No McMonday's

I must say, this is my first attempt at a national or even international campaign to "level the playing field". But before we go any further, we must define exactly what "playing field" I am aiming to level and why. Both answers are relatively simple. The field is compensation (how much a person gets paid for performing a task). The reason I am interested in this movement is to ensure that every woman, man, and child that participates in the creation and sale of a good or service is properly compensated for his or her time and energy. Proper payment requires that the workers receive a significant percentage of the profits generated by the company they work for. The percentage I propose is 33 and one third percent (33 1/3%). This percentage ought to be 50% or more, but let's go with a percent that is found in the "real world", the percentage an attorney receives when she/he litigates a case.

This 33 1/3% ought to be shared amongst the workers. The distribution of those funds may vary from company to company; however, the method of distribution ought to always be determined by the workers. This campaign is aimed at narrowing the income gap between the average worker and the controlling management. It is no longer okay for the CEO or owner of a company to make 10 times more than the average worker, let alone the current rate of 250 times more! (See CEO Pay)

Today, I was discussing this movement with my class. I asked them not to go to McDonald's and buy anything on Mondays. I explained that by refraining from spending money at McDonald's on Mondays, they were protesting the unjust system of compensation. I must admit, that at this point in my explaining of the boycott, I am usually met with 'why should anyone want someone else to work at McDonald's?' Also at this time of the discussion, I am accused of reducing ambition, by making McDonald's pay its employees, I am said to want people to settle for where they are in life. However, today was different. One of my students pulled her visor out of her book-bag and sheepishly showed me the logo. Upon recognition of the arches of gold, I asked her how much her store makes. She explained that she was not sure of the overall store, but each day her drive-thru drawer averages $3,000.00 during her 8 hour shift. Next I asked her if she minded telling us how much money she makes during that same 8 hours. She responded, "$7.50". I then calculated the total amount she is paid during this time, which turns out to be $60.00 (8 hours times $7.50). I then calculated her percentage of the $3,000.00, which happens to be 2%.

Personally, I am not cool with that. I cannot, in good conscience, ask the people that work at McDonald's to strike or unionize because the company would only replace them with other people who need that 2%. So instead of asking them to fight, I am asking you. It does not require you to leave your house, job, or protest ;-), it only requires that you not buy McDonald's on Mondays, hence the no McMonday's. We will continue this fight until the McDonald's worker gets his/her 33 1/3%.

The question is often raised, why McDonald's? One reason is its size and number of human employees; however, McDonald's is just the beginning, this model can be used against many unjust companies as a method of obtaining a fairer wage. I am sure of this type of campaign is feasible because of a 2008 email movement asking people to refrain from buying gas on a particular day. While this email movement inspired me to design this campaign, the original was fatally flawed due to our inherent dependency on gasoline. Because most of our cars run on gasoline, we would have to fill up either the day before the boycott or the day after, but the fact remained, we would have to get some gas sooner or later. The victory wasn't in the boycott, but in its ability to spread! To date, I have yet to talk to one person (old enough to have email and drive) that does not remember that email campaign. Winning! All we have to do now is spread the word. Let's face it, no one is going to buy two big macs on Tuesday because they didn't buy one on Monday. Unlike the oil companies, McDonald's will never recoup the losses.

Power to the People and to the People the Power!

Word is Bond Yo!

I am not quite sure whether it is me or the people I come in contact with and/or read, but there seems to be a discrepancy concerning how important concise communication is to our existence. It can literally be a matter of life or death. For example, it is not okay for your doctor to write the wrong prescription for you because she/he thought that the pharmacist "knows what he or she means." Likewise it is not okay for your brother's attorney to place incorrect terminology in his motion for appeal. It is not okay for your chef to use baking soda in lieu of baking powder. Why then has it become okay for everyday language to lose its meaning in the name of being polite or using your brain power to "know what I" mean?

It has become apparent, to me, that the bond between person and her/his word has become irrelevant. To ask for clarification is now seen as the vocation of the asshole. I am often seen as a nitpicker because I want people to own their words...to be mindful of what they are saying. What I mean by mindful is to give some serious thought to your audience and how they will perceive and react to your words. You must not be vague in your speech, if you are, your actions and thus your results will be inconclusive. This is evidenced by the many ways laws and contracts are written. Politicians and attorneys draw up laws and contracts in such a way as to leave loopholes for some people to be helped and others to be harmed.

This is only possible in a society that is not bonded to its word. When we speak the word [not biblical] it must have a concise meaning. I will give you an example of my vocation as an asshole. A friend of mine recently asked me, in reference to a barbershop dispute he had, "Who is the best point guard in the [NBA]?" My response was by what criteria do we determine the best. My friend wanted me to just answer the question, but I was incapable. I cannot answer a question that has no basis to be answered. To answer would be to give my opinion, but he did not want my opinion; no, he wanted either my support or to explain why my choice was not the best. You see, there was a whole verbal game that needed to be played in order to end up nowhere. There were a dozen of other ways he could have inquired into my opinion of who the best point guard is, like, "In your opinion..." But he didn't. Not because he lacks the mental capacity to do so, because he lacks the the care or the need to.

As I finish this post, I am unsure whether or not I am being too much of a stickler or maybe I am clinging on to the last defense we have against injustice. As I see it, without a critique of the word, its intentions, and implications we are bound, not only to accept endless barbershop quarrels, but we will invariably elect leaders (political, religious, etc.) that speak with the proverbial forked tongue. Why? because they could have meant something else... and this is precisely my point...word is bond yo!

None More Blind than those who refuse to dialogue.