome to McDonald's. My name is HAL 9000. May I take your order?"


----------



## deputy138

*Union Execs. or for the money!!*



Trey9007 said:


> While I agree the war played a part in making our outputs as high as it was, I still think we would have been number 1, just by not as much if you take away the war effects. Unions are at its weakest point, not its most powerful. Membership levels are at or near all time lows. Again you are making my point. As union membership has declined so have wages and upward mobility in America. If unions were the problem, wouldn't we see the opposite??? Its just commone sense. If unions are sooo bad why are wages lower now with 10% of workers being in unions, compared to wages when over 30% of workers were in unions. As GTX said, 'just look up'.
> 
> 
> 
> Cant really comment a lot on these stories, as Im sure you don't know the specifics. Now I mean no disrespect. But just going off what you've said here, you are either lying,or have been lied to, AND just really dont understand what unions can and cannot do. The only so called 'power' unions have is the enforcement of the contract. If the contract does not permit a person to be tardy, there's close to nothing a union can do. Also, unions can not fire anyone or get anyone fired. Only management can hire or fire. I would love to hear the specific of your stories, but to be honest they sound like the typical urban legends about unions.
> 
> 
> 
> I dont fully agree with you. So I'll just leave it at this. Uncle same says LABOR is worth 7 and change, not the individual. If you're not doing the job and your manager keeps you on, its your MANAGER that says YOU are worth 7 and some change. Min wage laws has nothing to do with your argument. It actually hurts it by highlighting the fact that a non union, min wage, worker who is carry the weight of other employees is not being properly compensated, in a shop where management unilaterally makes all the rules. The slacker is an at will employee, meaning he can be fired at will. But yet he keeps his job. You gonna blame unions for that too?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again I have to ask, wheres the proof. According to your THEORY, Im asking you to show me proof that lazy workers without a min wage will perform better. Im pretty open minded. But in this last post of yours, you've requested that I disregard decades of facts & data, to see your point of view, all while you show no proof. Your theory is just that, a theory. Fairy dust. No economy has had shared prosperity without workers having a strong voice , and some kind of controls placed on wages. Once again I will say, If Im wrong please present some kind of facts that support your argument. Just give me ANYTHING thats factual. When you look through history, when your theory has been used, only the ruling class prospers. Sort of like what your chart is showing happened, since the decline of unions in this country.
> 
> I get it, you don't like charts or stats. Fine. Show me anything that supports why you feel the way you do.


Trey,
I'm from the heart of Union Organization were many lives where lost to organize. In those days "yes" the Union meant something however; today the Union is part of the problem with MONEY being the culprit. What rights do picketers have? Just what the local judge wants them to have and, then who controls the judges???? The MONEY!!!! Union dues are a waste, the workers took advantage of the Union "such as doing the things you list in your post" when the Union really meant something and now with picketers being regulated what, how, when, why and, where they can picket just doesn't work.


----------



## Wannabe

Unions are just as corrupt as Big Business. 

My son is a Card Carrying Cussing member. His crew was pouring footings in a hug Manufacturing plant and while the concrete was being pumped he yelled for a little help--turned around and 16 workers were walking across the parking lot--again he was yelling and A worker came over and he yelled we gotta get the poured and the trucks are lined up to pump--- NOPE ITS LUNCH TIME ****** and walked away. 

Called Union leadership...Dang that's to bad. 

Today the Union equates to: pis* poor trained workers, lazy workers AND workers who just don't care. That's why there are FEWER Union shops.


----------



## Trey9007

deputy138 said:


> Trey,
> I'm from the heart of Union Organization were many lives where lost to organize. In those days "yes" the Union meant something however; today the Union is part of the problem with MONEY being the culprit. What rights do picketers have? Just what the local judge wants them to have and, then who controls the judges???? The MONEY!!!! Union dues are a waste, the workers took advantage of the Union "such as doing the things you list in your post" when the Union really meant something and now with picketers being regulated what, how, when, why and, where they can picket just doesn't work.


I'm gonna comment on this using different thread in the off topic section sometime tonight. Me, safeguard or even someone else can get a thread started over there. 

See ya on the other side.


----------



## Trey9007

Interesting article I thought you guys might like.....



> I’m making $21 an hour at McDonald’s. Why aren’t you?
> 
> I work for McDonald’s and I make $21 an hour.
> 
> No, that isn’t a typo. It’s really my salary.
> 
> You see, I work for McDonald’s in Denmark, where an agreement between our union and the company guarantees that workers older than 18 are paid at least $21 an hour. Employees younger than 18 make at least $15 — meaning teenagers working at McDonald’s in Denmark make more than two times what many adults in America earn working at the Golden Arches.
> 
> To anyone who says that fast-food jobs can’t be good jobs, I would answer that mine isn’t bad. In fact, parts of it are just fine. Under our union’s agreement with McDonald’s, for example, I receive paid sick leave that workers are still fighting for in many parts of the world. We also get overtime pay, guaranteed hours and at least two days off a week, unlike workers in most countries. At least 10 percent of the staff in any given restaurant must work at least 30 hours a week.


http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2014/05/15/fight-for-15-try-21/


----------



## Zuse

Funny stuff there Trey, he compares Denmark to the U.S, why don’t we dig a little deeper into Denmark’s “Socialist Utopia”


Quote: I’m making $21 an hour at McDonald’s. Why aren’t you?
I work for McDonald’s and I make $21 an hour. No, that isn’t a typo. It’s really my salary.


Here let me fix this sentence for him, the part he conveniently leaves out is the income tax on that $21 this young man makes an hours is taxed up to 55%. The Big Mac Index places socialist Denmark as the fourth most expensive hamburger in the world.


He also fails to mention that they pay 2-3 times what we pay for a gallon of gas! All these higher wages come with a price-tag.


They also fail to mention they can’t defend themselves against the Muslim hordes.


Denmark is being transformed as we speak.


Converting Denmark into a Muslim Country


The fact that the majority of US fast workers are adults “trying” to support families is completely irrelevant to what they’re paid — if their McJobs aren’t lucrative enough to support their lifestyle, perhaps they should develop skills that are better valued by employers and get a real job.


DUH! :euro:


----------



## Trey9007

Zuse said:


> Funny stuff there Trey, he compares Denmark to the U.S, why don’t we dig a little deeper into Denmark’s “Socialist Utopia”
> 
> 
> Quote: I’m making $21 an hour at McDonald’s. Why aren’t you?
> I work for McDonald’s and I make $21 an hour. No, that isn’t a typo. It’s really my salary.
> 
> 
> Here let me fix this sentence for him, the part he conveniently leaves out is the income tax on that $21 this young man makes an hours is taxed up to 55%. The Big Mac Index places socialist Denmark as the fourth most expensive hamburger in the world.
> 
> 
> He also fails to mention that they pay 2-3 times what we pay for a gallon of gas! All these higher wages come with a price-tag.
> 
> 
> They also fail to mention they can’t defend themselves against the Muslim hordes.
> 
> 
> Denmark is being transformed as we speak.
> 
> 
> Converting Denmark into a Muslim Country
> 
> 
> The fact that the majority of US fast workers are adults “trying” to support families is completely irrelevant to what they’re paid — if their McJobs aren’t lucrative enough to support their lifestyle, perhaps they should develop skills that are better valued by employers and get a real job.
> 
> 
> DUH! :euro:


http://www.politifact.com/punditfac...-98/can-you-make-45000year-mcdonalds-denmark/


----------



## Zuse

Political facts should be called political satire, they fail to include the vat tax.

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_rates


----------



## Cleanupman

I have always felt that Unions did a good job but outlived their usefulness when they got greedy...Not sure why the "Jimmy Hoffa's" of the Unions could not figure out the economics of the auto industry so the USA auto industry could have stayed competitive on the world stage...That said...

You don't have to join a union to organize and set some standards in an industry...you just have to organize yourselves and stand together....

In regards to the minimum wage....Perhaps many should ask there elected officials the same question I ask...The More I have been researching the company Monsanto The more I find crooked political officials...

So I started a campaign out here ...Whom Do Your Elected Officials Represent...
Perhaps it is time the American people take back this country and start forcing there elected officials to do the job they are hired to do...REPRESENT YOU.....

Do/should We The people really be footing the bill on every person that goes to Washington DC for the rest of their lives??? Stop that element in our tax system and we could balance thee budget within 18 months....

product costs continue to go up..yes some of it is technology to improve working conditions...However, I believe most of you on this site understand just how Labor affects your costs...

I was asked by one the recruiters, when I told them that the fees would cover my labor costs...My God how much are you paying your help??? was the response...mine....

#1 that is none of your business
#2 a chicken**** $10 and hour....

The response...oh with echoing silence ....

There are so many elements involved on this minimum wage issue. IMHO...we stop all the graft in Washington...you get the idea....

$15 minimum wage would put the banks in a serious hard place...with no rock on the other side to be in between....

Should the $15 hr pass the ripple effect throughout the country and world wide will be tremendous and there will be companies that go under the first week they have to pay it...

Everyone condemned Marx for his theory on Capitalism in a Democratic society....wonder if they're listening now?????

not that I agree with Communism or completely agree with Socialism...just sayin'....the guy was right on the mark and what is so pathetic is our government condemned him yet they are doing exactly what he said they would do....
For those of you that have never read about Marx...his theory was very basic...Capitalism will fall in on itself because of greed....

Personally... If you combine the elements of a Democratic society with Capitalism you bread nothing but graft and corruption...Pecuniary Greed, it's a wonderful thing huh????


----------

