Entitlement Mentality

[crumbs]

TL;DR:  Public protests & strikes are one of the many legal options available in wage negotiations. 
You feel that those methods are suboptimal, and you're free to do so. 
The fast food workers disagree, they're free to do that too; they are also within their rights to act on those beliefs. 
Their strikes are no more an expression of entitlement than your fancy cover letters. 

[tinus42]

Henry Ford paid his workers 5 dollars per day at a time when half that salary was customary. He also cut their working hours from 9 to 8 hours.

The result was that his workers were highly motivated, turnover was minimized and his workers could actually *GASP* save money so they could buy a car, which increased Ford's revenue.

http://corporate.ford.com/news-center/press-releases-detail/677-5-dollar-a-day

Today's corporations are in a race to the bottom. Everything must be done cheaper, by less staff who are paid lesser and lesser.

But they forget that employees are also CONSUMERS. People who don't earn much money tend to not spend it much.

The managers don't care though as long as they get paid fat checks. If the company fails they take their lucrative severance bonuses and hop on to the next gravy train.

[the joint]

1)  Profit margin is likely 5-10% because 1)  it's a food-service business, a type of business that is known for low profit-margins do to a long list of unavoidable expenses and high overhead cost and 2)  they aren't being run as efficiently as possible (aka sloppily).  Sure, it could be improved, but that's irrelevant to the context of the issue I'm raising.

Are you not reading what I've been telling you? And regarding irrelevancy, well, let's just say it's not irrelevant as soon as you decided to start bitching about the workers because you had a bad day.

Why'd you stop the bold with just "irrelevant?"  The rest of it is important, that is, "irrelevant to the context of the issue I'm raising.  "Unavoidable expenses" are "irrelevant" because it's about the damn company.  What's with you and talking incessantly about these companies?  I'm bitching about the workers.  You're the one bitching about the companies!  Remember?  Now you're just confusing your position with mine.   

If you want to talk about the companies involved in these strikes, make your own damn thread. 

By admission, you're bitching about the workers, which has a context associated with it - wages paid by a company.

For example, you bitch about a child crying, and I point out that the mother is beating the child. How dense would you have to be to continue to go on about the two being unrelated?

I think you're forgetting the context AGAIN.  A child is helpless in the situation and can't defend himself.  That's absolutely not the case for the workers who can choose to remove themselves from that environment.  That's why I'll tell again for the millionth fucking time, leave the companies out of it!!!

[the joint]

TL;DR:  Public protests & strikes are one of the many legal options available in wage negotiations. 
You feel that those methods are suboptimal, and you're free to do so. 
The fast food workers disagree, they're free to do that too; they are also within their rights to act on those beliefs. 
Their strikes are no more an expression of entitlement than your fancy cover letters. 

Spot on.  Except that last sentence you just threw in there to make yourself sound stupid.  Let it go.

[FirstAscent]

1)  Profit margin is likely 5-10% because 1)  it's a food-service business, a type of business that is known for low profit-margins do to a long list of unavoidable expenses and high overhead cost and 2)  they aren't being run as efficiently as possible (aka sloppily).  Sure, it could be improved, but that's irrelevant to the context of the issue I'm raising.

Are you not reading what I've been telling you? And regarding irrelevancy, well, let's just say it's not irrelevant as soon as you decided to start bitching about the workers because you had a bad day.

Why'd you stop the bold with just "irrelevant?"  The rest of it is important, that is, "irrelevant to the context of the issue I'm raising.  "Unavoidable expenses" are "irrelevant" because it's about the damn company.  What's with you and talking incessantly about these companies?  I'm bitching about the workers.  You're the one bitching about the companies!  Remember?  Now you're just confusing your position with mine.   

If you want to talk about the companies involved in these strikes, make your own damn thread. 

By admission, you're bitching about the workers, which has a context associated with it - wages paid by a company.

For example, you bitch about a child crying, and I point out that the mother is beating the child. How dense would you have to be to continue to go on about the two being unrelated?

I think you're forgetting the context AGAIN.  A child is helpless in the situation and can't defend himself.  That's absolutely not the case for the workers who can choose to remove themselves from that environment.  That's why I'll tell again for the millionth fucking time, leave the companies out of it!!!

You're saying I should leave the companies out of it because you think they're entitled?

[the joint]

No, I'm saying leave the companies out of it because the OP has nothing to do with the attitudes of the companies.  It's a totally separate issue.  The post is not about whether the pay is fair or f the working conditions suck. 

The post is about people who are in a situation they don't like that they voluntarily entered into, and now thy want someone to change it for them.  Those "someones" just happen to be companies.

I could have written the thread about students demanding that their tuition be decreased, in which case I would be talking about students' attitudes.  But then if you started talking about the business practices of colleges, I have to slap you for veering off topic.

[FirstAscent]

No, I'm saying leave the companies out of it because the OP has nothing to do with the attitudes of the companies.  It's a totally separate issue.  The post is not about whether the pay is fair or f the working conditions suck.  

The post is about people who are in a situation they don't like that they voluntarily entered into, and now thy want someone to change it for them.  Those "someones" just happen to be companies.

Actually, your OP is about you and your bitching about people trying to affect change, albeit in a way you disapprove, hence your bitching. It's also about how you fell into a position in which you are under qualified and overpaid, a situation which is uncommon, and thus utterly stupid of you to assume everyone else might have such an opportunity.

What you fail to realize though, is that perhaps the changes those workers are trying to affect are important. As I've pointed out several times, and as you've been unable to aggregate into your thinking processes, there is fat to trim in the fast food business.

[the joint]

No, I'm saying leave the companies out of it because the OP has nothing to do with the attitudes of the companies.  It's a totally separate issue.  The post is not about whether the pay is fair or f the working conditions suck.  

The post is about people who are in a situation they don't like that they voluntarily entered into, and now thy want someone to change it for them.  Those "someones" just happen to be companies.

Actually, your OP is about you and your bitching about people trying to affect change, albeit in a way you disapprove, hence your bitching. It's also about how you fell into a position in which you are under qualified and overpaid, a situation which is uncommon, and thus utterly stupid of you to assume everyone else might have such an opportunity.

What you fail to realize though, is that perhaps the changes those workers are trying to affect are important. As I've pointed out several times, and as you've been unable to aggregate into your thinking processes, there is fat to trim in the fast food business.

Holy shit.  I'm done with this conversation with you until you realize that what I "fail to realize" is not only something I do realize, but more importantly it's OFF-TOPIC.  In fact, I even agree that they're asking for important changes!  But seriously, I've never met a normal person who can't understand something in plain simple English even after it's been repeated and rephrased 20 times.  Start your own damn thread if you want to talk about what the businesses should be doing.

[FirstAscent]

In fact, I even agree that they're asking for important changes!  

Then why were you bitching about them?

[the joint]

In fact, I even agree that they're asking for important changes!  

Then why were you bitching about them?

Because I believe they are thoughtless to the extent that they aren't even addressing the root of the issue and because they have no idea what the root of the issue is or why they can't magically be given $15 per hour.  I was also bitching because it's a poor means of personal adaptation to environmental conditions.  If a person is in dire need of change and have the capacity to elicit that change, then they should do so or else be subject to the passive course they've otherwise chosen.  And, if they don't have the capacity, then chances are their skills aren't worth much more than $7.25 anyway.

The bottom line is that the strikers cannot in any way force their employers to give them higher wages.  Accordingly, while they can demand raises and attempt to persuade their employers, the decision to actually implement a pay increase is beyond their control.  Instead, it would be optimal that the strikers focus on what they can control, e.g. Looking for better work, learning the skills needed to obtain better work, etc.  But, through protesting, they are deferring personal responsibility away from themselves and instead place it upon companies who are preoccupied with their responsibilities to their shareholders and customers.  Thus, if you are a striker and are concerned about yourself and not the shareholders or customers, chances are that you aren't giving your company a good reason to listen to you.

[FirstAscent]

In fact, I even agree that they're asking for important changes!  

Then why were you bitching about them?

Because I believe they are thoughtless to the extent that they aren't even addressing the root of the issue and because they have no idea what the root of the issue is or why they can't magically be given $15 per hour.  I was also bitching because it's a poor means of personal adaptation to environmental conditions.  If a person is in dire need of change and have the capacity to elicit that change, then they should do so or else be subject to the passive course they've otherwise chosen.  And, if they don't have the capacity, then chances are their skills aren't worth much more than $7.25 anyway.

You seem to mistaken with regard to the difference between collective action and individual action. Has it occurred to you that any one individual (or most all) could in fact be personally weighing in their mind the very things you think they should be considering? Obviously not. A strike is a collective action, and you simply are not in a position to make a blanket comment about an individual's goals in that context. Instead, you can make a comment about the strike itself.

But in doing so, please don't be an idiot about it, without first performing a better analysis of what could possibly be achieved. We've already established that there are two parties involved in the strike: the strikers and the employers. Your general assumptions and ignorance have led you to believe that the only resolution is for the strikers to give up, because you're an obstinate and obtuse individual that can't evaluate the dynamics fully.

[crumbs]

TL;DR:  Public protests & strikes are one of the many legal options available in wage negotiations. 
You feel that those methods are suboptimal, and you're free to do so. 
The fast food workers disagree, they're free to do that too; they are also within their rights to act on those beliefs. 
Their strikes are no more an expression of entitlement than your fancy cover letters. 

Spot on.  Except that last sentence you just threw in there to make yourself sound stupid.  Let it go.

It is not necessary to feel entitled to higher wages to strike under the "I deserve better wages" banner.
It is not an appeal to employer's sense of decency or an attempt to make him see the error of his ways.  
It is simply a better negotiation technique than, say "I don't deserve higher wages, but i need hookers & blow so give it up!"  
When you ask for a raise, is that a show of your entitlement mentality?

As far as mah sounding stupit, stop reading aloud, the cool kids don't even move their lips.  K?

[Richy_T]

eh well so long as they arnt trying to use the government to twist anyone's arms than i say more power to them.

If I had $7 an hour employees that went on strike, they would be $0 an hour non-employees immediately. That this isn't happening in this case is indicative of the government and arm twisting being in close proximity.

[Richy_T]

Maybe their free ride should be over.

Absolutely. All we need is for people to stop walking into the stores and asking for jobs at the advertised wages.

[Richy_T]

Database Error? Really Bitcointalk? I guess I'll just type it all again...

Henry Ford paid his workers 5 dollars per day at a time when half that salary was customary. He also cut their working hours from 9 to 8 hours.

Maybe he paid $5/hour so he would get and retain the good quality workers he wanted. Higher wages doesn't magically make shitty workers into good workers.

In-n-out pays $15/hour but who is to say that they would want to employ those people who are currently earning $7/hour. FA mentioned that In-n-out can afford to pay $15/hr because of efficient practices. Maybe one of those practices is employing people who are actually worth the money. People who clean tables when they're dirty. People who are pleasant, attentive and polite to customers, who don't get the orders wrong. People who actually clean the bathrooms once in a blue moon.

(This was better the first time around).

[FirstAscent]

Database Error? Really Bitcointalk? I guess I'll just type it all again...

Henry Ford paid his workers 5 dollars per day at a time when half that salary was customary. He also cut their working hours from 9 to 8 hours.

Maybe he paid $5/hour so he would get and retain the good quality workers he wanted. Higher wages doesn't magically make shitty workers into good workers.

In-n-out pays $15/hour but who is to say that they would want to employ those people who are currently earning $7/hour. FA mentioned that In-n-out can afford to pay $15/hr because of efficient practices. Maybe one of those practices is employing people who are actually worth the money. People who clean tables when they're dirty. People who are pleasant, attentive and polite to customers, who don't get the orders wrong. People who actually clean the bathrooms once in a blue moon.

(This was better the first time around).

This is true. However, I think you got it half right.

In-n-Out trains people effectively. And money motivates workers. I have seen plenty of capable people in ordinary fast food restaurants that are up to the potential of In-n-Out employees.

It is absolutely true that a great portion of the problem with most fast food restaurants is their failure to take a look at themselves in the mirror and see the following problems:

- Unappealing menu
- Poor training practices
- Lower than possible sales per store
- Too few employees per store

Solution:

- Hire a better master chef to come up with better recipes that feature fresh food
- Create a better and more thorough training regime
- Cut the number of stores in half
- Pay the workers more
- Put more workers in each store

If, by chance, minimum wage was raised, a lot of the above would happen automatically, or the businesses would go out of business.

[Hfleer]

In Chicago, IL fast food workers are striking, protesting and demanding $15/hr where the state minimum wage is $8.25/hr.

The average profit margin for a company is about 5-10% and these idiots want their salaries nearly doubled, arguing that they're not receiving a livable wage.

Um, no.  I'm getting a bit sick of this attitude of entitlement floating around the USA, and keep in mind I work in the field of social services.

When I graduated and began work as a counselor in the adult psychiatric unit of a Chicago hospital, I made $15/hr with a post-graduate degree and was sent to the emergency room twice for being assaulted on the job within a period of 6 months.

So, what did I do?  Did I bitch and complain and protest about my salary or my work conditions?  No.  Instead,  I updated and revised my résumé and began sending it directly to the email addresses of the hiring managers at a variety of agencies.  Within 2 months I secured a new job where I am under-qualified and overpaid, and I love my new job.  I'm proud of it, and proud of myself for doing what I needed to do to adapt and thrive.

Thoughts?

Different people whine/brag in different ways.  Some choose bitcointalk.org forum for example.

I am 'entitled' to social security because I've put in probably at least several hundred large.  In the unlikely event that the system does not collapse completely, I only really expect to get back what I need.  If I don't need my full 'investment' back it means that I've been lucky enough to remain healthy.  If I genuinely need more than I put in it means that I have had some mis-fortune and am probably living in misery.  I'd much prefer the former.

Would I prefer to not be forced into this insurance policy but be free to make my own choice?  Obviously yes, but human nature is such that it is simply not a workable scheme.  I cannot force myself to take up residence in Libertarian la-la-land, though it seems like a cozy area if I could.

Alas, what we have (I strongly believe) is a situation where well connected insiders have managed to abscond with my SS contributions and it is entirely unlikely that I will see anything near a 'fair' return whether I have a true need or not.  Sucks, but it makes no sense for me to 'go postal' about it.  It would just make my life less pleasant and would not solve the problem.  At this point I am comfortable making alternate plans to protect my own ass (like Bitcoin for instance) and trying to support the minority of decent politicians with the wisdom to set up for the best possible outcome (for us plebs) when the shit does finally hit the fan.

In the mean time, my strategy is to arrange my life such that I can go through periods of not making a lot of money and thus not paying a lot into an 'entitlement' system which I strongly believe will ultimately fail me (and the rest of us who are not in the higher echelons of the modern financial capital system.)  Doing that now.  It's great!

Well said.  And yes, some people are whining about other people whining, what can you do.

[tinus42]

eh well so long as they arnt trying to use the government to twist anyone's arms than i say more power to them.

If I had $7 an hour employees that went on strike, they would be $0 an hour non-employees immediately. That this isn't happening in this case is indicative of the government and arm twisting being in close proximity.

If you sell $7 burgers you will soon sell them for $0, you will have the same result. There are many businesses that fleece their customers and treat them like shit. But when they go to a competitor that offers a better deal they feel affronted. Of course it's capitalism when employers sack employees because they ask too much but it's communism when customers go to a competitor who offers a better deal. Only businesses should have negotiating power, workers shouldn't have any.

[Richy_T]

If you sell $7 burgers you will soon sell them for $0, you will have the same result. There are many businesses that fleece their customers and treat them like shit. But when they go to a competitor that offers a better deal they feel affronted. Of course it's capitalism when employers sack employees because they ask too much but it's communism when customers go to a competitor who offers a better deal. Only businesses should have negotiating power, workers shouldn't have any.

The negotiation is easy. You agree to give me x time for $y and I agree to give you $y for x time. No time, no $. A strike is effectively ending the agreement.

[lucasjkr]

eh well so long as they arnt trying to use the government to twist anyone's arms than i say more power to them.

If I had $7 an hour employees that went on strike, they would be $0 an hour non-employees immediately. That this isn't happening in this case is indicative of the government and arm twisting being in close proximity.

It's easy to say that without any context.

First, we are in a unique period of RECORD corporate profits coupled with high joblessness. That isn't normal. Normal has typically been high corporate profits coupled with increasing payouts to employees, who spend their money and stoke inflation. We're getting there, a coup,e more years and we might just be close to where we started

Second, if one employee protests for higher wages, yes, it's easy to dump them and move on. Especially when people are fighting over jobs. In other periods, it's even employers fighting over labor. It will b again, too. Its easy to put one employee out to pasture, much more difficult to put your entire workforce out and then rehire and retrain them. It'll be much more difficult to put them all out, hence the point of collective action

It's no more of an entitlement attitude for someone to expect better pay than it is for someone to expect another to work for them at only the cheapest rate possible. In a perfectly tuned capitalist system, both sides would have power and be able to make some demands and cede other to other demands at the same time. Right now, were in a flawed environment because employers have all the power. In the future, the pendulum will swing back. And if your that steadfast in not paying wages that employees eel ate livable, you may just find yourself with an empty shop.