Cover Sheet for Fast Food Employment App.

[dgs49]

NOTICE

This employer is in a very competitive business and while we try to retain our proven, valuable employees with competitive pay and benefits, the majority of our employees work for minimum wage, or close to it. If you show us over time that you can be a valuable employee, your compensation, benefits, and working conditions will improve. If they don’t, then let that be a sign to you that we value your services at approximately minimum wage. If that is not satisfactory, by all means GO SOMEPLACE ELSE and succeed! Fast food ain’t for everybody.

If you value your own time and effort at a rate that is significantly higher than minimum wage, and don’t think you can work conscientiously for minimum wage, please STOP HERE, RETURN THIS APPLICATION, and try to find other employment. And best of luck to you!

It is quite possible – in fact inevitable – that you will not be able to support yourself on our starting compensation. Most of our starting employees are students or dependents of someone else, or have other wage-earners in their household. So deal with it; you can’t support yourself on our starting compensation. Keep in mind that most people use this employment when starting their careers, and don’t reach a “living wage” for some years after starting. It takes time to develop the work habits, knowledge, and skills to EARN a living wage. But the bottom line is, your financial needs have nothing to do with your value to us; your value to us (and your compensation) will be determined by the work that you do and how well you do it. You deal with your needs and we’ll deal with ours.

We also expect you to get to work on time, to be prepared to work when you get here, and that you give us an honest day’s work for the compensation you get. If the low compensation will make you resentful, lazy, envious of the supervisors and managers, unwilling to be a good employee, or even prone to sabotage, do us both a favor, RETURN THE APPLICATION, AND GO SOMEWHERE ELSE! You would be a cancer here.

We have an obligation to our shareholders to obtain basic work at the lowest possible cost. You have an obligation to yourself to get as much compensation for your time and effort as you can. Whether it is today, six months from now, or ten years from now, if you think you can get a better deal someplace else, by all means do it. And don’t let the door hit you in the ass on your way out.

Now, if you are interested in coming to work for us, at minimum wage or something close to it, then complete the attached application and give it to the manager on duty.

[Rick]

A real motivator...

[oldr_n_wsr]

When I was young and working in "fast food" (Roy Rogers at the time) I took the above to be what they were saying (without them having to say it). It was not my "career", it was a way to make gas and "fun" money. If i aspired to be a "manager" sure I could have stayed there and learned the ropes and become a fast food manager, but that was not in my plans. Those that continue to stay there as "do you want fries with that" should not expect to make that much money. I am sorry for their predicament, but it is what it is. Stay in school and/or learn a trade (other than how to flip a burger or drop fries into a frier) and you "might" make more money, you might have a career, you might not be supported by those who do make more. I still say $15 and hour to make fries is above what should be paid. San Fran, you can keep that wage.

[dgs49]

I worked as a security guard for a year or so after I got out of the service. It was the perfect job for a student - I had plenty of time to read, and essentially nothing to do but walk around occasionally make sure nothing was on fire. When school was not in session, I could drive a cab during the day, then do the security thing at night. What? Two jobs???? That must be unconstitutional or something now.

The wage was about right.

[dales]

You prolly got a flat $2/hr ($1.65/hr was min wage at the time) c. 1970 and adjusted for inflation that's over $10/hr.

Today's min wage ain't even close.

Minimum wage today should be $10/hr insted of an even shittier $7.50/hr. fed min.

[dgs49]

Dales, on what basis do you conclude that the Federal Government has any right to mandate the minimum price of ANYTHING, and in particular of labor?

And from a purely economic standpoint (government authority aside), on what basis is it wise policy to set an absolute minimum wage? If I have a job that I would like done (say, clean the windows and check the oil in the cars that come into my gas station for fuel), and if I can find someone who is willing to do it for, say, $3.00/hour, on what basis is it wise policy to set a minumum wage of - oh I don't know - $7.50 an hour, which results in the service NOT BEING PROVIDED, and the job not being available to the person who wanted it?

And do you dispute the obvious fact that setting a mandated minimum wage that is above the economic minimum wage results in exacerbated unemployment among those who are most susceptible to that problem (youth, school dropouts, etc)?

For the record, my first Security job paid $1.60/hr, and subsequently I worked for other firms making $2.00, $2.50, and I think the last one was also about $2.00. And in my experience, I was offered unlimited overtime in ALL of those jobs. Security guards are notoriously un-punctual and un-reliable, and at the beginning of almost every shift they were scrambling to find people to fill holes. As a person who would show up on time in a clean uniform and stay awake for my entire shift, I was a golden boy.

[rubato]

Dales, on what basis do you conclude that the Federal Government has any right to mandate the minimum price of ANYTHING, and in particular of labor?
... "

On the basis that failure to pay the costs of maintaining the existence of that employee inevitably shifts those costs onto the rest of society. Besides being exploitation of that individual it is exploitation of the rest of us. it is the rest of us who will pay his/her share of the costs of the medical system, schools, police, fire, who will pay for unemployment when she/he is laid off, who will pay for support for minor children, food stamps &c.

If your business cannot pay what it costs to provide an employee then you're a failure and we should not subsidize you any more.


yrs,
rubato

[oldr_n_wsr]

Most fast food employees are not "career" fast food employees. They are usually teens/early20's in their first job and just making a few bucks so they can fuel their car and go out with their friends. If someone is making a career at saying "do you want fries with that" then they are a waste to themselves and a burden on society, and will always be that burden. Talk to the cashier at McD's and you will see that the young lady/lad is going to school to better themselves and are only in the job to earn gas and leisure money, not for a career.

[Crackpot]

It really depends on the local job market. My MIL has a career working at speedway ( that's working not owning or managing). The town just doesn't that many industries to support better jobs. The oly thing the town has going for it is a property boom due to being a distant suburb of Grand Rapids and therefore less "urban" and yes that is racist code.

[Crackpot]

I should note that's how I have herard it described and does not reflect my personal beliefs or feelings

[oldr_n_wsr]

My MIL has a career working at speedway

Is that supplimental income or her only income? I know here on LI one would be hard pressed for a McD's job to provide enough income to stay somewhat submerged, forget about staying afloat.

[Econoline]

I posted this reply to another of Dave's posts in another thread. Since no one has bothered to respond to it there, I'm posting it again here:

Dearest Econoline: The question might be characterized in the following example:

Say some empathetic Emperor decided that he wanted to eliminate poverty in his empire. He decreed that there would be (in today's U.S. dollars) a minimum wage of $25/hour.

It is not difficult to see that this initiative would have catastrophic results, unforseen by our well-meaning monarch. Small businesses, such as restaurants, would have to either raise their prices to prohibitive levels in order to pay their staff, or simply go out of business. People who now would consider eating out a couple times a week would have to forego that pleasure, or cut it back to once or twice a month, as eating out would cost a minimum $100. Janitor service would become so prohibitively expensive that businesses would upgrade cleaning equipment to require an absolute minimum of human involvement, and those people would be trained technicians. And so on.

The job market for, say, high school dropouts, or the mildly retarded would dry up completely, because those people would simply have no way of earning anywhere near the minimum wage.

So the question is, if raising it dramatically is clearly a bad and stupid thing, how much can you raise it without seeing the harmful results that occur when you raise the required value of human effort beyond its economic value?

Or, to compare it to something the rubato person would appreciate, if you can tolerate water with, say 22ppb arsenic, how much arsenic can you tolerate without getting sick? And do you voluntarily add more arsenic in the hope that it won't do any measurable harm?

The minimum wage in itself is a stupid, stupid idea, and should be abolished.

I've been meaning to answer this, but it's taken me a few days to get around to it.

I knew that the usual reductio ad absurdum argument would come up. The part I highlighted is really at the crux of it all, isn't it?

You are assuming a tight labor market, where employers will pay whatever is necessary--but not a penny more--in order to get employees to work for them...and further assuming that there is some exact figure for this level of pay that can be determined objectively, somehow.

In reality, the line between "not enough" and "too much" is never clear, and never exact, and in a buyer's market the buyer (employer) has all the advantage. In other words, an employer has every incentive to see how little he can get away with paying, and if some workers are desperate enough to take a wage that is not enough to live on, the employer can count on the rest of society (i.e., you and me) to pay the difference in the form of food stamps, Medicaid, emergency medical services, the Earned Income Tax Credit, etc., etc. (Yes, I know, in some cases the employer can count on the employee's family or some private charity to make up the difference, but that situation is far from universal or certain--and it still constitutes relying on the rest of society.)

The best solution, which has worked pretty well so far (despite conservatives' arguments to the contrary) is to set a legal minimum wage somewhere in that gray area between "not enough" and "too much" and keep raising it to keep up with inflation. And because economics is an inexact science--as even you have acknowledged earlier in this thread--a bit of trial-and-error must necessarily play a part in setting that precise legal figure. Yes, it's possible that in some instances the minimum wage has been set too high, or too low. But the fact that numerous studies (which others have cited above) show that raising the legal minimum wage has had little or no effect on unemployment shows that, by and large, the law has so far gotten it right.

In addition to the above, I'd like to ask dgs and oldr (and maybe Jim?) a question, since they are the ones who keep saying that most people who work at minimum wage do so for "only a year or two": are you comfortable with the rest of us picking up the slack (in the form of food stamps, Medicaid, emergency medical services, EITC, AFDC, etc., etc.--not to mention, as rubato pointed out, MW employees' share of the taxes that the rest of us pay to support things such as schools, police, fire depts., libraries, parks, etc.)--for certain employers because it's for "only a year or two"?

[Crackpot]

Only I income (that I know of) she could possibly be drawing on her exes retirement but I don't think she can yet luckily the cost of living is low there (well other than racists driving up property costs) and she is supplemented by the church and anything else she can get for free

[oldr_n_wsr]

In addition to the above, I'd like to ask dgs and oldr (and maybe Jim?) a question, since they are the ones who keep saying that most people who work at minimum wage do so for "only a year or two": are you comfortable with the rest of us picking up the slack (in the form of food stamps, Medicaid, emergency medical services, EITC, AFDC, etc., etc.--not to mention, as rubato pointed out, MW employees' share of the taxes that the rest of us pay to support things such as schools, police, fire depts., libraries, parks, etc.)--for certain employers because it's for "only a year or two"?

We are picking up the tab regardless. Be it higher prices for burgers and fries or higher taxes for those making minimum. Do I mind? of course I mind paying more for whatever. But that is the way it is. Pay here or pay there, somehow they will make me pay.

These are for the most part, "starter" jobs, a way for the young to make some money while they still live at home (thus the parents provide shelter and food and whatever) and make some money to fund their extranious purchases. And in my house they also paid (pay) rent. Not much but enough so that they have to budget. unknown to them is the "rent" they paid goes into an account that they eventually get back. I did not want the money but I did want the lesson to be learned.

Go into McD's, and BK, do you see middle aged people other than the manager or manager in training? No, they are the young in thier first/second job or the old supplementing their SS income.

I worked at Roy Rogers and at the Rossevelt Field mall game room when I was yngr_n_dmber. I lived at home and got gas and going out money. I also saved a few bucks for later in life as that was taught to me. Save some of what you earn.

I don't see the great amount of "cost" to society in these people. They are most likely on their parents health insurance, and are still living at home and are going to school to better themselves which in the long run they will pay their own way in payroll taxes, property taxes and any other taxes that gov seems to come up with.

[Crackpot]

You really need to get out of the city oldr the demographics change drassticaly in rural areas.

[oldr_n_wsr]

I did edit.
Anyway, I am not in the city, I am in what is considered the "suburbs" (Long Island NY THE first suburb in America) and most FF employees are young kids in college or are elders on SS and helping to make ends meet.

Your mileage may vary.
I don't deny that

[Lord Jim]

On the basis that failure to pay the costs of maintaining the existence of that employee inevitably shifts those costs onto the rest of society. Besides being exploitation of that individual it is exploitation of the rest of us. it is the rest of us who will pay his/her share of the costs of the medical system, schools, police, fire, who will pay for unemployment when she/he is laid off, who will pay for support for minor children, food stamps &c.

Rube raises some points in there that are worthy of thought and consideration... (and kudos to him for managing to do so without throwing in a tag line calling somebody an idiot)

The argument that there are a myriad of ways in which society subsidizes the availability of low cost labor that should be a part of the calculus in determining the true value of that labor seems to me to have some merit for consideration.

Of course on the other hand, if the cost of labor is raised to the point that a business can no longer afford to stay in business, then the costs to society go up even more, (we would now bear the full cost of those employees who are no longer employed, and also the costs of the person who was forced out of business)

So to a certain extent, society subsidizing the value of low cost labor makes sense, and is a good financial investment...

So it seems to me there needs to a balance between the two...

(Unless of course your position is that society shouldn't be providing any of those things, and if people can't survive on the lowest possible wage an employer can get someone to work for, they should just be allowed to starve to death in the streets...and then after enough people starve to death, the labor pool will shrink to the point where employers will be compelled to pay wages high enough to live on without subsidy from society)

[Crackpot]

Personally I would like to see minimum wage tied (or at least close to) the poverty line. If someone is working full time they should be able to at least subsist at the poverty level

[oldr_n_wsr]

Personally I would like to see minimum wage tied (or at least close to) the poverty line. If someone is working full time they should be able to at least subsist at the poverty level

I don't know if I agree with that or not. Call me wishy washy.
On the one hand, if all you are capable of doing is dropping fries in the frier then that is all you are capable of. On the other hand, if all you feel like doing is dropping fries in the frier then shame on you. Why should an employer or society in general raise your standard of living because you don't feel like pushing yourself to the next level of competency. Maybe making something more of yourself. How many here worked at minimum or close to minimum wage jobs and then went on to more rewarding careers?

As I have said, "do you want fries with that" should not be your be all to end all. It may end up that way in todays economy, but I believe it is only temporary.

I was 24 hours away from taking an overnight job of stocking shelves at the local supermarket for $8 and hour when my current employer called me and made me an offer for more hten four times that ammount. I was ready to stock shelves for a time until I got a better job. But those are interim jobs, not meant to support a household. The gumanager hiring me was impressed that I came right out and told him that I am doing this only until I get a "real" job. A job I was trained and educated to do.

There's a reason the McD's and supermarket employees are under 25yo. They are in starter jobs while they either continue their education or are figuring out what they want to do in life.

[dgs49]

I still don't get it. What does YOUR cost of living have to do with the VALUE of your effort?

If I have another kid (Good God, perish the thought!) should my employer raise my pay? If I get married? If my new baby turns out to be "special needs"? If my wife leaves me and I have to survive on my own income now? What is any of that to my employer?

And if I don't need any money at all (indeed, my wife and I could live quite nicely on her income alone), should my employer be allowed to take advantage of that fact and pay me nothing?