Fast Food Follow-Up

Yesterday, I discussed the futility and stupidity of the fast food strike.  Today, I was able to get to three fast food restaurants today and it was a pretty good experience.  At McDonald's this morning, because I go to work so early, there was no wait.  I had the same order-taker as on other mornings on the drive-through.  She seemed unaware of the strike when I asked her about it.

Subway had the usual lunch line and we moved through with the usual alacrity.  That particular restaurant is near a military base that seems to have only lunch trucks, so they do a brisk business.  I saw much of the same staff that I normally see.  One worker said that they didn't have anyone missing.

As expected, dinner at In-N-Out was the best experience (except for the usual long line, pictured above). (No real names used here, either).  I asked my server Vick why he wasn't on strike.  His response made me smile. "On strike? We're never on strike. Why would we go on strike? This is a great company to work for."  Then he double-checked my order before transmitting it to the kitchen from his tablet.  When I went to pay, Mindy also checked my order. Finally, Tom checked my order a third time and I drove away with fries and a cheeseburger the grilled onions that I love.

The U-T is reporting that 100 people showed up to picket in front of the Wendy's downtown.  I assume only a few of those folks were actual workers, based on past reports of how the SEIU rolls.  That means that 7900+ workers, by the U-T's conservative estimate of 8,000 workers, showed up for work today.  I am certain that more than 99% of the workers made their shift today.

Going back to Vick, I have to ask "what is wrong with the unions?"  Vick was a genuinely happy young man.  I was a happy customer and for only $4.16.  In-N-Out was happy that their employees gave good service today. What's not to like?


P.S.
To those who think fast food has to be fattening, my calories from fast food came to just over 1500 today (I only ate half the fries at In-N-Out).  None of my meals were veggie, either, sorry W.C.  However, I did top up my dinner with some Rogue Dead Guy ale, which added a little to the mix.

What You Should Be Reading

College Insurrection, because there is just so much stupidity on today's campuses, and sometimes they link to me. Define bubble: An industry that has had great inflation than housing, keeps delivering less value and continually upsets the key constituencies that provide it funding.  This would be our universities and colleges.

McDonald's, Subway then In-n-Out

The title of the article refers to my dining plans for breakfast, lunch and dinner in light of the "fast-food" strike set for tomorrow.  I will be showing solidarity with the workers of those establishments who choose to show up and provide the generally good service we have come to expect in all American businesses.  I predict that I will have no trouble getting my meals, as the "strike" is an astroturf operation of the SEIU.  If the strike by San Diego's roughly 8,000 fast food employees was otherwise, why would the strikers only gather at a single establishment downtown?  For the publicity and the photo op, of course.  I just feel sorry for the jurors who won't be able to hit the Wendy's on their break from duty.  Other than that, this will be a great big fizzle.  To my astroturf point, the AP is reporting:

Mary Kay Henry, president of the Service Employees International Union, which is providing the fast-food strikes with financial support and training. . .

The strike is stupid for other reasons.  If the strikers were successful, then eventually fast food outlets would employ vastly more automation to make their meals, reducing the number of employees.  Further, it would harm the nation's economy by not providing entry level positions that allow young people to learn the life skills necessary for success at work. How is that fast food workers would get paid $15 an hour when my son only gets minimum wage in his union job at the grocer?  McDonald's spokesperson Ofelia Casillas:

"Our history is full of examples of individuals who worked their first job with McDonald's and went on to successful careers both within and outside of McDonald's," 

Exactly. The call for higher wages not supported by skills hurts job creation.  I think employers should fire workers who miss their shift to strike tomorrow, but I could understand wanting to play it low key.  McDonald's is doing so:

Casillas said in an email that McDonald's did not plan to take any action against employees who participate in the strike.

In trying to explain why the strike is needed the SEIU set up this young man:

Diego Rios, 18, who works at a downtown San Diego McDonald's as a crew trainer, said he struggles to make his monthly rent of $1,150 on his $8-an-hour wage. While he's nervous about leaving his job to participate in the strike, he feels strongly about pressing for higher wages.
"We’re on our feet all day long, eight hours a day," said Rios, who does everything from making fries to operating the drive-through window. He's been working at McDonald's for the last year and a half. "It’s very hard work, and for people like me who have families to take care of and bills to pay, $8 an hour is not enough."

A few questions.  What life choices led Diego to be supporting a family at age 18.  Since he apparently lacks the skills to do much else, how is he gong to make a living when he is unemployed because McDonald's could no longer afford him?  What is Diego doing to get some salable skills that will allow him to earn more?

So join me tomorrow at a fast food joint, this could be a boon for the industry, and it will help reduce youth unemployment.

Wisconsin, Bargaining Rights and SEIU Tactics

On Saturday, I questioned the wisdom of including "bargaining rights" in the package of reforms in Scott Walker's proposed legislation. Specifically, he has proposed that the right to bargain over benefits and working conditions would be removed from the current legal framework for government unions. Further, he is proposing an end to payroll deductions for union dues as well as instituting right to work, which ends mandatory union participation. Also he is proposing an annual vote of collective bargaining units to maintain certification as a union. The full list of proposals here. I was concerned that the proposed removal of bargaining rights would be seen as anti-democratic by the general public and harm the greater cause of getting union power reduced. This is a tactical not a fundamental concern. I don't think that there is an inherent right of collective bargaining for government workers in the same way that I believe freedom of speech is an inherent right.

The intervening days have brought new information to apply to the problem. First, Rasmussen reports that likely voters favor the governor over the unions by a 48%- to 38% margin in a national poll. (Wish it were a Wisconsin poll.) I was hoping the margin would have been higher, but given the loud and angry protests, this is a great sign that the public isn't ignorant of the underlying issues.

Second, Scott Walker was on the TV over the weekend and made the case that in Wisconsin, the state employees have some of the strongest worker protections of any state. What this means in practice, from my experience in the federal work force, is that it is almost impossible to fire workers except for the most blatant misconduct. Given such protections, where workers cannot lose their jobs, is it fair that they can then hold their employer hostage by striking? It creates a huge imbalance that allows the unions to blackmail the government into accepting binding arbitration where they tend to get their demands met. Explaining these facts could go a long way towards getting voters to approve of such a legal outcome.

Third, Rush Limbaugh today talked about the importance of being on offense, not defense. He brought the following to my attention. According to TPM:

State Senate rules require only a simple majority to pass a non-fiscal law. That means that only 17 Republican votes from the party's 19-vote majority would be needed to end the collective bargaining.

Republicans could strip the collective bargaining provision out of the budget legislation, pass it separately without Democrats present and get on with life. Further, this would remove the reason that the Democrat state senators are on the run, and get the budget passed as they might feel compelled to get back to their jobs. Republicans should take a page from Democrats and pass legislation when they have a majority. As much work as we did to kill Obamacare and rally the country against it, the bill is still on the books. The time to get our legislation passed is when we have the votes.

Ace of Spades has evidence of SEIU's tactics of intimidation (H/T: Temple of Mut). Trying to stop the Pledge of Allegiance? Really? The SEIU has every right to protest, that right is fundamental, unlike collective bargaining. But ever notice how when SEIU is involved, there is a potential for violence, and many times there is actual violence. Every Tea Party rally I have attended has had a police presence, and they act like they have nothing to do, because they don't have anything to do. Tea Party types don't even leave litter at their rallies. Meanwhile, lefty types who define themselves in opposition to the Tea Party movement are calling on their supporters to harass Tea Party coordinators who have nothing to do with so called "infiltration tactics."

I am rethinking my position. Like many conservative positions, there is often a "feel good" slogan used by the left in opposition that turns out to be incoherent when examined. Apparently, the country has decided that the direction of government requires the general public to pay more attention. Thank God.

My Enemies List - Public Employees Unions

The blogosphere and the conservative and libertarian press have come alive lately reporting and documentation of how the public employees unions are buying off state governments and creating an unsustainable welfare state. The size of state government budgets accrues not only to the amount of "services" delivered by the state, but the cost per employee of delivering same. Included are burgeoning retirement costs, and generous health care benefits. To provide my readers with a little background on this subject and to remind us of why the Tea Party is so desperately needed by the people of this state and the country as a whole, I have a little round up.

Back in January, Reason magazine got me tuned in to the magnitude of the problem with their cover article, Class War, How Public Servants Became our Masters. From things as small as running red lights with impunity, to rigged retirement rules that lets public employees live of taxes for half their adult lives after they quit work, it dives into the whole entitlement mindset and the unions who enable it. They followed with this quick hitter, also posted on YouTube (also read the article):



The most blood boiling article was this one from Steve Malanga, The Beholden State, in City Journal. He focuses on the unions' highly successful in the California to increase their own pay, and specifically points to the methods behind their success. As previously noted, this got my blood boiling so bad, I needed a med check, and had to read it in small doses.


Meanwhile, union marches continue unabated to squeeze more tax dollars out of you. TempleOfMut linked me to this article where union marchers demanded $40 billion in tax hikes in California, that's right, in the middle of 12% unemployment in the state. Dean has some great video from Illinois, where the lefty political unions are demanding more tax hikes. Taken together, we see a movement that can only be compared to the communist party of the old Soviet Union, where membership confers privilege and wealth not available to the average member of society. I do not make such comparisons lightly.

Given this extraordinary level of self serving by these unions, and the fact that their heavy influence over politicians comes from campaign cash and get out the vote efforts, I think that the Tea Party members must never vote for candidates with public union endorsements; including police and firefighters, maybe especially. I know that police union endorsements used to mean a candidate was tough on crime, but it is safer to say that is no longer true. From Malanga:

Even cops who run for office have felt the wrath of public-safety unions. Allan Mansoor served 16 years as a deputy sheriff in Orange County but angered police unions by publicly backing an initiative that would have required them to gain their members’ permission to spend dues on political activities. When the conservative Mansoor ran successfully for city council several years back in Costa Mesa, local cops and firefighters poured resources into helping his more liberal opponents. “I didn’t like seeing my dues go to candidates like Davis, so I supported efforts to curb that,” Mansoor says. “Union leaders didn’t like it, so they endorsed my opponents by claiming they were tougher on crime than I was.”

This is why I can't bring myself to endorse Howard Wayne in San Diego Council District 6, even though he was the most knowledgeable at the debate I covered.

So as the unofficial chief ideologue, I am asking the Tea Party movement to not vote for those candidates endorsed by the public employees unions. Along those lines, I would ask that Democrat readers of this blog give serious consideration to supporting Mickey Kaus for U.S. Senate against Barbara Boxer. Nice article on Kaus at Politico.

Disclaimer: I am an employee of the Federal Government, though not represented by a union. The opinions I express in this blog are my own and not that of any agency of the federal government.

California and the B Word

And no I don't mean one of those cuss words, recently outlawed in the Golden state, I mean bankruptcy. I have heard the idea of bankruptcy as a way to get our dysfunctional legislature to deal with the gaping deficit the state faces. As best I can tell, a state, unlike a municipality, cannot declare bankruptcy. It can certainly fail to pay its obligations, but it can't seek court protection from creditors and work out a settlement. This is because each of the states have sovereignty under our federalist constitution. I just want to make sure that we don't believe that bankruptcy is an option that will force the state to cut spending, the way it has worked in some municipalities.

The inability to declare bankruptcy doesn't mean the state can't be bankrupt in the popular sense that it has no means to pay its obligations. Steven Greenhut has an invaluable article on the current state of the state's finances that points out that we are probably already there. He points out that the current union dominated legislature is not going to solve this mess on its own.

As I pointed out earlier, maybe some reasonable solutions could be put into place. Best to have them at the ready if fate offers us a chance to push them forward.

I agree with Greenhut that the state is headed for a financial melt down, the debt ratios are unsustainable, and the eventual tightening of monetary policy will have a downward spiral effect. As interest rates rise, the state deficit will increase, then the bond raters will downgrade the state's credit rating. This will lead to increased costs for short term borrowing, eventually to prohibitive rates. The end result will be an obvious de facto bankruptcy. Workers will be furloughed, and state bonds will go unpaid. Beyond that, I can't really predict the future, but I pray to God it happens near November, so we have a chance to dislodge all those legislators who believe they represent the SEIU and not the voters of the state.

Please, Please, Please - Go On Strike

California's largest state employees union, the SIEU (Service Employees International Union Local 1000), voted to authorize job actions, up to and including a strike over the weekend. Are these people nuts? Although their contract is expired, their previous contract terms remain in effect, which includes a no-strike clause. Their claim is that the Governor's furloughs are somehow illegal, so they can strike. There are two problems with this line of reasoning; first, no court has made such a ruling. Second, what are they thinking? They are upset about days off with no pay, so their solution is... take more days off with no pay. Their President, pictured left, should be booted for lacking a sense of irony, if nothing else.

But I say, let them strike. That way, if the governor had a spine, he could cull the ranks of the useless. Then everyone in California could see how little or how much impact these employees have on the smooth functioning of our daily lives. I'm betting that the impact to me will be low, but let events be the proof of the pudding.