Published: Sunday, Sept. 15, 2013, 9:00 p.m.
I love boycotts. For political reasons, I'll boycott any movie that has Jane Fonda portraying Nancy Reagan or any store that refuses to use “Merry Christmas” in advertisements in December.
But I hear that employees of fast-food businesses have been boycotting their employers. Their justification? Corporate employees are making high salaries.
Employees were given, by the taxpayers, approximately $150,000 for 12 years of education so they could acquire good-paying jobs when they became adults. Fast-food jobs are low-skilled jobs that require little training, responsibility and education.
The law does not prohibit any of these employees from acquiring jobs as corporate employees, if they want to follow the job requirements and put in the years of effort required to obtain these positions.
So I ask these employees, “Where's the beef” of your argument?
Fast-food businesses prosper not because of fast food, but because of cheap prices. Paying high salaries will increase prices that would make these businesses compete with regular restaurants and may discourage those of limited income from becoming customers.
These businesses also offer many young people an opportunity to enter the workplace and learn what the future will demand as employees.
So, this boycott, if successful, might result in their employers' businesses failing and the employees losing their jobs, putting them at the bottom of the food chain — something they may find hard to swallow.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Prevailing wage downsides II
- Prevailing wage downsides I
- Us & them
- Unconstitutional funding
- Fuel tax increase
- Prevailing wage misunderstood
- Name game
- Hero at rest