The Whopper gets bailed out!

happy jack wrote:

sparks wrote:

Meanwhile, Burger King workers earn wages averaging just $14,000 a year -- well below the federal poverty line for a family of three.

And the vast majority of those earning $14,000/year are not supporting a family of three; they are high school students saving for an iPod.
Haven't you ever been in a Burger King and observed the demographic of the workers there?

The point of the video is that the owners of Burger King,Goldman-Sachs received $10 Billion dollars from the Wall Street bailout and then paid $6.5 Billion dollars in bonuses to it's executives. Burger King's starting wage=$6.93/hr., wage of the CEO=$2,500/hr. This thread came from an email I received from www.WarOnGreed.org

Quote :

Burger King's starting wage=$6.93/hr., wage of the CEO=$2,500/hr.

Proof positive why it's better to be college educated.

Quote :

The first restaurant was opened in Miami, Florida in 1954 by James McLamore and David Edgerton, and has since used several variations of franchising to expand its operations. Burger King Holdings Corporation is the parent company of Burger King; in the United States it operates under the Burger King Brands title while internationally it operates under the Burger King Corporation banner. It is a publicly traded company with investment firms of TPG Capital, Bain Capital and Goldman Sachs Capital Partners each owning about 25% of the company.

Get your story straight......

That is why I hate these types of silly groups. They spin the truth to enrage you and try and blame the corporation. Most of the BK's are independantly owned. Therefore it isn't the fault of of the corporation. Second of all, is the mean income from all stores all around the world? if so that would explain the hourly rate.

But don't you see? They shared the love with their "valued employees" after all. These peons are only entry level positions. Never mind that they do most of the actual work that keeps the company in business.

In all seriousness Sparkie brings up a valid point. Nothing will do more harm to a chain business than unhappy workers feeling under appreciated with an I don't care attitude. And from my observation the fear of the employees towards store managers over losing their jobs is almost nonexistent anymore and in fact stores have a hard time even keeping fully staffed.

My nephew used to work at a major fast food chain and he was the only one dependable at his store about showing up and was always available to be called in when others were no shows. Except regional threw a fit over the hourly workers getting overtime for any reason whatsoever. Too cheap to pay time and a half to have a much needed position covered and opting to "make do" and yet somehow keep the customers moving along in a timely manor and happy. There were occasions where his store was staffed by an assistant manager and a cook - nobody else! And legitimate raises were completely out of the question no matter how well earned, needless to say.

It's a wonder that anybody wants to work for these places at all! much less provide good service to the customers. But just like any other big corporation I guess they must have needed a taxpayer bailout to reward their truly valued employees for mismanaging the company by keeping labor costs down at the expense of productivity.

Face wrote:

That is why I hate these types of silly groups. They spin the truth to enrage you and try and blame the corporation. Most of the BK's are independantly owned. Therefore it isn't the fault of of the corporation. Second of all, is the mean income from all stores all around the world? if so that would explain the hourly rate.

Keep in mind that it's true that many are not owned by corporate there are also many lesser corporations running multiple stores in today's fast food market.

I had a problem with BK at the Tampa airport and contacted corporate in Miami. They claimed they had no control as it was run by a private chain and could only provide me a phone number to call that I could never get through on.

While granted with respect to this topic the non-corporate stores pose a bit different situation the fact remains that hourly workers get the shaft yet again. Not only do they not get their $13 a week stimulus bonus deduction but they instead get to pay their taxes towards the corporate bailout for their employer to reward the paperclip counters.

Mirage wrote:

But don't you see? They shared the love with their "valued employees" after all. These peons are only entry level positions. Never mind that they do most of the actual work that keeps the company in business.

In all seriousness Sparkie brings up a valid point. Nothing will do more harm to a chain business than unhappy workers feeling under appreciated with an I don't care attitude. And from my observation the fear of the employees towards store managers over losing their jobs is almost nonexistent anymore and in fact stores have a hard time even keeping fully staffed.

My nephew used to work at a major fast food chain and he was the only one dependable at his store about showing up and was always available to be called in when others were no shows. Except regional threw a fit over the hourly workers getting overtime for any reason whatsoever. Too cheap to pay time and a half to have a much needed position covered and opting to "make do" and yet somehow keep the customers moving along in a timely manor and happy. There were occasions where his store was staffed by an assistant manager and a cook - nobody else! And legitimate raises were completely out of the question no matter how well earned, needless to say.

It's a wonder that anybody wants to work for these places at all! much less provide good service to the customers. But just like any other big corporation I guess they must have needed a taxpayer bailout to reward their truly valued employees for mismanaging the company by keeping labor costs down at the expense of productivity.

You made some very good points in this post. I would like to see our government start to adopt some common sense policies towards corporations in this country. If you watched the video, they talked about Burger King being sued for labor law violations. I think any corporation that is being sued by our government for treating it's employees unfairly should be barred from receiving tax breaks from the government.Period. End of story. If you want to chisel minimum wage workers out of overtime pay, don't come looking to tax breaks or bailouts. I'm sure as soon as anyone proposed a law like this, Rush and his henchmen would start screaming this is another attack on business by government. However, I think there are enough people in this country who can see through all the spin and realize corporations have been attacking the American worker for thirty years now, with the assistance of a Congress that is bought and paid for through campaign donations.

sparks wrote:

Mirage wrote:

But don't you see? They shared the love with their "valued employees" after all. These peons are only entry level positions. Never mind that they do most of the actual work that keeps the company in business.

In all seriousness Sparkie brings up a valid point. Nothing will do more harm to a chain business than unhappy workers feeling under appreciated with an I don't care attitude. And from my observation the fear of the employees towards store managers over losing their jobs is almost nonexistent anymore and in fact stores have a hard time even keeping fully staffed.

My nephew used to work at a major fast food chain and he was the only one dependable at his store about showing up and was always available to be called in when others were no shows. Except regional threw a fit over the hourly workers getting overtime for any reason whatsoever. Too cheap to pay time and a half to have a much needed position covered and opting to "make do" and yet somehow keep the customers moving along in a timely manor and happy. There were occasions where his store was staffed by an assistant manager and a cook - nobody else! And legitimate raises were completely out of the question no matter how well earned, needless to say.

It's a wonder that anybody wants to work for these places at all! much less provide good service to the customers. But just like any other big corporation I guess they must have needed a taxpayer bailout to reward their truly valued employees for mismanaging the company by keeping labor costs down at the expense of productivity.

You made some very good points in this post. I would like to see our government start to adopt some common sense policies towards corporations in this country. If you watched the video, they talked about Burger King being sued for labor law violations. I think any corporation that is being sued by our government for treating it's employees unfairly should be barred from receiving tax breaks from the government.Period. End of story. If you want to chisel minimum wage workers out of overtime pay, don't come looking to tax breaks or bailouts. I'm sure as soon as anyone proposed a law like this, Rush and his henchmen would start screaming this is another attack on business by government. However, I think there are enough people in this country who can see through all the spin and realize corporations have been attacking the American worker for thirty years now, with the assistance of a Congress that is bought and paid for through campaign donations.

And those people havce a say in whether or not they stay as well though Mirage. Why does fast food have a high turnover? Because it sucks thats why. My first job at 16 was with Burger King, I stayed there just long enough to save up enough money to get what I wanted to purchase and then quit and did not hold another job until after high school.

No one is forcing anyone to work at a fast food joint, just like no one is forcing anyone to work at GM either.

Speaking of which, how come no one is picking on the poor little GM workers at the bottom of the food chain? Imagine what they could have done with all that bailout cash if they had given it to the lowly peon on the factory floor as well.

BigWhiteGuy wrote:

Ah yes, more government. You won't be saying this come June-July, when the rest of the nation realizes that this stimulus package is shot and a total failure. What your Messiah should have done is quite simple: Abolish all taxes for small businesses (under 150 employees) for 18 months. THAT would have simulated the economy, provided jobs, and boosted the big companies. The world does not revolve around the Dow Jones, but does revolve around the Standard and Poors.

So that small businesses can create and produce more products that people can't afford or won't buy? How does that stimulate the economy?

Quote :

The majority of the unemployed are from layoffs from small businesses.

How do you know that?
Got a link?

I don't think the thousands that worked for GM, Ford, Chrysler, Honda, Toyota, Nissan etc were working for "small businesses".

No one is forcing anyone to work at a fast food joint, just like no one is forcing anyone to work at GM either.

Oddly most line positions at GM really suck too, but those workers are extremely well compensated.

Really though I think the point attempting to be made was if you want to jumpstart the economy is it better to put money in the hands of already well compensated employees who probably will just invest it or put it into the hungry hands of those lowly workers who can't wait to spend it up and send it on down the line.

There's plenty to be said about low paid restaurant workers but lemme put it like this. I have seen plenty of them who struck me as being lucky to even get a job there. Fat chance at getting a better position.

So they should be rewarded with higher pay because they will be lucky to find something else?

Sorry but if they want to make a decent living and be able to afford a house, car and any other item they want, they would work hard, go to school and get jobs where they will be rewarded financially for it.

Raising minimum wage will help the economy more, but it also harms way more than it will help as well, because the cost of the products in turn goes up.

BigWhiteGuy wrote:

edge540 wrote:

Quote :

The majority of the unemployed are from layoffs from small businesses.

How do you know that?
Got a link?

I don't think the thousands that worked for GM, Ford, Chrysler, Honda, Toyota, Nissan etc were working for "small businesses".

Thousands for GM, Ford, Chrysler, Toyota, Nissan, and five million total. Like I said, the majority of the unemployed, do not work for the big companies. The majority are from small business. You know, like your neighbors, friends and relatives. Do they work for Big Business?

Yes indeed MOST of the people I know, neighbors, friends and relatives, DO work for large companies or corporations.
I would still like to see some evidence of your contention that most of the unemployed worked for small businesses.

Sorry , I just don't buy it.

Quote :

Admit it, this stimulus bill was NOT thought out. We'll be in worse shape by fall.

Nope, I don't buy that either.

Acting like Herbert Hoover, whining & doing nothing WILL NOT fix this mess.

Here's an interesting article from July 30th 2008 that doesn't seem to support the claim that most layoffs are from small businesses......

Employment Picture: Small Businesses Continue to Outperform
July 30, 2008 01:28 PM ET | Matthew Bandyk

The early word on July jobs reports has been pretty bad. But according to a report released by ADP today, the small-business sector continues to be a silver lining in the dark cloud of the overall employment picture.

The picture does seem to be much better than was forecast, fortunately. The ADP National Employment Report finds total nonfarm employment grew by 9,000 from June to July. But that number doesn't tell the whole story—that growth was driven by small-business job growth, which masked problems at larger businesses. July saw "essentially flat employment, with small businesses adding jobs and medium- and large-sized companies losing jobs," says Joel Prakken of Macroeconomic Advisers.

Small businesses added 50,000 jobs last month, a big jump up from the 7,000 added the previous month. Small businesses' relative lack of exposure to construction and housing continues to make them more resilient than bigger businesses when it comes to jobs.
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/risky-business/2008/7/30/employment-picture-small-businesses-continue-to-outperform.html

Here is a link to the current ADP report that gives quite a different story:

http://www.adpemploymentreport.com/pdf/FINAL_Report_January_09.pdf

Stimulate the economy.

I have absolutely no interest in listening to the morons that drove the bus off the cliff for the last 8 years & taking their advice of doing nothing.

Actually, you are wrong again because the SBA classifies businesses differently than ADP. The SBA classifies small businesses as having less than 500 employees, so the data from ADP actually supports BWG's assertion.

http://www.sba.gov/idc/groups/public/documents/sba_homepage/serv_sstd_tablepdf.pdf