Why dont americans unionize jobs such as McDonalds and Wal-Mart?

Question

Those companies make millions of dollars a year and could afford to pay their workers 20 dollars an hour and still make a profit without raising costs.

Answer 1

Actually, billions of dollars a year in profits. Wal-Mart (WMT) posted $11.39 Billion in net income (revenue - expenditure). And yes, there have been studies shown that if Wal-Mart brought it's wages back up to industry standard, they would still be a very profitable company.

However, unions are complicated and serve to differentiate workers from the general population, not serve the best interests of everyone. And, unions are not the right answer for low-skilled/low-wage earners. For instance, the reason why autoworkers have a powerful union is because Ford or Chevy can't just hire anyone off the street to build a car or operate machinery. Nor can Delta grab one if it's passengers out of first class and have them fly a 747. The more skilled and irreplaceable a worker, the more power unions have. Wal-Mart and McDonalds pay their workers hardly anything because they have developed a system to where just about anyone can be thrown into a Wal-Mart or McDonalds and have all the training they would need to be an effective employee in a day or so. Furthermore, there's less and less demand for low-skilled workers in today's global economy. Typical low-skilled jobs in manufacturing have headed overseas, and if you don't posses the skills in today's world to succeed, you're out of luck. Still, too many unskilled service jobs in the US remain underpaid. But is that fair to low-skilled American labor?

Unfortunately, I don't think it is. It was recently reported that the drop-out rate in Los Angeles area high schools was as high as 25%. While it's important to provide education for our nation's youngsters and propel them into workforce, children coming from well established backgrounds have a much, much better chance at succeeding. Conversely, kids that come from 'the other side of the tracks' have a much much lower chance at succeeding and do not proceed into adulthood with the skills they need to earn a respectable living. And to clarify respectable, I mean above the poverty line.

Getting back to your question, the primary fault for low wages at McDonalds and Wal-Mart are not those companies’ policies. They make the best possible financial decisions given the circumstances in which their business operates. And, if it was in Wal-Mart's best interests to pay workers more, they would. Management at Wal-Mart is paid very handsomely. In order to make a difference and pull our nation's poor out of poverty, the government needs to intervene by increasing the minimum wage and punish companies that employ illegal hiring practices. As it stands, the President and Congress would rather fill the coffers of American corporations with excess profits than provide help to those that need it the most: the working poor. Just recently, Congress struck down legislation that would raise the minimum wage providing no help to many Americans that are struggling to make ends meet.

How can we justify the minimum wage at $5.15 an hour?

Let's take for example a couple with no children -- the most financially stable and well off household classification -- working full time at minimum wage levels. Husband and wife combined would earn roughly $1600/mo.. For the sake of this example I am omitting any payroll taxes or other paycheck deductions. Our couple lives in a 1-bedroom apartment that rents with utilities for $600/mo.. That leaves the couple 1,000 to spend on food, clothing, medicine, and transportation - necessities in life. 2 people eat roughly 180 meals a month, and at $3.00 a meal it is $540. A montly bus pass in Los Angeles, and most major cities, is about $50/mo. per person, or $100/mo. for both. So far, our theoretical couple has spent $1,240 of their $1600 budget. That leaves $360 for health care, entertainment, clothing, household goods (toilet paper, soap, towels, TV), and retirement savings (even minimum wage earners aren't exempt from social security payments). Obvioulsy, $360 is not enough to cover all that. Throw in a child or a relative that is too old/sick to work, and it becomes a very very dire situation.

When basic needs aren’t met, the government has developed programs to help since the images of third world living conditions are not pleasant for Americans to see on CNN. Welfare programs provide food stamps, health care, housing subsistence, and other benefits to those most in need so they can survive. But these government programs cost money in the form of increased taxes that mostly affect the middle-class. Called "government handout programs" by Republicans, welfare is a social safety net that cost Americans over $600 billion/yr in 2005 (est. from 2001, before the economy tanked and 9/11 happened). Yet, it acts more as a way to subsidize low wages by companies that pay less than the real minimum wage (wage at which an employee would not need government assistance to survive). For instance, what if Wal-Mart paid every employee enough so that they could afford health care, or buy enough food to feed their families, or put enough money away so their children could develop the skills that they, as minimum wage earners, lack? Would that employee need medicaid? Would that person need section 8 housing? Obviously not.

So, let’s raise the minimum wage!

Conservatives recently rebutted this logic stating that an increase in the minimum wage would not help out the nation’s poor, since increasing the minimum wage would destroy American jobs. However, there is plenty of evidence to dispute this claim. Stated on Department of Health and Human Services government website in an article, “the conventional wisdom among economists has changed. It was generally held that increases in the minimum wage led to job loss among the low-wage workers it was supposed to protect. But now a growing body of empirical research has shown that this is not true, at least for increases of the magnitude implemented in the United States. The most recent 90-cent increase, for example, lifted the earnings of low-wage workers without leading to job losses”. You can find the link here: http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/lwlm99/bernhart.htm#Policy

Analyzing this data leads to some very serious concerns that need to be addressed by our elected officials in Washington. Since jobs have not been lost due to an increase in the minimum wage, a reasonable conclusion can be drawn that workers producing labor before the minimum wage increase were paid at a lower rate than their labor was worth. And after the wage increase, the value of low-wage labor was still either equal to, or greater than, the new minimum wage standard. Simply put, employers received a higher return (productivity) on labor than they were paying for in the form of wages. Otherwise, economic models would hold true and jobs at the minimum wage level would be lost. But why would workers work for less than they’re worth?

As stated before, low-wage workers benefit from government subsidies. Those subsidies, in addition to low wages, create a livable working situation for many people, even though it is nearly impossible to pull yourself out of poverty on a minimum wage job. However, without those subsidies things would be different. For instance, why would a person work 60 hours a week if they still couldn’t afford food and shelter? Companies, as a result, have little to no incentive to pay living wages when the government is willing to pick up the tab on essential survival items. In a fair market economy, there would be a shortage of labor at $5.15 an hour since no one could survive on it, and companies would have to increase that rate to a real minimum wage in order to attract workers.

Looking at minimizing the size of welfare is definitely an issue, but it provides no solutions. There are millions of Americans that lack basic necessities and need government support in order to survive. Shutting down government services to restore market equilibriums would result in rioting and a major disruption to our society. However, companies viciously take advantage of employees by not paying real wages and profit excessively from it if we leave the current system in place. Eventually, forcing the minimum wage up to a real living standard provides the most coherent solution to our nation’s problems.

Answer 2

first, you cant unionize an individual company. you can unionize an industry like "food service workers" or "steel workers" etc.
Second, America is the Land of the Free and the Home of the immigrant that will happily do the job for Half of what the Stoopid American wants to be payed. So Mickey D's and Wally World higher the (I don't give a F**k about citizens rights) people. Big business has us over a barrel. As long as people from other countries are willing to cut there own throats to make a buck there is nothing we can do.

Answer 3

The bottom line is that Unions are not healthy for employees. You have to pay union dues, and there are some prettyy lame regulations with unions. Such as, only people in certain positions may perform certain tasks. It really is ludicrous to have a union. Yes you may make more per hour, but it goes straight to your dues. What is the point???? The benefits packages in retail are pretty good these days, without unions. Unions are quickly becoming a thing of the past.

Answer 4

Most of the employees at these places are considered part-time or temporary employees.
As such, working at near minimum wages, they need all the money they can make. They would not be willing to pay out extra for union dues. The companies on the other hand are generally anti union, and can easily replace anyone who appears to be a troublemaker, and ban them from entering their workplaces, or making contact with their employees.

Answer 5

wal-mart and mcds went to a union format the price of things would skyrocket and they would put them out of buisness.. Unions work in some things and not others.. example I live in a mid-west state I can buy a bottle of shampoo for 3 bucks when i went to cali 1 year ago it was 6 dollars there. the store there was a union store, the store here isnt.. if they unionized walmarts they wouldnt be able to keep there low prices like they do. and the non unions would get more buisness. Seen it happen as a local grocery store just went out of buisness and was a union store. now there are no local union grocery store in are area.

Answer 6

Unions began when working conditions were unbearable and served a purpose during the industrial revolution. Now they are corrupt and additional buearacracy. What is the skill set that an individual has that they should earn $20/hour to make a hamburger? or operate a cash register? where the register even does the third grade math to determine how much change the customer should get. People should always stride to improve their skills to make a living wage, not expect corporate welfare.

Answer 7

Unions are a directorship they force the members to donate part of dues to political causes that are not the members. The union bosses live like millionaires and are Mafia type, good vacations bonus a bunch of crooks. The union membership is dropping every year why? its the greed of the unions. How come big companies can't pay pensions, health care to retirees? Greed! they made the companies default

Answer 8

Americans are stupid and uneducated to understand the benefits of a union. Maybe not stupid but brainwashed by the corporate media to believe that working like a slave for slave wages is a good thing. Oh well if people don't want to join a union then suffer with poor pay and no benefits.

Answer 9

What does this have to do with world cup?

To answer your question:

The people working at these places dont posess the education or business experience to warrant that type of pay.
These jobs are minimum wage jobs.
The purpose of unionizing is not to get more money, but to ensure that these employees are provided with affordable healthcare coverage.

Answer 10

I dont believe theyre eligible for unions. Some companies require that you sign off on never joining or starting a workers union or you can face termination.

Answer 11

Very easy. Companies like Walmart and McDonalds are hugely opposed to Unions. If one ever formed they would simply fire everyone involved.

There will always be enough people to staff their businesses that are willing to forego a Union.