Dear Editor:
We are beginning to hear about the next scheduled "strike" at McDonalds.
I owned a business prior to retirement. If any of my employees chose to not come to work during a scheduled shift so that they could disrupt my business I would have fired them.
I also would have fought to try and prevent them from collecting unemployment, since they voluntarily chose to leave the job.
If any of my employees had come to me and said, "I'm taking a job elsewhere because it will pay me more," I would have thanked them for their time with me and been happy that they could make more somewhere else.
A few months ago Nancy Salgado, a 26-year-old unwed mother of two, was detained by Chicago police after she interrupted a speech by Jeff Stratton, McDonald's U.S. president.
She doesn't think it is fair that she earns only $8.25/hour because she can't support her kids working part time at that hourly wage.
Her comments raise some questions.
Why is it McDonald's responsibility to support her and her children? Was Ronald McDonald the one who impregnated her, twice?
I think all of us would agree that the father/fathers of her children should be supporting them. McDonalds values her skills at $8.25/hour.
If Salgado believes that her skills are more valuable, then why doesn't she find an employer who agrees with her?
What part of "businesses are in business to make a profit" is too difficult for Salgado to grasp?
Government should not be in the business of forcing business to provide welfare benefits.
Paying someone more than the value of their skillset is pure welfare. (The value of a person's skillset is easily determined by whether or not others are willing to do the job for the same amount.)
If government thinks others should be forced to provide Salgado with more income, then let government justify higher taxes to provide her with them.