Reply to: "Fast-food staff arrested after striking"

Discussion
1

Hello all,

Metro US is a free, "honor-box" tabloid that's published in New York, Philadelphia and Boston. I get the New York edition. Anyhow, I wrote a letter to the editor to reply to the item in the above subject line that was published on page 2 of the Sept 5-7 edition. You can find it here: http://www.metro.us/newyork/

Though I'm uncertain whether my letter will be published, I think you can appreciate my salient points. The text follows:

Dear Editor:

In your report about the "More than 30 fast-food workers" who were arrested "after walking out of their jobs and striking at two McDonald's locations," it should be understood that while these workers "demand[ed] a $15 minimum wage and the right to unionize," these workers are NOT union members and don't have a right to strike.

What should also be understood is that unless a "demand" is met, there is always an implicit or explicit "or else" (especially during union "negotiations"). What can this "or else" be for these workers?

Since these workers aren't union members (yet), they can't (quasi-legally) bust heads of replacement workers or destroy their employers' property or other "fun" stuff. But they can: spit in the foods they prepare; "forget" to wash their hands after visiting rest rooms; dilatorily perform their tasks; regularly confront their managers; and cause general workplace unpleasantness.

But if McDonald's and other fast food providers give in to the $15 minimum wage "demand" ($15 is the "entry level" demand as higher demands will soon follow), customers MUST pay higher prices. Also, since fast food businesses have high employee turnover rates, managers will then be reluctant to hire replacements, so customers will also pay in terms of longer waiting times. Then, with higher prices and more inconvenience, these businesses will have less customers and revenue, which will lead to layoffs and even closings.

Still, in the interest of "social justice" and "income equality," these workers MUST have their demands for a minimum $15 wage and the right to unionize met . . . or else. (And it's a good thing Attorney General Eric Schneiderman will "stand up for workers' rights.")

Thank you for your attention.

And thanks for reading.

Alton

2

Alton,

  What jumps out at me here is the claim that non-unionized workers don't have the right to strike. Are you talking about the legal right, or the moral right? It seems clear enough in libertarian terms that they have the right to strike, and management has the right to fire them.

  But should the public support the strike? That's a more difficult question. Personally, so as long as the cause is market and social pressure and not something like government taxes on sodas, the prospect of fast food becoming more expensive doesn't bother me much -- I rarely ever eat it, I don't think it's healthy, and to the extent it's made of factory farmed animals, I consider it an ethical abomination. However the potential loss of entry-level jobs is somewhat more troubling, and I realize poor people do often rely on the affordability of such food and other low-cost products.

  Ideally, I would like to see an alliance between labor and consumers to pressure big employers to raise the salaries of the lowest paid workers at the expense of top management salaries, *without* raising prices or cutting jobs. Such a movement would constitute a libertarian approach to reducing social inequity without involving the coercive power of government.

Love & Liberty,
                                 ((( starchild )))

3

Here is a quote from the LA Times:

"Fanny Velazquez, 36, said she was participating in the protest to fight
for better wages to support her family. A single mother with three
children, ages 11, 14 and 16, she said she struggles to make her
$9.34-an-hour pay cover all the bills."

Now, how many people would love to have that $9.34 an hour job that she has?

Sam Sloan