McDonald’s is turning its golden arches upside down to make a statement

[E. Q. Taft]

At first glance, it might seem like a McDonald's in Lynwood, California has been the victim of a prank. As Business Insider reports, the restaurant's trademark golden arches have been entirely flipped upside down.

But franchisee Patricia Williams says that's not the case. Rather, it's in celebration of International Women's Day on March 8th. McDonald's spokesperson Lauren Altmin tells CNBC Make It that the golden "M" will be flipped into a golden "W" in "celebration of women everywhere."

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/07/mcdo...side-down.html

[RichardM]

That can't have been easy from a structural stand point. They would have had to make a special 'W' to have the mounting points moved from the bottom to the top. This means it was a big deal for McDonald's to do this.

[Dr. Winston O'Boogie]

I thought that it meant that McDonalds was bought by Wal*Mart.

[Alarm]

Originally Posted by RichardM

That can't have been easy from a structural stand point. They would have had to make a special 'W' to have the mounting points moved from the bottom to the top. This means it was a big deal for McDonald's to do this.

"We'll turn our Golden arches around for Women's day!"

What about fair wages for female employees?

We turned our golden arches around... it's a pretty expensive deal!

[RichardM]

What I meant to avoid was a conversation like the following:

McDonald's turned the 'M' into a 'W' for Women's Day.

Pfft, that's no big thing it is so easy to do. Why don't they do something meaningful.

As to equal wages for employees of any sex, I don't know that they have any problem at the store level as most stores are franchises rather than directly owned company stores. The question is there equality at the corporate level? Does McDonald's offer franchises equally regardless of sex? If you have any information about these issues, please tell us.

[thorny locust]

Originally Posted by RichardM

What I meant to avoid was a conversation like the following:

McDonald's turned the 'M' into a 'W' for Women's Day.

Pfft, that's no big thing it is so easy to do. Why don't they do something meaningful.

That's not the direction the conversation seems to be going, though. Where it seems to be going instead is: That's a big hassle and must be costing a lot of money. Why don't they put it into wages?

It's not only Alarm who has that idea:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/mcdonal...en-draws-fire/

and I note that most of the complainers think the men working there should get better wages, too.

-- If women are routinely paid less at the stores then men are (and I don't know whether that's true, they may be paying everyone equally poorly) I don't think the stores being franchises gets the central corporation off the hook. If there's an occasional odd store doing it, but nearly all of them don't, then that's a fair argument; but if it's common, the central corporation should either be doing something to stop it, or else expect to take part of the blame for it.

[Errata]

Originally Posted by Alarm

What about fair wages for female employees?

That would be better, but it's probably a losing battle to expect fast food employers to voluntarily pay much more than minimum wage. Even if McDonald's did, they'd be competing against companies that didn't, and McDonald's is not a high budget brand. It's better to take the decision out of their hands and do it at a societal level rather than corporate level.

The location in the article is in California, where minimum wage is in the process of raising $1 per year, and will be at $15 in 4 years, which I think would be a reasonable level for that job. It's near the per capita income (though that's still well below the median income for employed adults), and significantly above the poverty line for a family in most places.

[GenYus234]

Originally Posted by RichardM

As to equal wages for employees of any sex, I don't know that they have any problem at the store level as most stores are franchises rather than directly owned company stores. The question is there equality at the corporate level? Does McDonald's offer franchises equally regardless of sex? If you have any information about these issues, please tell us.

The current test for joint employer by the National Labor Relations Board could make McDonald's a joint employer along with the individual franchisee. This key is if McDonald's "possesses sufficient control over employees’ essential terms and conditions of employment to permit meaningful bargaining."

[RichardM]

So people don't like the attempt at a message? And by the way, I hate the term "Sending a message" except when applied to actually sending a letter, memo, e-mail, etc. You know like sending a real message as opposed to doing something that is supposed to "send a message."

[E. Q. Taft]

Originally Posted by Errata

The location in the article is in California, where minimum wage is in the process of raising $1 per year, and will be at $15 in 4 years, which I think would be a reasonable level for that job. It's near the per capita income (though that's still well below the median income for employed adults), and significantly above the poverty line for a family in most places.

...although with housing costs in California, not so much. (I make more than that, but even a 1-bedroom apartment would probably eat more than half my net income. And I'm not supporting anyone else.)

[ganzfeld]

Originally Posted by RichardM

As to equal wages for employees of any sex, I don't know that they have any problem at the store level as most stores are franchises rather than directly owned company stores.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...-the-backlash/

The stunt has rung hollow to many of the company’s critics, who say McDonald’s has systematically advanced policies that disadvantage its female employees. In particular, the company has fought a sustained battle against increases to the minimum wage, an issue that affects women disproportionately.

[Alarm]

My issue with this "stunt", was why spend so much money on what is, to all intent and purpose, a "stunt" and nothing more. It has no lasting effect, it does nothing to improve women's lives, it's not even a message. It's just "Hold my beer, look at this!"

[jimmy101_again]

Looks more like cleavage than a W anyway.

[Errata]

Originally Posted by E. Q. Taft

...although with housing costs in California, not so much. (I make more than that, but even a 1-bedroom apartment would probably eat more than half my net income. And I'm not supporting anyone else.)

They're probably not prime real estate, but there seem to be some rental listings in some parts of San Diego or surrounding areas that would theoretically be marginally affordable for someone working 40 hours a week at $15 an hour (40% of gross). I hesitate to say that it would be though, because it would be a very tight budget, and without some family support system I'm not sure how a single parent could afford child care on that. And any unexpected bill could easily wipe them out. McDonald's doesn't offer good medical insurance.

Single payer healthcare would go a long way toward making lower incomes less unpredictable and crushing like that. Some basic social services like free preschool and before/after school programs would also help keep a lot of kids out of poverty. Public transportation, which most places in the US don't bother to do well, is also a factor. Everyone has to have a car, which is expensive to operate (especially the older ones that are less expensive up front), and if they don't it constrains where they can live to worse or less affordable options or adds many hours to their work week that they're not being compensated for.

I don't think we're going to successfully guilt corporations like McDonald's into genuinely caring, so I think focusing on political solutions is more productive, even though there doesn't seem to be the political will to do anything as a country.