Quote
Originally posted by: DonDiego
So, . . . let's see if poor old DonDiego has this straight, . . .
__The McDonald's Corporation, . . . or more likely a McDonald's Corporation Franchisee, . . . advertises an opportunity for employment at a specified wage.
__A prospective employee applies for the job at the specified wage.
__The McDonald's Franchisee hires the employee at the agreed upon wage.
__The employee works for the given wage and the McDonald's Franchisee pays the employee the specified wage.
__There is no coercion. Either party may terminate the agreement at any time.
__The employee is free to better himself by trying to advance in this fast-food business or seeking employment elsewhere.
__The employee is free to seek employment in a second job if he so wishes. Or work on his own when hot on duty at the local McDonald's emporium. It is none of McDonald's business how much he is earning elsewhere.
__No laws are being violated.
Umm, . . . so what is DonDiego missing?
Or more specifically why would someone with no relationship to the McDonald's employee or the McDonald's Corporation or the McDonald's Franchisee want the Government to compel an involuntary change into the employment contract between the employee and the employer? What business is it of his?
No laws are being violated. So then there's no rational reason for concern. Makes me wonder why Don Diego is then so upset about the healthcare law?
Legalities really aren't at issue here. It simply raises the question of who should feed people who work full time for a living? Their employer? Or the Nanny State? Or should we change the definition of full time work to 80 hours/week?
Its just a question of what kind of society you want to live in.
