This week, California fast food workers got a raise — to $20 an hour. Now, that probably sounds like a lot to some people, given that the federal minimum wage, which has not been raised in over a decade, is $7.25. But even in the poorest parts of the state, even $20 an hour is still not a living wage.
Still, it’s a huge deal. It means that a lot of people will be able to breathe a little easier, worry a little less about how they’re going to make rent or pay for groceries.
Unsurprisingly, the franchise owners — who knew this was coming — are not very happy. Some of them are raging all over the place, making media appearances talking about how hard this is going to be on them — though probably not so hard that they will be left wondering if they can pay for rent or groceries.
“We have looked at price, although I can’t charge $20 for a Happy Meal,” Scott Rodrick, the owner of 18 McDonald’s restaurants in Northern California, told CNN. “My customers’ appetite to absorb menu-board prices is not unlimited.” […]
Some restaurants are slashing labor, too, by reducing how many hours their staff work or even laying some off. But Rodrick told CNN that rather than cutting back on labor, he would expand his delivery operations and postpone major investments, like updating dining rooms and buying new grills.
Call me crazy, but I actually think it’s probably okay that they put paying their workers ahead of updating their dining room. There’s such a thing as triage, and if your employees are not coming before new booths, that’s a problem.
“We are in this fight because workers are worth more and our families deserve better than poverty wages,” Angelica Hernandez, a cook trainer at McDonald’s who sits on the Fast Food Council, said at a press conference on Monday. Her comments were translated from Spanish.
“Even though we are the engine of a billion-dollar industry, too many of us struggle to keep up with rent, our bills and the rising cost of living,” Hernandez said.
People who own brick and mortar businesses are aware that they are going to pay more or less money for those businesses depending on the location. We all learned from Monopoly that it costs more to be on Boardwalk than on Connecticut Avenue. By that same token (pun not intended), employees are also going to cost you more in certain areas, because you have to pay them enough to live in that area.
You don’t see anyone complaining that the cost of rent or real estate in a given area is “hurting small businesses” — because it is just considered a given that landlords would charge the highest possible rent they can get. Just like it’s considered a given that a franchise owner would want the most profit for themselves. Somehow it’s only considered unreasonable when poor people want to be able to make enough from their employers to pay their landlords. I am starting to think that this might just be a thing that rich people ought to work out among themselves.
Perhaps, if business owners don’t want to have to pay their employees “so much” money to work for them, the people they should be going on TV and complaining about are those who are increasing the cost of living for their employees — rather than the employees who are just trying to live.
PREVIOUSLY: