Corporate America: Out of Touch Again

 Post Reply    Back to Forums
1–25 out of 29 messages
Author Message

etaoin shrdlu Posted - 12/9/2013 3:00:37 PM | show profile | flag this post

Remember how McDonalds had that whacko budget for their employees to follow? You know, when they also suggested they return Christmas presents to get cash to make ends meet, break their food into smaller pieces to make it look like they had bigger meals and assumed they could find health insurance for just $20 a month?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/laurashin/2013/07/18/why-mcdonalds-employee-budget-has-everyone-up-in-arms/

The company is still tone deaf. As their workers are striking for a raise in the minimum wage, the company offered them -- instead -- advice on what to tip their pool cleaners, dog walkers, and masseuses.

http://www.salon.com/2013/12/09/get_a_clue_mcdonald%E2%80%99s_chain_tells_workers_how_much_to_tip_their_pool_cleaners_dog_walkers_and_masseuses/

I doubt that's a top priority for fast food workers this Christmas.

Grateful Deadline Posted - 12/9/2013 6:23:02 PM | show profile | flag this post

The only truly wacko thing in the McDonald's budget was $20 for health insurance. The second-wackiest for $750/month for spending money, with no mention at all of a line for groceries. The budget could work, but not with those line items as they were.

The thing is, though, what realistic minimum-wage worker expects to live like someone who earns more than minimum wage? This is as silly as the argument that fast-food companies control which foods their customers decide to order and slip past their gums.

Did you notice that the tips piece came from a content provider, not from McDonald's itself? The lesson in it for media: Here's an object lesson in a major problem caused by content providers' putting up companies' Web content.

FWIW, I have used a currency calculator to compare minimum wage/COL from when I worked fast food in college against minimum wage/COL today. There was not a significant difference, though today's worker came out a hair's-breadth ahead.

con Posted - 12/9/2013 11:59:29 PM | show profile | flag this post

who cares? these are just suggestions.

only a few workers are precipitating in the big labor sponsored strikes.

if fast food workers don't like what they make- they can find other work. obama's economy is booming don'tcha know.



etaoin shrdlu Posted - 12/10/2013 10:22:01 AM | show profile | flag this post

Typical tone-deaf response...

from one of our far right wing extremists here.

Point proven.

cruiser Posted - 12/10/2013 11:42:58 AM | show profile | flag this post

Most of America

is "out of touch with" and "tone deaf" to the crap the left wing fringe is trying to foist on the country.

You social engineers and just plain socialists...led by your tone deaf and out-of-touch president...think you've got all the answers. Hot tip: You don't.

etaoin shrdlu Posted - 12/10/2013 5:21:12 PM | show profile | flag this post

When you think...

that minimum wage workers -- or any other workers at your local McDonalds -- can afford "pool cleaners, dog walkers, and masseuses," then you, cruzo probably DO believe that the middle of the road American point of view IS "left wing fringe."

That's how tone-deaf you and the rest of your party has become on their long, sad trip to the far right of the political spectrum.

cruiser Posted - 12/10/2013 7:15:53 PM | show profile | flag this post

You're making assumptions

and you know what that means. What a fool.

etaoin shrdlu Posted - 12/10/2013 8:09:02 PM | show profile | flag this post

Then clear up those assumptions, cruzo...

do you agree that was a smart post from McDonalds -- or are they out of touch with their workers?

mpdodgson Posted - 12/10/2013 9:22:19 PM | show profile | flag this post

"obama's economy"??

Well thank you for agreeing things are better--not great by any means mind you--but better.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics just released the jobs report for November: 203,000 new jobs. The lowest unemployment rate (7%) since December 2008. That makes 45 straight months of job growth.

Gee. Anyone want to guess who was president in December of 2008?? Fine. We'll let it pass.

"tone deaf and out-of-touch president..." Really? I'd take a 41% approval rating over 9% anytime. You want "out-of-touch"? Look to Congress.

And, back on topic: A full-time minimum wage employee earns $15,080 annually. If you make that? You're welcome to my house this Christmas for dinner and presents for the kids. Email me. My beloved and I will make do just fine. If you make five or ten times that, and still begrudge these fellow Americans for protesting for a decent living wage? Go F yerself. And read some Dickens.

Grateful Deadline Posted - 12/10/2013 9:24:26 PM | show profile | flag this post

"'This is content provided by a third-party partner and quotes from one of the best-known etiquette gurus, Emily Post,' a McDonald's rep explained. 'We continue to review the resource and will ask the vendor to make changes as needed.'"

-- http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2013/12/06/newser-mcdonalds-fast-food-protest/3890393/

Oh, heck -- just keep scrapping, boys. It's more fun that reading the story.


cruiser Posted - 12/10/2013 10:54:31 PM | show profile | flag this post

"The Bureau of Labor Statistics just released

the jobs report for November..."

I notice you left wing fringers STILL are not reporting the labor force participation rates, which continue at their lowest levels in about 40 years. THAT is what artificially inflates the employment numbers.

But given Obama's ineptitude, I guess one has to manufacture good news if it cannot be found otherwise.

etaoin shrdlu Posted - 12/11/2013 9:35:23 AM | show profile | flag this post

Nope, cruzo...

the drop in the unemployment rate for November was ENTIRELY due to hiring -- not people leaving the labor force.

" The decline reflected a pickup in hiring rather than a shrinking labor force, which has pushed down the jobless rate in previous months. An estimated 455,000 people joined the job market in November."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/economy-added-203k-jobs-in-november-unemployment-down-to-7percent/2013/12/06/a183a50c-5dfa-11e3-bc56-c6ca94801fac_story.html

As far as the lowest percentage participation in the labor force -- maybe you missed the Baby Boom -- lots of horny couples getting together after WWII, lots of babies.

Those babies are now retiring. We're losing 10,000 people per day from the labor force -- simply because they've hit their retirement age. Are you saying people should be forced to work until they die, cruzo?

Couple that with a longer life expectancy, and you've got a growing demographic of retirees which is the demographic driving the workforce participation numbers.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/abrambrown/2012/03/02/baby-boomers-not-recession-lowering-labor-force-participation/


cruiser Posted - 12/11/2013 9:53:10 AM | show profile | flag this post

I don't give a rat's ass about

the November unemployment figure that's being touted by the administration. Tbat's not the problem. The FACT is the unemployment number is artificially depressed by the number of people who have dropped out of the labor force. If unemployment were reported ACCURATELY it would be well over ten percent. In fact, for November the REAL unemployment figure is 13.2 percent.

The discussion about spin in another thread the other day defined spin as facts modified with (partisan) perspective. Yours, however, doesn't start with facts. It's all partisan bullsh*t.

etaoin shrdlu Posted - 12/11/2013 11:39:02 AM | show profile | flag this post

Wow, cruzo...

for someone who complains about "reading comprehension" you sure didn't read a word I posted above!

I pointed out that the numbers no longer reflect people LEAVING the work force -- in fact, 450,000 more people ENTERED the workforce in November than left it.

And I also pointed out that the workforce participation percentage is being driven by planned retirements among baby boomers.

You are stuck repeating Romney '12 campaign talking points.

You might want to get up to date on 2013, while we still have a couple of weeks left!

etaoin shrdlu Posted - 12/11/2013 11:40:31 AM | show profile | flag this post

And, back on topic...

Cruzo, care to explain why corporate America and the right in general (based on con's post) think that McDonalds workers can even afford pool cleaners, dog walkers, and masseuses?

It sure sounds like you two believe that's just to be expected of them.

cruiser Posted - 12/11/2013 12:18:46 PM | show profile | flag this post

Take your non-pertinent crap to some elementary school

where the smallest students may...MAY...look at you with rapt attention while you spew your bullsh*t.

etaoin shrdlu Posted - 12/11/2013 2:52:11 PM | show profile | flag this post

I take it...

you think the McDonalds post on their company website is NOT tone-deaf, cruzo.

Thank you again for proving my point.

cruiser Posted - 12/11/2013 4:01:17 PM | show profile | flag this post

I made no mention of McDonalds whatever

You're making an ass out of u again.

etaoin shrdlu Posted - 12/12/2013 9:36:44 AM | show profile | flag this post

If you made no mention...

of McDonalds, cruzo -- why are you trying to change the subject.

This thread is specifically about McDonalds and it's tone-deaf post to its in-house website.

One more time:

--Remember how McDonalds had that whacko budget for their employees to follow? You know, when they also suggested they return Christmas presents to get cash to make ends meet, break their food into smaller pieces to make it look like they had bigger meals and assumed they could find health insurance for just $20 a month?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/laurashin/2013/07/18/why-mcdonalds-employee-budget-has-everyone-up-in-arms/

The company is still tone deaf. As their workers are striking for a raise in the minimum wage, the company offered them -- instead -- advice on what to tip their pool cleaners, dog walkers, and masseuses.

http://www.salon.com/2013/12/09/get_a_clue_mcdonald%E2%80%99s_chain_tells_workers_how_much_to_tip_their_pool_cleaners_dog_walkers_and_masseuses/

I doubt that's a top priority for fast food workers this Christmas.

cruiser Posted - 12/12/2013 2:05:28 PM | show profile | flag this post

Wrong...as usual

I was responding to mp's change of the subject. He brought up...incorrectly...the November job numbers. I corrected him.

Grateful Deadline Posted - 12/12/2013 2:18:08 PM | show profile | flag this post

Are you guys REALLY not dialed into how content-provision services work?

Or are you short of subjects for idiotic pissing matches and so have to sustain this one?

etaoin shrdlu Posted - 12/12/2013 4:16:38 PM | show profile | flag this post

Yes, I saw that, cruzo..

and I corrected you on your glaring error on the November unemployment figures. Remember -- or has your short term memory gone the way of your Constitutional "reading comprehension?"

mpdodgson Posted - 12/12/2013 9:51:09 PM | show profile | flag this post

cruise? You didn't "correct" anyone.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics released the jobs report for November, 203,000 new jobs. The lowest unemployment rate (7%) since December 2008. That makes 45 straight months of job growth.

Period. That's it. Suck it up. The country's not going to hell in a handbasket as you obviously wish. Administrations of both parties have used the same numbers from the same source for decades. But I'm sure, without a doubt, that if President Romney got Unemp down to 7%, you'd be be the first one here to call him a liar. Right.

cruiser Posted - 12/12/2013 10:40:27 PM | show profile | flag this post

As long as the labor force participation rate was

at a 40-year low, I seriously doubt a President Romney would be bragging about ANY unemployment percentage.

The people here need to be aware...if they are not...that the very low labor force participation rate artificially reduces the unemployment figure so that it doesn't appear to be as bad as it actually is.

And as long as Obama's labor department dishonestly disseminates those artificially reduced numbers I will continue to remind our readers that the actual unemployment rate is MUCH higher than the labor department...an Obama cabinet agency...is willing to admit.

etaoin shrdlu Posted - 12/13/2013 8:25:03 AM | show profile | flag this post

Yep, cruzo...

your short term memory is shot.

Again, the reason the work force participation level is at a 40 year low is due to longer life expectancies and the fact that 300,000 baby boomers are VOLUNTARILY leaving the workforce every month as they retire:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/abrambrown/2012/03/02/baby-boomers-not-recession-lowering-labor-force-participation/

That participation rate will be at a 50 year low in ten years -- regardless of who is President -- because EVEN MORE baby boomers will be retired.

The only way to raise that participation rate significantly is to kill off retirees and children.

Is that what you are advocating, cruzo?

Continuing to point to that number without putting into context is, to use your word, cruzo, "disingenuous."


1–25 out of 29 messages

 Post Reply    Back to Forums