Fast Food Workers Plan Thursday Strike, Really?

At a convention that was held outside Chicago in July, 1,300 fast-food workers unanimously approved a resolution calling for civil disobedience as a way to step up pressure on the fast-food chains.

“They’re going to use nonviolent civil disobedience as a way to call attention to what they’re facing,” said Mary Kay Henry, president of the Service Employees International Union, which has spent millions of dollars helping to underwrite the campaign. “They’re invoking civil rights history to make the case that these jobs ought to be paid $15 and the companies ought to recognize a union.”

“They’re going to use nonviolent civil disobedience as a way to call attention to what they’re facing,” said Mary Kay Henry, president of the Service Employees International Union, which has spent millions of dollars helping to underwrite the campaign.

Nonviolent "civil disobedience", sure... When unions are involved that is really a euphemism for "breaking stuff" and preventing customers from being serviced.

The unions are all in favor of these kinds of actions as they want to drive up minimum wage as many union contracts tie member pay to the minimum wage. Getting it raised is a back door way to get many union members raises without having to directly negotiate for one. If they can get some of these fast food chains unionized, that would be even better as it gets them a huge pool of new members to offset union losses elsewhere.

Mr. Obama added that if he had a service-sector job, and “wanted an honest day’s pay for an honest day’s work, I’d join a union.”

The one thing they [unions and apparently the President] don't care about is the actual workers they are instigating. These jobs pay what they are worth and in this economy these folks should be more grateful that they even can get work. If you want a better job, get it / earn it. Forcing a business to pay more than a job is worth causes some combination of the following two actions a) raising prices to offset increased costs - putting the product out of reach of some customers and b) causing the affected businesses to reassess employee requirements and typically reducing staff / hours to compensate for the increased employee expenses. Are the unions going to back fill these people's paychecks if their plan succeeds? Not hardly. More likely this expected and foreseeable result of this plan would only end up with greater calls for unionization, further raising costs and costing jobs and suppressing businesses. When the foreseeable happens, it will be called "bad luck".

“They want to join,” Ms. Henry said. “They think their jobs should be valued at $15.”

Heck, who doesn't think their job should be valued higher than it is? If it actually was though, you would be getting it. What most people forget is "it is NOT your job", it is the business' job and they have chosen you to fill it, for now. It is worth what it is worth. If you get too expensive because you have outgrown the responsibilities of that job or are not productive enough that the business is not getting good value, they find someone else to fill it. If you have been doing a good job, you might get promoted to a better job but even that one (if that happens) is NOT yours! If I owned one of these franchises and some of my employees walked out when they had already agreed to work, I would be replacing them with others that valued the opportunity and the paycheck.

If you feel the need to blame someone, how about blaming the Government that has done everything in it power (and something not in its power) over the last 6 years to raise the costs of running a business. Between the EPA, the NLRB, Obamacare, the IRS and the other government agencies, this administration has declared war on business and then when they get the expected results point the finger at "greedy businesses" instead of at the mirror.

I may just have to get lunch at McDs tomorrow...

The problem with wanting to change the world...

is that sometimes you succeed!

Soon after the program collapsed, mosquito control lost access to its crucial tool, DDT. The problem was overuse—not by malaria fighters but by farmers, especially cotton growers, trying to protect their crops. The spray was so cheap that many times the necessary doses were sometimes applied. The insecticide accumulated in the soil and tainted watercourses. Though nontoxic to humans, DDT harmed peregrine falcons, sea lions, and salmon. In 1962 Rachel Carson published Silent Spring, documenting this abuse and painting so damning a picture that the chemical was eventually outlawed by most of the world for agricultural use. Exceptions were made for malaria control, but DDT became nearly impossible to procure. "The ban on DDT," says Gwadz of the National Institutes of Health, "may have killed 20 million children."