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.

San Diego Economy and My Son's Union Job

After about a year of looking for work, my youngest son (M) got two job offers within a matter of a week.  The first was with a fast food outlet and the second with a grocery chain.  Signs that the local economy is picking up?  I hope so.  The alternate explanation is that hiring by local stores, ramping up for Christmas, left other openings in the economy.

My son shares my political philosophies, but he didn't hesitate to take the union grocery job as the better offer of the two.  It didn't help that the fast food outlet seemed to have challenges with its hiring process, a week after their offer, he still didn't have a start date.  I am leaving store names off this story to respect his privacy.

Meanwhile, the grocery chain made it clear that the sooner he joined the union the better it would be, so it was off to Mission Valley.  They asked him to donate to their political fund, which he declined; but it was good to see that no undue pressure was placed on him.

When he came home, I told him that now that he had joined the union, I expected him to go on strike if it came down to it.  By joining, he had made a promise and keeping one's word is more important than our personal political beliefs.  I have lived through the 2003-2004 grocery strike in this city and think the union made a terrible decision; but that is irrelevant to M's personal circumstances.  The 2003-2004 strike went on far too long, and I believe the union suffered long term damage.

If the union could provide more reliable and more productive workers, they would be doing employers a service that justifies higher wages over the non-union competition.  But no one argues this is the case, do they?

I am hoping that the local economy is turning around; people have suffered long enough over the last four years.

Good Timing for a Grocery Strike? UPDATE

Yesterday's U-T headline announced that San Diego County's unemployment rate had increased to 10.5% during the "summer of recovery."

Unemployment in San Diego County ticked up in July to 10.5 percent, up from a revised 10.4 percent in June, reaching a high not seen for nearly a year, according to data released Friday by the state Employment Development Department.

So imagine my surprise this morning when I read that local grocery workers had voted to go on strike against Vons, Albertsons and Ralphs. One would think that the supermarkets will have no problem getting replacement workers.

More than 90 percent voted to reject the supermarkets' offer, which could affect scores of stores in San Diego County and across Southern California. The vote was open to more than 62,000 workers across Southern California, but union officials did not reveal the exact turnout, only saying it was a "record high."

I presume the key issue is the desire on the part of the grocers to have their employees pay more for their health insurance. Union President Mickey Kasparian, from the same article:

Under the grocery chain’s proposal, some workers would go from having no paycheck deductions to having an average of $92 per month deducted for health insurance, although it would vary depending on family size and other factors, Kasparian said.

Is this the result of the passage of Obamacare? I don't have hard evidence to prove that, but I wouldn't be surprised. Businesses are facing rising health care costs since the passage of the bill that we needed to pass to see what was in it. Everything I have read about the negotiations for the grocery workers lead me to believe that health care costs are the key sticking point. Costs are going up and neither side wants to pay for them.

Meanwhile, the stores are getting ready for a strike, some are putting up signs asking for applications for replacement workers. Since my youngest son has been having trouble finding work, he took the opportunity to go to one of the local stores to fill out such an application. He said it was a difficult endeavor, because he didn't want to ask current employees how to apply to be a replacement worker. Instead, he made his way to the manager's office to fill out an application there. Even though there were media reports of signage asking for replacement workers, this Vons in Clairemont had no such signs. The manager gave out a standard employment application form, no different than under non-strike conditions. Perhaps they are hoping for an 11th hour settlement and don't want to unnecessarily upset current employees.

I lived through the grocery strike eight years ago (2003-2004), and remember the unions not doing very well when the results were in. From the lib.com website.

59,000 UFCW members voted on the three-year contract over the weekend of February 28-29. By any standard, the settlement must be considered an important employer victory. While the supermarkets did lose $2.5 billion in income during the strike, they established a precedent for many pending contracts around the country, and not merely for supermarkets. Wall Street greeted the settlement, and Safeway stock prices remained firm throughout the strike.

The new contract provided for a two-tier system. Current employees will receive no pay increase for the first two years of the contract, but will receive a ratification bonus. In the third year, they will begin making monthly payments for the family health plan. New employees will have lower wages and will receive only limited health coverage. The two-tier contract will thus open the way for pushing older employees out the door. Finally, the contract allowed the supermarkets to fire up to 630 UFCW members for “misconduct” on the picket lines within 36 hours of ratification.

I personally crossed the picket line and was interviewed on local TV about why I did so. The answer was simple, we needed groceries for a party and didn't feel excessive sympathy for the worker's position. At the time, Walmart was starting to move into the grocery business and the big grocery chains needed to contain costs in order to compete. I think the problem for the grocery store workers is that it doesn't appear that high levels of education or training are necessary to perform their work. As a result, they will constantly be under competitive pressure. This is not meant as disparagement, I am on friendly terms with many unionized grocery workers and they treat me very well. They work in a field where economists would say there are low barriers to entry into that workforce, unlike health care, for instance. Ultimately, the price I pay for my groceries is a good part of the consideration of where I decide to shop. Regardless of their helpfulness, prices that are too high will send me elsewhere.

I sincerely hope the strike ends soon, but I don't see how the workers are in any better position to win concessions than they were eight years ago. Further, I wonder how they will explain to their unemployed neighbors that they went on strike because their health care costs went up. Isn't that true for almost everyone?

UPDATE

Apparently, Verizon workers are returning to work without a contract, although negotiations will continue. The striking Verizon workers are in the land line portion of the business, which is under great strain because of the shift to wireless. This makes their situation similar to the grocery workers, being in an industry of increasing competitive pressure. That they felt it necessary to return to work is not a good omen for our local UCFW folks. Health care costs were also a big part of this strike as well. Seems Obamacare isn't a good deal for private sector unions.

Purity vs Practicality Issue on Ballot Measures

What if a ballot measure accomplishes something that you believe, but in the process reaffirms an existing regulation that you find odious, but at least doesn't make it worse? Do you support it? This is my quandary with the proposed ballot initiative I regretted signing in yesterday's post regarding Prohibits Political Contributions by Payroll Deductions initiative. Here is what Richard Rider, taxfighter extraordinaire, had to say on my cross-post in the sdrostra comments:

In particular I disagree on the “payroll deduction” prop’s analysis. B-Daddy is concerned about 1st Amendment issues hobbling corporations and unions funding favored candidates. But in reality — if the measure passes – both unions and corporations are still free to give money to IE (Independent Expenditure) campaigns to support or oppose candidates — as long as these funds are not run or influenced by the candidates.

I’m no expert in this area, but I believe unions are CURRENTLY denied the ability to DIRECTLY give money to candidates. I think that currently corporations can directly fund state candidates, but are often prohibited from funding local candidates for office.

Richard makes some great points. At least I have fewer regrets signing the petition. The purist in me wants to say, tough, I don't support any of these limits and believe that sunshine is the best anticeptic. Unions and corporations should be allowed to contribute but it should be made public. But the realist looks for advancing our goals, without betraying core principles. The question is does support for such an initiative betray core principles. I look forward to reading your opinion in the comments.

Supporting Walmart - UPDATED

I love Walmart. Every time I shop there, which isn't that often because they don't have enough locations in San Diego convenient to me, I am surprised by some new low priced item. However, the San Diego City Council, by overriding the mayor's veto of the "Big Box" ordinance doesn't think I should be able to get the most for my shopping dollar. In brief, this ordinance is aimed directly at Walmart.

Walmart and other ordinance opponents said it would create a de facto ban on retailers that have are least 90,000 square feet and dedicate at least 10 percent of its floorspace to nontaxable items like groceries and prescription drugs.

Even supporters of the ordinance admit that this is the goal of the ordinance. Note too, that the primary supporters of preventing Walmart supercenters in San Diego are all Democrats. I also note that most African-Americans support Democrats. But here is what happened at the council hearing on the matter.

And then the tone in council chambers changed sharply as one after another black resident approached the microphone to appeal to the council, painting a drab, disheartening portrait of the dearth of opportunity that exists in one of the city's most economically struggling districts, the one represented by Councilman Tony Young, and the one they said could most benefit from the arrival of a supercenter like Walmart. They asked the council not to make it harder for the company to move in.

Dominic Littleton told the council he was the father of six children, and that he had lost his union job 3 years ago and been unemployed ever since.

Taesha McCall said she needed a job, and that she thought Walmart would help her community.

Note this fact as well:

In Los Angeles, no superstore applications have been submitted since the city adopted a similar ordinance in 2004.

Fortunately, it appears that there will be a petition drive to put a measure on the ballot to overturn this ordinance.

Walmart is going to the voters to get its supercenter stores in San Diego. A signature drive began this morning at Walmart's four stores in the city.
. . .
The signature gathering started at the Walmart store in Murphy Canyon this morning. Walmart has 30-days to collect 31-thousand signatures.

I will definitely be heading to Walmart to sign a petition. Maybe I'll wear that yellow T-shirt. Watch this video to hear more gory details.



I hope to also contact Lorie Zapf's office to ensure that she would be a vote to repeal the Walmart ban. She certainly campaigned hard against union special interests during the recent campaign.

UPDATE:

Commenter Scott notes that I misspelled ordinance as "ordnance" in the original post, which I have corrected. However, in my feeble defense, it seems that the law is actually "ordnance" aimed at Walmart.

Union Bailout in the Lame Duck Session?

Shane Atwell links to a Washington Examiner story by Mark Hemingway pointing to a potential budget busting morass that could be created by the lame duck pairing of Pelosi and Reid.

The other piece of legislation is, not surprisingly, a bailout bill offered by Sen. Bob Casey, D-Pa., and co-sponsored by Senate Majority Whip Richard Durbin, D-Ill. (A similar piece of legislation is being offered in the House by Rep. Earl Pomeroy, D-N.D.) The bill would make failing union pension plans fully backed by the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp., a government-sponsored entity.

In the plain language of the bill, "obligations of the corporation which are financed by the fund created by this subsection shall be obligations of the United States." It creates a fund that these pension plans will be able to go to that will be filled by taxpayer funds as needed through the normal appropriations process.

The Tea Party will have to keep a very close eye on the lame duck session of Congress. The bigger the Democrat losses, the more mischief they will try to create.

Getting outflanked?

Dean here again helping out B-Daddy who is busy with some course work.

For an illustration of just how dire our public education system is in parts of our country, consider this: Democratic mayors from traditional machine-politics cities of the Midwest, Rust Belt and the Northeast are standing up to the teachers' unions in an attempt to implement pragmatic results-oriented solutions to their towns' school districts.

During the last weeks of the term, third graders at School 58-World of Inquiry School created an oil spill in a bowl. Under the guidance of teacher Alyson Ricci, they tried to clean it up. Cotton swabs worked.

The school last year won the national Excellence in Urban Education Award, with all students meeting state proficiency rates in science and social studies. It's an exception, though, in a Rochester system where fewer than half of the 32,000 public-school students graduate on time.

Rochester Mayor Robert Duffy wants to set up more schools that produce results like World of Inquiry's. But he says the superintendent's efforts to close failing schools and open new ones have been hobbled by a school board mired in minutia. He is pushing to dissolve the elected board in favor of one appointed by the mayor and city council for a five-year test period. New York's state legislature is considering the bid.



As cities come under increasing pressure to fix failing schools, more are, like Rochester, trying to take matters into their own hands—or at least those of their mayors.

"People are desperately seeking a model that can be duplicated and used in different communities," said Jim Ardis, the mayor of Peoria, Ill., who is considering such a move. He argues that a Peoria model—yet to be developed—is more likely to fit smaller cities across the Midwest than existing systems in larger urban areas.

The school district of Boston, where mayoral control was first pioneered back in '92 has been joined by New York City, Washington D.C., Chicago, Cleveland, New Haven, Conn., and Providence, Rhode Island which are now all under mayoral control.

Of course, giving the mayor more autonomy at the expense of school boards is not going unchallenged by the school boards themselves and their allies, lawmakers at the state and municipal levels and, of course, the teachers' unions (it has been declared unconstitutional by the courts here in California, natch).

Unions say mayoral control often ushers in policies counter to teachers' interests. Cities with mayoral control often seek to award pay or decide layoffs based on performance rather than seniority. Mayors have also pushed for the opening of charter schools, which are more difficult for unions to organize than public schools.

Once again, no where do we ever see the union concede that they may not have all the answers and how they might possibly be open to trying something different that just might be in the better interests of the children. Somehow the battle cry of "it's for the children!" is strangely absent in matters that actually effect the children.

Please read the article where they go to extents to explain that there is no cut and dry nor any black and white plan to reforming the district hierarchy but only a willingness to mix it up and try something different apart a culture and mindset that is failing the children of lower and working-class families.

Side note: We have taken the Republican Party to task at every opportunity for not doing enough to get out in front of education reform, particularly in way of vouchers, school choice and charter schools. Here is a situation, though, not of their making whereby the Democrats have a simple structural advantage in that the most significant education reform battles are being waged within the ranks of the Democratic Party itself and thus, the biggest proponents of education reform will be Democrats.

No matter... all the more reason for the Republicans to get off their sorry asses and engage the opposition in the education reform debate. It's doing right by the children, it's electorally-favorable with minorities and it cheezes-off the unions. Tell us again what we're missing here?

Primary Election Night - How the Unions Did UPDATE

Just saw Richard Rider on TV talking about unions lack of success tonight. Oceanside and Chula Vista look set to ban project labor agreements as part of Propositions K and G respectively. Project Labor Agreements which require city projects to hire a certain number of union workers. Additionally, the unions were against the strong mayor ballot measure, proposition D which will likely be defeated.

Lorie Zapf is on TV, talking about being a businesswoman and there is talk of California Republicans nominating many businesswomen, like Whitman and Fiorina. We could do worse, I suppose. Kevin Faulconer and Carl DeMaio both seemed to endorse Lorie Zapf tonight on separate KUSI interviews. Lorie is clearly not a favorite of the unions either, as the current top vote getter, she looks to be the front runner in the November run off in SD City Council District 6.

I am also struck by the seeming low turnout in SD City Council District 8. With about 35% of precincts reporting, it looked like just over 3000 votes (final tally) would put you in the run off for this seat.

UPDATE

HotAir has insight on how unions blew through $10 million to punish Blanche Lincoln for opposing card check, to no avail. Surveying the landscape yesterday, it was really a bad day for the unions. From the article:

The unions will have money in November, but they lost more than just $10 million in Arkansas. They lost a sense of power, especially in organizing, and any claim to rational and expert leadership on the Left. Lincoln was, after all, the incumbent in an anti-incumbent year. If the unions couldn’t knock her out of the race with $10 million and a credible candidate — in two tries — then obviously union leadership has a competence issue.

Congress and Civilian Personnel Systems

I've got a crossover post at B-Daddy's Other Blog, that concerns the practical effect of Congress dismantling the National Security Personnel System, the pay for performance system for the Defense Department. Crossover in the sense that the political affects my managerial professional life. You can read my personal take on the effort here. If you're not into management or the details of federal employment, you can safely skip. But my personal opinion is that the public employees unions are behind the repeal. They hated this system from the start and on numerous occasions sued in federal court to overturn its provisions. That they mostly failed is proof that the system was not inherently unjust as they claimed.

However, with the Democrats controlling Congress and the White House, burying a provision for the system's repeal in the defense appropriations bill was a way too easy way to pay back their union backers. That it was also a slap in the face for something Donald Rumsfeld had worked so hard to implement was only froth on that frappe.

Don't Blame the UAW - Update

Senate Republicans shot down a bill to bail out the Big Three automakers yesterday, demanding that the UAW agree to pay cuts before they would agree to a deal. The Republicans are shooting themselves in the foot. First, the labor cost differential is not driving down Big Three profits by very much. Fact: the average labor cost differential on a $24,000 sedan between the Big Three and Honda and Toyota is about $600, and was projected to trend lower in the future in the last Harbour survey. Maybe the reason labor costs aren't as big a factor as they once were is because so many workers on the right have been replaced by those on the left. (Both pictures from Ford factories.) The real problem is that the two Japanese car makers (who make their cars in Ohio (Honda) and Kentucky, California, Indiana (Toyota)) can sell an equivalent vehicle for about $2000 more than their Detroit brethren, because consumers value the higher quality of their vehicles. Click on graph for larger view.



Second, by falsely blaming pretty decent workers, the Republicans send an anti-union message not helpful to their electoral prospects. I am no fan of unions, and I especially loathe the teachers' unions. But the UAW has gotten serious about productivity and it is starting to show. For instance, the most recent labor agreement had stiff penalties (reading firing) for no show absenteeism because the average worker resented picking up the slack when the slugs didn't show up for work. This shows that unions could be forces for good in our country. If unions helped ensure a higher quality workforce in addition to protecting their members you might see higher union membership as employers dropped opposition.

Third, by blaming unions they obscure the role of the incompetent management that is asking for the bail out in the first place. l that said, I am still absolutely opposed to a bailout for the Big Three. They need to declare bankruptcy, reorganize and have new management brought in. A bailout will only leave in place management that has allowed quality to slide, and continued a lazy design approach that makes cars difficult to manufacture. But to couch opposition to this bail out in anti-union rhetoric obscures the real issues and is a recipe for electoral disaster.

H/T Carpe Diem. I just discovered Professor Perry's blog yesterday. He is an insightful, even entertaining economist, and that's saying a lot. Full disclosure: He disagrees with me about unions not being the problem in a later post, but he blames work rules, not wages, as the culprit.

Update - The Intellectual Redneck (it's not an oxymoron, trust me) has a picture of the current UAW contract, weighing in at 2215 pages and 20 lbs. His blog has a series of articles on the auto industry that are clearly the product of a keen intellect and personal knowledge. KT at the Scratching Post also, weighs in, stealing material that I stole with a pretty decent analysis as well. Despite some differences of opinion, consensus among conservative/libertarians is trending towards letting the Big 3 file for bankruptcy.