"Official Restaurant" of the Olympics pays $6.35 per hour in Vancouver

38 posts / 0 new
Last post
Michelle
"Official Restaurant" of the Olympics pays $6.35 per hour in Vancouver

This is disgusting.  McDonald's is taking advantage of B.C.'s "training wage" for new workers and immigrants (note: wtf, BC? you let employers legally discriminate against immigrants?) and paying their workers $6.35 per hour instead of the regular minimum wage of $8 per hour.  One of the richest corporations on the planet.

Just for comparison purposes:

When I left high school in 1990, I get a full time, minimum wage job at a bakery for $6.00 per hour.  Two decades ago.  By 1994, when I left that job, minimum wage had gone up, and I was making $6.50 per hour at minimum wage.

So, 16 years ago, my minimum wage job paid MORE than those fuckers at McDonald's are paying immigrants and "new workers" NOW.

SHAME.

Issues Pages: 
Kaspar Hauser

Yell

radiorahim radiorahim's picture

Of course, can't forget the $1.2 billion in profits that McDonald's made last year...a corporate empire built on cheap labour.   In fact it was because of them that the word "McJob" entered the Oxford English dictionary.   Wonder if they're proud of that?

Michelle

Oh, probably.  They're shameless.  They probably figure they're doing people a favour by giving them some shit job to put on their resume so they can get enough experience to climb to some other shit job.

Thomas Gallowglass

I do not understand this 'new worker and immigrant' aspect...while it 'might' be reasonable to assume that a new worker needs training before they are effective, upon what is the assumption that an immigrant falls into the same grouping? Would this apply to me if I moved to Vancouver?

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Apparently, the Olympic motto is "Obey Big Clown!"

(the greatest irony is, of course, that it would be almost impossible to be in any condition to participate in the Winter Games if you ate at McDonald's on anything like a regular basis.  You'd have pot-bellied speed skaters doubling over at the starting line with chest pains.)

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Someone ought to organise a boycott of McD's.

NDPP

Why $6.35 an hour? Here's one reason:

Where Is The Union Movement In The Olympic Resistance?

http://mostlywater.org/canada_where_are_unions_antiolympics_protests

"It's time for someone to mention the elephant that's not in the room.

The room would be today's British Columbia, where local and imported rich folks are enjoying an 8-billion-dollar, taxpayer funded party...

Where the hell is labour in the anti-Olympic protests in Vancouver? The utter absence, not only of the movement's formal leadership, but also of any visible sector of its hundreds of thousands of members has to be a source of elation to the greed-heads who have pillaged this province for the past ten years...

A few of us have decided to protest, hopefully disrupt, the circus. Many, getting accustomed to the other side winning, just throw up their hands in resignation..

No overt opposition to the bid seven years ago amounted, in practice, to tacit support for the entirely predictable looting of the public treasury and related attacks on many British Columbians, including many union members.

No overt union opposition now, no alliance with Native people and anti-poverty activists, equals support for the obscene circus. And it bodes ill for the unions' abilities to defend their members (or anyone else).."

and here's another:

'how to ruthlessly exploit a global spectacle'

http://thetyee.ca/News/2010/02/05/OlympicsWellWorthIt/

delibeast

Michelle wrote:

This is disgusting.  McDonald's is taking advantage of B.C.'s "training wage" for new workers and immigrants (note: wtf, BC? you let employers legally discriminate against immigrants?) and paying their workers $6.35 per hour instead of the regular minimum wage of $8 per hour.  One of the richest corporations on the planet.

Just for comparison purposes:

When I left high school in 1990, I get a full time, minimum wage job at a bakery for $6.00 per hour.  Two decades ago.  By 1994, when I left that job, minimum wage had gone up, and I was making $6.50 per hour at minimum wage.

So, 16 years ago, my minimum wage job paid MORE than those fuckers at McDonald's are paying immigrants and "new workers" NOW.

SHAME.

delibeast

it is disgusting when will bigger company start paying people what there worth.......

Snert Snert's picture

So the real issue is McDonalds, for not choosing to altruistically pay employees more than they have to?  Because I would think it's the province, for setting a legal minimum wage so low, and for targetting young employees and immigrants.

If I see a car driving 60km/h down my street, and I think that's too fast, I'm not going to blame the driver if the posted speed limit is, in fact, 60km/h. 

 

remind remind's picture

Nonsense  analogy example snert, Gordo changed the labour laws as payment for CoC and corporate support in getting elected.

 

It is shameful people  have not fought it more than they have....

 

It is even more shameful for MacDonald's, but given who and what they are little else would be expected....

Snert Snert's picture

Quote:

It is even more shameful for MacDonald's, but given who and what they are little else would be expected....

 

Hehe. It's nice how, even as you admit you expect nothing more of them, you still manage to sneak in that tiny little bit of surprise anyway.

 

Ya, I'm shocked any time a corporation doesn't voluntarily choose to pay more for labour (or anything else) than they have to. Where's the love?

p-sto

I doubt that McDonalds has much inclination to evaluate what would be a fair wage in each area that it operates in.  You could probably consider the inadequate wages as a symptom of the disfunctional nature of how McDonalds manages itself.  I'm inclined to side closer to Snert on this one.  It seems to be more reasonable to expect the regional goverment to establish fair labour laws than to expect a large corporation like McDonalds to be sufficiently engaged with its employees to pay them appropriately.

1weasel

You also have 7048467 Canada, which is the legal name of the broadcast consortium, that file last September for an Excess Hours Permit so they could evade Section 176 of the Canada Labour Code. If deemed vital for Olympic coverage, a worker would expect to be available for 7 days a week with 10-12 hours per day.

j.m.

Snert wrote:

So the real issue is McDonalds, for not choosing to altruistically pay employees more than they have to?  Because I would think it's the province, for setting a legal minimum wage so low, and for targetting young employees and immigrants.

If I see a car driving 60km/h down my street, and I think that's too fast, I'm not going to blame the driver if the posted speed limit is, in fact, 60km/h. 

 

...Surely McDonalds and other corporations that need unfavourable labour conditions are willing to stay out of governmental affairs all together, and are just neutrally accepting and applying the rules...

 

Snert Snert's picture

Are you suggesting that perhaps they sent The Clown to lobby the government for a low minimum wage?  Maybe they did.  That's what corporations do sometimes; they look out for their own interests.

But the government is supposed to be accountable to the electorate.  If they weren't, the blame still lies with them.

In my experience, socialists and other left wing types usually look for broader, social solutions to problems (like, say, raising the minimum wage and abolishing a 'training wage') but in this case the focus seems to be on McDonald's, and why they won't, out of the goodness of the heart nobody believes they have, voluntarily pay more.  I find this fascinating.  Why change the laws to benefit all young and immigrant workers, when we can just drop a guilt trip on McDonald's instead.  Excellent solution!

j.m.

Snert wrote:

That's what corporations do sometimes; they look out for their own interests.

But the government is supposed to be accountable to the electorate.  If they weren't, the blame still lies with them.

In my experience, socialists and other left wing types usually look for broader, social solutions to problems (like, say, raising the minimum wage and abolishing a 'training wage') but in this case the focus seems to be on McDonald's, and why they won't, out of the goodness of the heart nobody believes they have, voluntarily pay more.  I find this fascinating.  Why change the laws to benefit all young and immigrant workers, when we can just drop a guilt trip on McDonald's instead.  Excellent solution!

Sometimes? And the rest of the time they're hand-wringing about how to make labour better off? Being altruistic by drilling wells in Africa?

If you really believe that "left wing types and socialists" think only about McDonalds you are truly mistaken. They are one of the most visible companies and notorious for their labour practices and something people can rally around as they are ubiquitious. This isn't just about McDonalds.

 

As for nobody believing McDonald's has a heart, what do you think an institution is - a human being? Can you reason with an institution on matters of social justice when its main goal is to reproduce itself?

Snert Snert's picture

Quote:
Sometimes? And the rest of the time they're hand-wringing about how to make labour better off? Being altruistic by drilling wells in Africa?

 

Well, really, not at all. But everyone seemed to want to hold on to the belief that corporations are motivated by altruism, and I didn't want to just step on that with both feet.

 

But you're right of course; corporations look out for their own interests. Government is supposed to look out for the interests of the rest of us.

 

Quote:
As for nobody believing McDonald's has a heart, what do you think an institution is - a human being? Can you reason with an institution on matters of social justice when its main goal is to reproduce itself?

 

Nope, I guess you can't. So the best bet would be to look to the government to change that minimum wage, ya?

remind remind's picture

Nonsense snert, my parents owned  businesses while I was growing up, and they by no means paid their seasonal employees minimum even, they paid far far above it, and even now 40+ years after 1967's cross Canada  migration to Expo 67, they even paid their employees above what "training employees" are being paid today in BC.

 

You see what it takes, and what you fail to get, is *heart* that is lacking the essences of greed and sociopathic privilege.

j.m.

Snert wrote:

Nope, I guess you can't. So the best bet would be to look to the government to change that minimum wage, ya?

That's the most reactive idea ever. But if government is to serve the people - as you claim is their job - why don't we go a little further and punish corporations for exploiting labour?

 

Snert Snert's picture

Quote:

Nonsense snert, my parents owned  businesses while I was growing up, and they by no means paid their seasonal employees minimum even, they paid far far above it, and even now 40+ years after 1967's cross Canada  migration to Expo 67, they even paid their employees above what "training employees" are being paid today in BC.

 

That's nice of them, but that's altruism. They chose to do so. McDonald's has chosen not to. I'm suggesting that a higher minimum wage might do a better job of motivating McDonalds (and any other employer paying the training wage) to pay more than a guilt trip would. They're paying employees exactly what the government says they can.

 

Quote:
But if government is to serve the people - as you claim is their job - why don't we go a little further and punish corporations for exploiting labour?

 

Well that would be rich. The government should punish them for paying exactly what the government says they can pay them??

 

I'll return to my speed limit analogy. That would be like a cop pulling me over for doing 100km/h in a 100km/h zone, on the grounds that I'm speeding!!

 

As I see it, it's the government that sets these standards, whether it's minimum wage or the speed limit. If these standards aren't satisfactory, it's up to the government to change them. It makes no sense for the government to set a speed limit of 100km/h, and then say "Oh, well, we really expected you to only drive 80, so if you drive 100 we'll punish you". That just doesn't make sense.

remind remind's picture

The government imposed the training wage as to what was exactly  was demanded of them to do,  by the corporations who put them in power...your complete ignorant ignoring of corporate controlled government and calm acceptance and support of that sociopathic behaviour indicates again why you are a piece of .....work in digression.

 

Always wondered what it felt like to be in Germany in the lead up to Hitlers full out control, and have found one should be careful about what one wonders for...

conrad yablonski

Look at how many few people voted in the provincial election here, it's Apathy Central/Devil Take The Hindmost City.

remind remind's picture

people just can't be bothered with dealing with the likes of snert types, so they ignore and they will continue to ignore until they can no longer do so.....

 

It is really not their fault I have come to believe, it is like blamming the victim, and ignoring the perps.

 

Some people just do not have the constitution to tell it like it is and so avoid at all costs.

Slumberjack

remind wrote:
...your complete ignorant ignoring of corporate controlled government and calm acceptance and support of that sociopathic behaviour indicates again why you are a piece of .....work in digression. 

Laughing

Lou Arab Lou Arab's picture

The government is to blame for sure, but McDonalds isn't blameless either.  When I was a wee lad, I earned $5.25/hour washing dishes at the Sheraton Hotel in Halifax, two dollars higher than the minimum wage at the time.  The Sheraton didn't have to pay me that much (god knows there was no union fighting for me) but they chose to anyway.  McDonalds could also.  BCers will correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe many companies ignore the 'training wage.'  And with or without the training wage, they still set their own wage rates.  McDonalds had to pay higher than minimum in many Alberta locations last year due to the boom, and their inability to attract staff at the Alberta minimum wage.  Strangely, paying higher wages didn't break them.

On a different note, and this is second hand info, so don't take it to the bank - but someone I know told me she was good friends with the chef at the Aboriginal Pavillion at the Olympics.  He got his hand slapped for serving a buffalo 'burger' because McDonalds had the rights to serve the official 'burger' at the Olympics.  The chef had to change the name of the dish to a sandwich or something.  It's amazing to me that such a big company can be so petty.

 

Snert Snert's picture

Quote:
The government imposed the training wage as to what was exactly  was demanded of them to do,  by the corporations who put them in power

Riiight.  Of course.

It wasn't that they won the most ridings or anything like that.  It was Ronald McDonald, issuing orders to the puppet government like some kind of Godfather.

The final vote tally was, of course, rigged at the order of Ronald, wasn't it, Remind?  LOL!!  I shouldn't laugh at your paranoias, but I can't help it.
Congrats on the Godwin, though.  I bet this is just EXACTLY like Nazi Germany!  Laughing

bagkitty bagkitty's picture

Well chime me in as surprised that the law governing a so-called "training wage" allows McDonalds to consider their staff to be in training for much more than a shift or two. Even with the most charitable interpretation I can muster (and I can't muster a lot), I can't conceive of such a law applying after the basic skills required for the job are mastered.

On a drifty note, and thinking about the ongoing debate about tactics elsewhere on the board, if "smashy smashy" had been directed towards McDonalds, and information about the abhorrent wage practices was wide-spread, I wonder if the tactic might be viewed in a more kindly light?

yarg

I for one am tired of this corporate regime, this is another example of continuing tyrannical rule by the Burger king.  MacDonalds is a mere pawn in his terrible war against socialism.

Summer

 

Snert and the others are both right.  It's not a mutually exclusive thing.  People can try to change the law AND shame the company.  Why set up a false dichotomy?

I believe the following:

1.  Corporations do not have hearts or souls. 

2.  Corporations have a responsibility to their shareholders to maximize profits.

3.  Corporations have a responsibility to their employees and the public to follow government laws and regulations.

4.  Governments have a responsibility to make laws to protect the people.

5.  Government intervention to create laws is necessary because of points 1 and 2.  Corporations will not necessarily "do the right thing" if they do not have to.   

6.  Corporations can increase revenue through branding, advertising, gestures of good will and otherwise increasing their corporate profile.

7.  Corporations can lose revenue through negative publicity, including for example, claims that they exploit workers or have low quality products or services.

8.  Corporations may choose to pay their employees more than minimum wage because of, inter alia, supply and demand or recognition that minimum wage is not a living wage.

9.  If there is a ready stream of workers willing to work for minimum wage/training wage, a corporation will generally not be inclined to pay more than that.

10.  The more far removed a corporation's principals are from its workers, the less likely that a corporation will decide to increase salary/improve conditions for altruistic reasons.

Focussing on a large well-known corporation like McDonalds can help get McDonalds' employees raises. (Although, it's unlikely in this circumstance - I think a cost-benefit analysis would show that it will cost more to raise wage than McDonalds is likely to lose from bad publicity.)  It can also prompt the government to look into its minimum wage laws so that all minimum wage employees get a raise. 

Fidel

remind wrote:
Always wondered what it felt like to be in Germany in the lead up to Hitlers full out control, and have found one should be careful about what one wonders for...

We should only be worried when the government starts buying large blocks of tourist class one-way train tickets from a handful of German railroad magnates.  Unless it happens exactly like it did before in exactly the same way in the exact same country, there should be no need to worry. We have to have faith in private enterprise as well as our bought and paid-for squawkers in Ottawa.

Democracy is the merger of state and corporate power. - herr Harper

remind remind's picture

Nonsense snert, take your paranoid smears and shove them into your digression pond, I  was there on the when and where as the CoC's deliberated upon lobbying (of course it really wasn't lobbying, as they were not yet the government, so actually I consider it more a discussion surrounding the ways and means in respect to loyal support) for a "training wage" as part of their 'support' for Gordo et al....

You see the trouble with people like you calling paranoia, or actually for you, not so much for me, is that you really have no  legs to stand on and merely make yourself look ridiculous, and of course details how you are an enabler of sociopaths and sociopathic thpought and action.

 

1. I do not give a shit about your armchair psychiatry labels that are purely propaganda devices.

 

....and from that position, not much matters after that, at least enough to be stated, not even my life experiences that puts lie to your labelling propaganda device.

 

Summer, corporations do not have to be what they are, it is a choice of the shareholders and their sociopathic notions of privilege.

Snert Snert's picture

Quote:
You see the trouble with people like you calling paranoia, or actually for you, not so much for me, is that you really have no  legs to stand on and merely make yourself look ridiculous

Ok, wait for it...
Quote:
and of course details how you are an enabler of sociopaths and sociopathic thpought and action.

There we go. By suggesting that the government is responsible for a too-low minimum wage, I'm enabling sociopathic thought and action.
Excellent. Nothing paranoid there.

Summer

remind wrote:

Summer, corporations do not have to be what they are, it is a choice of the shareholders and their sociopathic notions of privilege 

 

 

I'd like to pick up on this comment.   I would argue that within our system, corporations do have to be way they are.  My understanding of how they are is at points 1-3 and 8 and 9 of my other post.   

The 10 points above are, IMV, reflective of the capitalist framework we are working in.  Some people want to change the framework - i.e. to communism.  My comments are not meant to defend the framework but to say this is what we've got, now let's deal with it.     There will always be exceptions to the rule.  I submit that an employer who decides to pay more than minimum wage when he doesn't have to is the exception.  Small business owners who care about their employees are not the same as corporations whose principals don't even know their employees.  If McDonalds chooses to pay more than it has to, its salary expenses will go up and profits will likely go down (as will dividnds) Investors (aka shareholders) will decide to invest in another company that is perceived to be maximizing profits.  Some investors may decide to stick around with McDonalds who is doing the right thing, but most won't.  Is this sociopathic? I'll leave that for someone else to say. 

Libertarians, I believe, favour little to no government involvement and there are arguments that the free market and the invisible hand will work things out eventually.  We've seen how that's been working.  I think gov't involvement is necessary.   I think we have to be careful about blaming a corporation as if it has some form of conscience and will feel bad about its choices.  It doesn't.  It won't.  Let's blame a corporation to effect legislative change - to get the government to sit up and take notice.

Sure, corporations are made up of people, but people can be greedy too. Is it sociopathic to be greedy?   People have an incredible ability to justify their own shortcomings.  A sociopath wouldn't justify his greed because he wouldn't feel the need to.  A non-sociopath could justify her greed to make herself feel better.  It doesn't make it right, but it doesn't make it sociopathic. 

 

 

Fidel

Snert wrote:
There we go. By suggesting that the government is responsible for a too-low minimum wage, I'm enabling sociopathic thought and action.

Yes-yes! Provincial governments should be free to challenge the corporatocracy made powerful under the neoliberalorama but not federal government! In Ottawa, impotence and stoogery rule! Snert is public-minded socialist, we can tell.

Fidel

Corporations can never make enough profit for the trickle-down voodoo to work, and especially here in Bananada. It's a generally accepted rule of thumb that government and property-owning democracy are two generally incompatible themes. If previously massive corporate tax cuts haven't worked for job creation and growth worth a darn, then more should do the trick. More tax cuts and more dregulation equals democracy. Because fewer rules and responsibilities for the corporatocracy means better times ahead for all.  DAY-O!

KeyStone

"This is disgusting.  McDonald's is taking advantage of B.C.'s "training wage" for new workers and immigrants (note: wtf, BC? you let employers legally discriminate against immigrants?) and paying their workers $6.35 per hour instead of the regular minimum wage of $8 per hour.  One of the richest corporations on the planet."

Well, the training wage minimum is $6, so they are paying more than that.
Also, they can only pay the training wage for six months, and then they have to pay the regular minimum wage.

Mcdonald's model for success has always relied on paying low wages, and offering low prices, so they aren't likely to be paying much more than they have to. While the low wage stinks, Mcdonalds has always been good for offering people a first job, either high school students or new immigrants.

Incidentally, when Joan Kroc died, she willed $200 million to National Public Radio, as well as all sorts of other donations to organizations fighting for world peace.

I can't really fault Mcdonalds for offering jobs to people that nobody else will hire, even if it means their wage is lower than what they might like. For many of these people, the alternative is to work at volunteer jobs for six months to learn the skills and develop a resume to get a better job. Why don't these exploited workers just leave and get a job that pays eight or ten bucks an hour? They can't because no one will give them a chance.

The two-tiered minimum wage was designed to help industries like Fast Food that rely heavily on students and low wages. It's a shame that immigrants are getting lumped in as well, particularly when they probably have years of experience in their former homeland. I'm not sure if Mcdonalds treats all immigrants the same, or if they only give the training wage to new Canaidans who can't speak English well, and who they have to invest considerable time training.

"When I left high school in 1990, I get a full time, minimum wage job at a bakery for $6.00 per hour.  Two decades ago.  By 1994, when I left that job, minimum wage had gone up, and I was making $6.50 per hour at minimum wage. So, 16 years ago, my minimum wage job paid MORE than those fuckers at McDonald's are paying immigrants and "new workers" NOW."

The problem here is not Mcdonalds. The problem here is that minimum wage has stagnated, as globalization pressures everyone into 'being competitive' by keeping wages, benefits and taxes low. Canada has not been moving forward for some time.