McDonald's advises own employee to apply for food stamps


Omicron
+1
#1
McDonalds is using government subsidies like food stamps and Medicaid to maximize its bottom line.



--


The burgeoning battle between fast-food workers and their employers over low wages and benefits was ratcheted up a notch this week with the leak of a phone conversation from a McDonald’s employee helpline in which a longtime employee was advised to go on food stamps in order to make ends meet.


Fast-food employee advocacy group Low Pay Is Not OK posted a video on its website on Wednesday featuring a recording of a phone call made by McDonald’s employee Nancy Salgado to McResource, a phone line for McDonald’s employees to call for information about housing, child care and other resources.


Salgado, 27, a single mother of two children, has worked full-time at McDonald’s for the last decade but says she has never received a raise from her $8.25 an hour salary, the minimum wage in Chicago, where she lives.


She was having difficulty paying her bills and feeding her kids, so when she heard about the McResource phone line at a recent meeting with her fellow employees, “it caught my attention,” she told Al Jazeera in a phone interview. “I need help, so I wanted to see what kind of help they can provide for me.”


Salgado said she wanted to record the phone call – she disclosed this to the representative who answered her call, who said that was fine – and asked about how she might obtain medical benefits or get help paying her heating bill. She also told the representative, who asked whether Salgado had children, that she was “rationing food” in order to feed her kids.


The representative offered to connect Salgado with a number of federal benefit programs for which she was eligible, including Medicaid, a medical care program for low-income adults and their kids, and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), otherwise known as food stamps.


Salgado said she was surprised the company advised her to seek government benefits, and didn’t address her current salary or benefits situation. “I feel very angry. I wasn’t expecting to get the number for government assistance,” she said. “I was expecting they’d give me some other kind of answer.”


She added, “I believe that I work for one of the richest companies that can afford to pay better wages to their workers.”
McDonald’s, for its part, told Al Jazeera in an email message that “this video is not an accurate portrayal of the resource line as this is very obviously an edited video.”


Salgado emphatically denied that the call was edited. “That’s what I did, and those are the answers I got,” she said.
Al Jazeera was sent an audio file of what appears to be the full recording of Salgado's 15-minute phone conversation with the McResource line. While the video posted by Low Pay Is Not OK is only two minutes long and contains only short audio excerpts of that call, the main points of the phone conversation did not appear to have been misrepresented.


During the call, the help line operator tells Salgado that franchises must pay a fee for their employees to be able to use the McResource line.


“None of the restaurants that are franchised in Chicago are on [the McResource line],” the representative said. “Because of that, we don’t provide a service to employees of restaurants that aren’t signed on. We’re just so busy with people where the restaurants have paid to be part of the service."


Instead, she offered to email Salgado the contact information for federal benefit programs and apologized that -- because the franchise by which she was employed was not signed onto the McResource line -- she couldn't sign Selgado up for the benefits herself. “We can do a lot of the legwork that takes a lot of the stress off you, making a million phone calls trying to find services," the rep said.


Recent research has found that more than half of the employees of the nation's fast-food companies require public assistance to make ends meet, at an annual cost of between $3 and $7 billion to the U.S. taxpayer.


When asked whether McDonald’s requires franchises to pay for the McResource service, the company did not directly address the question, and simply wrote in an email: “The fact is that the McResource Line is intended to be a free, confidential service to help employees and their families get answers to a variety of questions or provide resources on a variety of topics including housing, child care, transportation, grief, elder care, education and more.”


Asked whether Salgado should receive a raise or health benefits, McDonald’s wrote: “McDonald’s and our independent franchisees provide jobs in every state to hundreds of thousands of people across the country. Those jobs range from entry-level part-time to full-time, from minimum wage to salaried positions, and we offer everyone the same opportunity for advancement.”

Falling behind


Low wages in the fast-food industry are nothing new. Front-line fast-food workers earn a median hourly wage of $8.94, according to the National Employment Law Project (PDF). Those front-line positions make up 89.1 percent of all the jobs in the industry. And the Center for Economic Policy Research says that fast-food workers make less than the federal minimum wage of $7.25, and more than 25 percent are raising at least one child.


But the need to seek government assistance to supplement their wages hits fast-food workers particularly hard.
“It’s not that these workers are not working enough, because the problem doesn’t go away even when they’re out working full time,” said Sylvia Allegretto, a labor economist and co-chair of the Center on Wage and Employment Dynamics at the University of California – Berkeley.


In fact, Allegretto and a group of labor economists from U.C. Berkeley and the University of Illinois at Champaign-Urbana released a report earlier this month (PDF) in which they found that 52 percent of fast-food workers rely on public assistance. That’s compared with 25 percent of the rest of the population.


Those supplemental benefits for fast-food workers cost the government about $7 billion annually, according to the report, which Allegretto called “a conservative estimate.”


Fast-food workers, for their part, have increasingly started speaking out about their low wages. The fast-food employee union Fast Food Forward organized a protest of around 200 employees in the New York City area last November, which inspired a day of coordinated strikes in more than 60 cities nationwide on Aug. 29.


In response to those strikes, Scott DeFife, vice president of policy and government affairs at the National Restaurant Group, released a statement saying that the protests were “a coordinated campaign engineered by labor organizations and partisan groups to attack our industry and for their own political and financial gain.”


Allegretto said fast-food companies like McDonald’s routinely argue that profit margins at their franchisees are too narrow to afford raises for their employees, but that in reality, the corporation could just charge its franchisees a little less so they’d be able to pay their employees more.


“This idea that somehow they can’t afford to pay more seems a little bit ludicrous in light of their profits," she said. “Somehow when it comes to this issue (wages), they separate themselves from their franchisees, but they control everything that the franchisees do.”
The scenario could worsen next week when the boost to SNAP benefits from the 2009 Recovery Act run out on Nov. 1. The House of Representatives recently voted to cut $49 billion from the program over the next 10 years, which would cause millions of people to lose their benefits, though the Senate hasn’t yet approved the plan.


The fact that so many fast-food workers are forced to rely on programs like SNAP, Allegretto says, “is indicative of a much larger problem that we have in our economy, which is that low-wage workers are following further and further behind.”

Al Jazeera
 
BaalsTears
-1
#2
Tax the rich
Feed the poor
Till there are no
Rich no more

I'd love to change the world

Ten Years After
 
gopher
No Party Affiliation
+1 / -1
#3
Quote: Originally Posted by BaalsTears View Post

Tax the rich
Feed the poor
Till there are no
Rich no more

I'd love to change the world

Ten Years After



Baal, since when did you (devil that you are) start thinking like Jesus ?
 
petros
#4
Quote:

Salgado, 27, a single mother of two children, has worked full-time at McDonald’s for the last decade but says she has never received a raise from her $8.25 an hour salary, the minimum wage in Chicago, where she lives.

She's too good for the dollar menu?
 
BaalsTears
+1
#5
Quote: Originally Posted by gopher View Post

Baal, since when did you (devil that you are) start thinking like Jesus ?

Jesus? More like Franz Kafka fused with Kublai Khan.
 
Chev
No Party Affiliation
#6
I agree $8.25 per hour is pathetic. (“In Alberta, the hourly minimum wage of $9.95 for most employees”. I thought that was pathetic. And it depends on the job/retail sector. If you’re a waitress that you serve liquor (and might get tips), your wage is lower…)
According to Wikipedia, approx. 15% of McDonald's restaurants are owned and operated by McDonald's Corporation directly. (Corporate restaurants) All others are franchises, which mean they are contracted to and operated by someone other than McDonald's Corporation.
I assume that, like any other business franchises (eg, postal outlets in Canada), the companies that hold the contracts are the ones that decide on the wages and benefits of their employees.
Seriously sounds like the McDonald’s restaurant Ms. Salgado works at is a franchise.
Has Ms. Salgado ever approached her employer about a raise from her $8.25 an hour salary? Or questioned her employer about her benefits?



 
Walter
+1
#7
Did she work hard at her school work or just at her boinking?
 
Tecumsehsbones
+1
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by Walter View Post

Did she work hard at her school work or just at her boinking?

Walmart's opinion is that girls who have sex when they're in school, and their children, should be paid poverty wages. As an incentive to proper, moral behaviour, I guess.
 
Walter
+1
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones View Post

Walmart's opinion is that girls who have sex when they're in school, and their children, should be paid poverty wages. As an incentive to proper, moral behaviour, I guess.

Is this the boardroom talking?
 
Liberalman
Free Thinker
+1
#10
The poor demands the best and are having a hard time keeping up with the bills because of their commitment to drugs and booze and pay TV.

I lost my cable for three months and I discovered the radio and books was a good time waster.

Human resources are valuable to any business and when they can’t find employees they raise their wages and keep the good workers with benefits. According to news article I read some parts of Alberta Tim Horton’s employees get close to $18.00 an hour just because they can’t find enough workers to fill the demand.

Former Canadian Prime Minister Pierre Elliot Trudeau was right when he said workers have to go to where the jobs are as his famous words “if you want a job go west.”
.
.
 
Blackleaf
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones View Post

Walmart's opinion is that girls who have sex when they're in school, and their children, should be paid poverty wages. As an incentive to proper, moral behaviour, I guess.

They shouldn't be paid any wages at all. They should be at home looking after their kids.
 
JLM
No Party Affiliation
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by Omicron View Post

McDonalds is using government subsidies like food stamps and Medicaid to maximize its bottom line.



--


Dumb idea........................what better way to ensure rising taxes?

Quote: Originally Posted by Blackleaf View Post

They shouldn't be paid any wages at all. They should be at home looking after their kids.

Yeah, but you have to feed them too!
 
taxslave
Free Thinker
+4
#13  Top Rated Post
Quote: Originally Posted by Blackleaf View Post

They shouldn't be paid any wages at all. They should be at home looking after their kids.

WE understand that is the norm in Britain. Stay at home on the dole and spend your days and nights in the pub.
 
Sal
No Party Affiliation
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslave View Post

WE understand that is the norm in Britain. Stay at home on the dole and spend your days and nights in the pub.

I highly doubt that Blackie would endorse welfare. He is like most on this forum, quite right leaning.
 
gopher
No Party Affiliation
+1 / -1
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by BaalsTears View Post

Jesus? More like Franz Kafka fused with Kublai Khan.


hahaha
 
Blackleaf
+1
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by JLM View Post

Yeah, but you have to feed them too!

She shouldn't have had kids if she can't afford to pay for them.

Too many people nowadays are having kids and then expecting the State and taxpayers' money to pay for them.

Taxpayers don't pay for people's dogs, so why should they pay for people's kids?

Quote: Originally Posted by taxslave View Post

WE understand that is the norm in Britain. Stay at home on the dole and spend your days and nights in the pub.

I wonder what the unemployment rate is in Britain compared to Canada. It'll not be much different by my reckoning.
 
Walter
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by Blackleaf View Post

She shouldn't have had kids if she can't afford to pay for them.

Too many people nowadays are having kids and then expecting the State and taxpayers' money to pay for them.

Number one cause of poverty is having kids without having a spouse to help pay the bills.
Even this lefty site agrees.

http://metronews.ca/features/census-...ingle-parents/
Last edited by Walter; Nov 22nd, 2013 at 07:07 AM..
 
Omicron
+1
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by Walter View Post

Number one cause of poverty is having kids without having a spouse to help pay the bills.

Actually, the number one cause of poverty in the US is selfish and short-sighted shareholders getting tricked by Bejing mandarines, who will have learned enough about the capitalist system in their Marxist economics classes to know how to play the capitalist system back on itself, into giving all the jobs to Chinese.

It's easy, really. If Marx was correct when he said unfettered capitalism will ultimatly implode, then instead of threatening to overthrow capitalism with Bolshevik-style saber-rattling, you just play along by taking on the role of a global Bourgeois controlling the all means of production being worked by the cheepest labor.

Hmm... come to think of it... if Marx was also correct when he said that religion is the opiate of the masses, then if I was Bejing I'd be secretly sneaking funds to any evangelical faith teaching its members to march according to capitalist platitudes, in order to accelerate the implosion.

Quote: Originally Posted by Walter View Post

Number one cause of poverty is having kids without having a spouse to help pay the bills.

So... you're saying that women should stop the guy before going all the way, and ask him if he's going to stick around and help raise the kid if she gets pregnant, because she's doing okay, but if she has a kid without a dad, then it will cause her to become poor?

What if she's already poor? Will having a kid with a dad make her un-poor?

What if the guy is so poor he can't afford a condum? If he sticks around after the kid is born, will that make the family un-poor?

The number one cause of poverty in the US is no jobs because the 1%ers took a commision sending all the jobs to China.
Last edited by Omicron; Nov 22nd, 2013 at 08:29 AM..
 
Blackleaf
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by Walter View Post

Number one cause of poverty is having kids without having a spouse to help pay the bills.
Even this lefty site agrees.

Poverty stalks Canada’s single parents | Metro

Correct.

The mother should be at home looking after the child, and the father should be working to pay for it.

If neither are prepared to do those things, then they shouldn't have kids.

Commonsense to most people, but the Left aren't most people.
 
Tecumsehsbones
+1
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by Blackleaf View Post

Correct.

The mother should be at home looking after the child, and the father should be working to pay for it.

If neither are prepared to do those things, then they shouldn't have kids.

Commonsense to most people, but the Left aren't most people.

So, only leftist women get pregnant without husbands with good jobs?

The silliness of that aside, how would you bring about your desideratum? Mandatory abortion? The D ickensian solution? Or do you have some other idea?
 
Omicron
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by Blackleaf View Post

The mother should be at home looking after the child, and the father should be working to pay for it.

What if there's no jobs because Republicans sent them all to their communist enemies in China?

Quote:

If neither are prepared to do those things, then they shouldn't have kids.

What if they're too poor to afford condums?

Quote:

Commonsense to most people...

What if they went to a school with funding cut by Republicans such that they never learned how to use birth-control?
 
Blackleaf
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones View Post

So, only leftist women get pregnant without husbands with good jobs?

Those women do tend to vote leftist parties, because rightist parties, quite sensibly, are reluctant to dish out lavish benefits onto them.

Quote:

The silliness of that aside, how would you bring about your desideratum? Mandatory abortion? The D ickensian solution? Or do you have some other idea?

Stop dishing out benefits to single mothers.

Eventually, with no incentive to become a single mother, the number of single mothers will drop.

Lots of single teenage girls only get pregnant to be able to jump the queue in the housing list.

Also, marriage should be rewarded by the State to encourage more heterosexual couples to marry.
 
Tecumsehsbones
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by Blackleaf View Post

Those women do tend to vote leftist parties, because rightist parties, quite sensibly, are reluctant to dish out lavish benefits onto them.



Stop dishing out benefits to single mothers.

Eventually, with no incentive to become a single mother, the number of single mothers will drop.

Lots of single teenage girls only get pregnant to be able to jump the queue in the housing list.

Also, marriage should be rewarded by the State to encourage more heterosexual couples to marry.

So, give no benefits to single mothers, and don't allow them to work.

Orphanages?
 
Omicron
+2
#24
Quote: Originally Posted by Blackleaf View Post

Those women do tend to vote leftist parties, because rightist parties, quite sensibly, are reluctant to dish out lavish benefits onto them.

Maybe... but righties sure-the-heck don't mind spending money jails.

It would cost a few thousand per year to make sure a poor mothers' kids were fed, or a hundred thousand per year to house a mother who steals food for her kid in a jail.
 
Blackleaf
#25
Quote: Originally Posted by Omicron View Post

What if there's no jobs because Republicans sent them all to their communist enemies in China?

If the would-be father is unemployed, what the hell is he doing having kids in the first place?

Commonsense dictates that he waits having kids until he is sure he can pay for them.

Bloody lefties just want the state to pay and do everything for them without having to think of the consequences.

Quote:

What if they're too poor to afford condums?

Simple, don't have sex.

And there are many places which hand out free contraception.

Quote:

What if they went to a school with funding cut by Republicans such that they never learned how to use birth-control?

If they don't know how to put on a condom them they are too gormless and braindead to be able to raise children properly in the first place.
 
Tecumsehsbones
#26
Quote: Originally Posted by Omicron View Post

Maybe... but righties sure-the-heck don't mind spending money jails.

It would cost a few thousand per year to make sure a poor mother's kids were fed, or a hundred thousand per year to house a mother who steals food for her kid in a jail.

In Blackloaf's world, the option of transportation is still available.
 
Blackleaf
#27
Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones View Post

So, give no benefits to single mothers, and don't allow them to work.

Orphanages?

They shouldn't be working. They should be at home looking after the children.

They should be something called.... a mother.

And if they are single with no husband to pay for a kid, then they shouldn't have had the kid in the first place.

I don't see why taxpayers' money should pay for other people's children.

Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones View Post

In Blackloaf's world, the option of transportation is still available.

Your world is a world of ****less single mothers living a life of luxury on taxpayers' money bringing up children who never see their fathers.
 
Tecumsehsbones
#28
Quote: Originally Posted by Blackleaf View Post

They shouldn't be working. They should be at home looking after the children.

They should be something called.... a mother.

OK, you want there to be no working single mothers, and no support for single mothers.

There are currently single mothers, which means children with only mothers, no fathers. The question is, what will you do with them? Orphanages, private charity only? Let them starve in the streets?

By the way, history does not bear out your optimistic assertion that cutting off public assistance to single mothers will make single motherhood disappear.
 
taxslave
Free Thinker
#29
Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones View Post

OK, you want there to be no working single mothers, and no support for single mothers.

There are currently single mothers, which means children with only mothers, no fathers. The question is, what will you do with them? Orphanages, private charity only? Let them starve in the streets?

By the way, history does not bear out your optimistic assertion that cutting off public assistance to single mothers will make single motherhood disappear.

In blakies wirld of fantasy the benevolent christian church will look after those less fortunate. Much like they looked after the kids raped by their preachers in residential schools.
 
lone wolf
Free Thinker
#30
Quote: Originally Posted by gopher View Post

Baal, since when did you (devil that you are) start thinking like Jesus ?

Wow.... Is Baal Alvin Lee?

Quote: Originally Posted by Liberalman View Post

The poor demands the best and are having a hard time keeping up with the bills because of their commitment to drugs and booze and pay TV.

I lost my cable for three months and I discovered the radio and books was a good time waster.

Human resources are valuable to any business and when they can’t find employees they raise their wages and keep the good workers with benefits. According to news article I read some parts of Alberta Tim Horton’s employees get close to $18.00 an hour just because they can’t find enough workers to fill the demand.

Former Canadian Prime Minister Pierre Elliot Trudeau was right when he said workers have to go to where the jobs are as his famous words “if you want a job go west.”
.
.

Trudeau also said: "If it's a job you want, my heart doesn't bleed for you."
 

Similar Threads

2
Hipsters on food stamps
by Locutus | Nov 13th, 2012
6
Feds Encourage Food Stamps
by Locutus | Jul 22nd, 2012
1