Soc (2016) 53:469–473 DOI 10.1007/s12115-016-0051-3
COMMENTARY
Fast-Food Unionization William Beaver 1
Published online: 30 August 2016 # Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016
Abstract Social inequality has been directly tied to the decline of labor unions. In an effort to reverse the trend, recent attempts have been made to unionize fast-food workers, one of the largest segments in the country, and, at the sametime, raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour. The article examines the tactics employed to do so including framing, resource mobilization, and the use of social media. Although the movement has met with success in raising the minimum wage, the actual unionization of workers remains elusive.
food. Currently, 3.9 million workers are employed at fast-food outlets. Yum Brands (which includes Taco Bell, Pizza Hut, and KFC) and McDonald’s are the second and third largest employers in the country behind Wal-Mart. Over the past few years, there has been a movement to unionize fast-food workers along with increasing wages for the working poor. This article will examine that movement and assess its progress, which the New York Times has called Bthe largest labor movement in the country.^
Keywords Fast-food forward . Framing . Resource mobilization . Social inequality . Social media
Background
Social inequality is a topic that has captured the nation’s attention. President Obama has called it Bthe defining moment of our time,^ while countless books and articles have expounded on the subject. In this regard, there is little disagreement that a root cause of inequality can be traced to the stagnant and declining wages of low income workers, and a major reason wages have not risen can be traced to the decline of unions. At present, less than 7 % of private sector workers belong to a union – the lowest figure since 1916. Research by Bruce Western and Jake Rosenfeld published in the American Sociological Review found the decline of unions’ accounts for one-third of the increase in inequality for men and one-fifth for women. And a major reason for the decline has been the growth of employment outside of union strongholds, like fast-
* William Beaver
[email protected] 1
Robert Morris University, 460 Nicholson Center, Univ. Blvd, Moon Township, PA 15108, USA
In 2009, the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) began to consider the possibility of unionizing fast-food workers. Fast-food not only represents a large segment of workers, but as a group suffer from what sociologists call relative deprivation, epitomized by low wages and poor working conditions – factors that would hopefully make collective action more likely. When talking about working conditions, fast-food workers often complain about the assembly line nature of the work, which they often describe with words like Bboring^ and Bterrible.^ Marx used the term alienation to describe these feelings where workers are simply cogs in a machine repeating the same task over and over again. And just as Taylor urged, each task is simplified so that workers can perform any number of tasks with minimal training. Even at that as George Ritzer explains in The McDonaldization of Society, the human element, although still necessary, is removed from the process as much as possible by using nonhuman technologies. Another common complaint is tied to work schedules that vary from week to week, and in the worst cases, an employee will receive their schedule with only two days
470
advance notice. Plus the fact that the number of hours is not guaranteed. During busy periods workers may be called in or asked to work longer, but on slow days they can be sent home early. Reinforcing the sense of alienation are wages which remain low. The average hourly median wage for fast-food workers is currently $8.94. In addition, the SEIU reports that a majority of workers say they are the victims of Bwage theft,^ which includes not being paid for overtime, being denied mandated breaks, and having hours subtracted from their paychecks. What has changed are the traits of the typical fast-food worker. For years the industry tended to employ young females who worked part-time and viewed the job as a short-term prospect at best. (Fast-food is known as a B100 % turnover industry.^) Consequently, they had little interest in enduring the strife and turmoil associated with unionization. This scenario is somewhat reminiscent of the BLowell girls^ who labored in the textile mills of Massachusetts in the nineteenth century. Owners of the mills hired young women with the knowledge that few planned to stay for very long, and hence were less likely to become involved in labor unrest, and those few who did were quickly sent home. Today, however, the average age of a fast-food worker is a 28, two thirds are female, 26 % have children, and two-thirds are the primary wage earners for their families. These older individuals need the job in the tight labor market that confronts unskilled labor, and they are staying longer. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the turnover rate for fast food had fallen to 62.6 % in 2013. More permanent workers have more at stake and perhaps more interest in forming a union. There is one other distinct advantage that fast-food workers have–the work cannot be shipped overseas in contrast to the situation that workers in manufacturing faced beginning in the 1970s. That said, the SEIU realized major challenges would be involved. Push back from the fast food industry would be intense and aided by the fact that 25 states now have rightto-work laws, which means that workers cannot not be forced to join a union or pay dues. In addition, the industry is structured in such a way that makes organizing extremely difficult. Corporate headquarters sets general policy, but maintains they are only indirectly involved in the operation of restaurants. That task is left to the individual franchisers who oversee all daily activity. Thus, unionization would involve negotiating with each of the thousands of individual franchisers and not a single corporate entity like Burger King. Nonetheless, the SEIU believes that if such a large group of workers in a major industry cannot be organized, unions will continue their steady decline. However, and knowing the hurdles involved, union leadership decided to broaden the goals of the movement to focus on what it termed Bnational flashpoints.^ like raising the minimum wage. Consider that the federal minimum wage is currently
Soc (2016) 53:469–473
$7.25. To make it roughly equivalent to 1968 levels, it would have to be raised $10.69. The Obama administration has proposed an increase to $10.10, but there is no chance of it being passed by Congress. Although 29 states have increased their minimum wage, thus far none has raised it to 1968 levels. Focusing on wages and not just unionization is a new tactic for the labor movement aimed at broadening support, while increasing the chances of achieving some level of success, keeping in mind the SEIU^s failed attempts to organize workers at Wal-Mart. If well-promoted, increasing the minimum wage might gain traction, particularly in an industry where global revenues exceeded $550 billion in 2014 and executive pay is generous. In the fast-food industry CEO compensation quadrupled between 2000 and 2013, and now averages approximately $22 million a year. During the same period, wages for fast-food workers increased by only .3 %. The typical CEO now makes 1000 times more per year than the average worker. With such paltry wages, it is not surprising that a University of California at Berkeley study found that 52 % of fast-food workers receive some form of public assistance like food stamps, Medicaid, and children’s health insurance. (The McDonald’s website informs their workers that these benefits are available.) The estimated cost of these safety net programs for fast-food workers is $7 billion a year and is viewed by many as just another form of corporate welfare, where the burden falls on taxpayers to make up for low wages and lack of benefits that predominate the industry. The idea of increasing wages might also resonate in parts of the country where unions are held in low regard, but the fight for higher wages by deprived individuals might garner more support. Thus, the movement would have two intertwined goals – unionizing fast-food workers and pushing for higher wages for all service workers, not just those employed in fast-food.
Framing and Resource Mobilization Erving Goffman was the first sociologist to use the concept of framing to enhance our understanding of social movements. Frames are mental shortcuts that provide interpretations of events which foster shared understandings among individuals. Just as important, frames can also provide a rationale for taking collective action needed to produce change. By 2012, the slogan BFast-Food Forward^ and BFight for $15^ was chosen as the official mantra of the movement. Fast-Food Forward implies taking action to improve the situation workers labor under, and $15 an hour is the figure the SEIU has defined as an acceptable minimum wage. Research indicates that successful frames are consistent, empirically credible, while those making the claims are deemed credible.
Soc (2016) 53:469–473
Thus far, the movement seems to have stayed on message and there is little doubt that the claims made concerning wages and working conditions are valid. As for those making the claims, Terrence Wise, a fast-food worker from Kansas City (now employed by the SEIU), has become the leading spokesperson for the movement, and his experience does provide credibility. Wise worked two fast food jobs at a Pizza Hut and Burger King. At one point, after his hours were cut at Burger King and his fiancée could not work due to injury, Wise and his family were homeless for three months. Wise likens fast-food unionization to the civil rights movement. In this regard, he stated, BThose things weren’t given to us. People faced hoses and beatings. Some people even died. We have to bring the same pressure for today’s times and make the companies listen to us. We have to do what whatever it takes to win.^ Framing is crucial and relative deprivation may be the basis for forming a social movement, but having resources and mobilizing them is essential if the movement is going to survive and progress. To this point, the main source of funding has been the SEIU, which has spent at least $15 million on the effort. The tipping point for the movement occurred when Communities for Change, a New York City advocacy group, while conducting a petition drive for affordable housing discovered that fast-food workers could not afford even low cost apartments and that many were sleeping in homeless shelters or on friend’s couches. Realizing that something needed to be done, the SEIU was invited to hold a series of meetings where it was decided that collective action was needed. The mobilization effort began with SEIU staff members deploying in various locations around the country. Staff members provide expertise and assistance in setting up local worker committees. Outside firms are also employed to provide advice in areas like public relations. The first job action took place in November 2012 when 200 fastfood workers walked off the job in 40 different cities around the country. These walkouts took place in cities where the political climate was more favorably disposed toward unions to avoid any type of backlash. Since 2012, seven other one-day protests have taken place involving 150 U.S. cities and 32 foreign locations. In a 2014 Labor Day speech in Milwaukee President Obama mentioned the fast-food movement and lent his support when he declared if he had a service sector job,^ I’d join a union.^ Some protests focus on unionization, while others on raising the minimum wage. Job actions are not spontaneous, but carefully choreographed by the SEIU. The union will pay workers to participate along with transporting and Bseeding^ workers in targeted restaurants to lead a walkout. During the walkout, workers carry signs and sing songs and chants, hoping to create videos that will attract
471
attention on social media. After a brief period, organizers seek out religious and civic leaders willing to lead the protesters back inside and there has been some support in this regard. For instance, on the 45th anniversary of the assassination of Martin Luther King religious leaders in New York City announced their support for fast-food workers. As workers return to their jobs, a letter is delivered to the store manager outlining the workers’ grievances and demands. If any worker is turned away for taking part in the walkout, cameras are poised to record the event for YouTube and there has been retaliation. In December 2014 the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) issued 13 complaints against McDonald’s Corporation alone, which included threats, firings, interrogations, reduced hours, and restrictions on discussing unionization and working conditions. For its part, McDonalds while making no mention of unionization says it and it franchise operators Bsupport paying our valued employees fair wages aligned with a competitive marketplace. We believe that any minimumwage increases should be implemented overtime so that the impact on small and medium size business, like the ones who own and operate the majority of our restaurants—is manageable.^ The protests took a different turn on September 4, 2014. Borrowing a page from the successful Justice for Janitors movement organized by the SEIU, workers decided to engage in civil disobedience, which involved sit-ins in front of various fast-food outlets. Home health care workers, which the SEIU represents, also participated in the sit-ins. As a result, 500 protesters in three dozen cities were arrested. A spokesperson for the National Council of Chain Restaurants called the protests Birresponsible and Bdisturbing^, and went on to say BUnions are calling it this civil disobedience when in reality, this choreographed activity is trespassing and illegal.^ When a worker was asked about why she participated in the sit-ins she responded, BWe all need the same things: to put food on the table, a roof over our heads, and clothes on our back. The math doesn’t work on $8.00…^
Social Media The use of social media in social movements is new, and for that reason questions remain about its impact. Obviously social media provide a low cost and instant way of providing information and allows people to communicate with one another on important issues. Zeynep Tufekci, writing in the Journal of International Affairs, after analyzing the Arab Spring concluded that using social media can help a movement to grow and become more effective. However, other researchers point out that the use of social media has no predetermined outcome. In the
472
case of fast-food, videoing successful walkouts could certainly attract more support from workers who are on the fence about unionization and boost the morale for those who support it. At the same time, showing retaliation against workers might lessen it in the future, particularly if management realizes such actions will end up on the Internet, which could increase public support for the movement. Moreover, if the threat of retaliation is reduced, more workers are likely to join the movement and participate in job actions, which seems particularly important considering the fact that the SEIU must pay and transport workers to participate in walkouts, suggesting support for the movement is somewhat tenuous. Despite the potential advantages, critics charge that social media could be detrimental to the cohesiveness of a movement. Put simply, clicking on a website may give individuals the feeling they are participating, but to effectuate change requires getting directly involved in the movement and the lengthy struggle that often ensues. Going Forward When examining the impact of the fast-food movement the results to this point are mixed. Clearly the goal of unionizing fast-food workers has proven to be elusive. Although the SEIU would consider negotiating with individual franchises, what they really want is to sit down with the corporations. As one SEIU official put it, BWe want corporate to come to the table and negotiate better treatment, better wages, for workers in this sector.^ Unfortunately, there is little indication that this will happen any time soon. The movement did receive a boost when the NLRB ruled that parent corporations could be considered as a joint employers along with franchise owners. The ruling means corporations cannot interfere with union organizing and are accountable for pay and working conditions, which opens the way for direct negotiations with the parent corporation instead of bargaining with each individual franchisee. When union officials are confronted with the lack of progress, they typically respond that unionization takes time, which is certainly supported by the historical record where the struggle to unionize workers in any number of industries took years to achieve, which raises the question, will the Fast-Food movement hold together? Labor historian Steve Fraser, in his book The Age of Acquiescence, provides a less than optimistic answer. Fraser draws a sharp distinction between the social milieu that spawned the early labor movement, which he refers to as the BGilded Age^ and the situation today. In the early years, industrialization demolished an economic way of life largely made up of farmers and independent craftsmen. Many eventually went to work in the mills and factories, but questioned the new economic order that turned them into
Soc (2016) 53:469–473
wage slaves, which many found unacceptable. As a result, they took action against the capitalist system and eventually formed unions. In contrast, Fraser believes that contemporary workers are more accepting of the system, since they have no memory of anything else and feel little can be done to change it. Of course, the decline of unions has only reinforced this perception. Individual workers acting alone can do little to change things. In that sense, the Fast-Food movement does provide some hope, especially considering the recent history of unions in this country. The movement has demonstrated that workers are willing to take collective action, which will not only improve their lives, but could also have long-lasting social benefits. How so? The term BInclusive Capitalism^ has come to embody the idea that the capitalist system must provide benefits for more of its citizens to be sustainable. The post-industrial American economy is based largely on consumption, and a healthy economy is only possible if individuals have enough money to purchase goods and services. The danger is that with so many low wage workers, consumption will decline and the economy will suffer. Eventually, even those at the top of the class structure, who have benefited the most from the system, will see their wealth diminished. Hence, although wage increases in the fast-food industry might slightly raise the price of a Whopper, long term economic well-being will be enhanced. Indeed, many economists feel that any reductions in employment due to higher wages would be offset by increased consumer spending. If this idea becomes part of the public discussion, it could help to sustain movements like Fast-Food Forward. While the push for unionization has been slow, the movement does appear to be having an impact on raising the minimum wage. Movement leader Kendall Falls maintains that minimum wage increases in places like Seattle and San Francisco to $15 an hour along with increases in certain states, were driven by the momentum provided by the Fight for $15 and has motivated public officials to take action. For instance, both California and New York will gradually phase in a $15 an hour minimum wage over the next few years. Such actions could also signal the movement emerging as a political voice representing the interests of the working poor, something unions have not provided for some time. Politics aside, employers will raise wages to keep unions out. For years, Japanese automakers have essentially matched wages negotiated by the United Auto Workers with the Big 3 to dissuade workers in its American plants from unionizing, which may now be occurring in the service sector. McDonald’s announced that it will raise wages for its workers. Although the raises will only affect 11 % of its workforce, the increases may be a sign that McDonald’s is feeling some pressure. Kendell Falls also attributes the wage increases at GAP, IKEA,
Soc (2016) 53:469–473
Target and Wal-Mart to pressure from the movement, and there does appear to be some evidence that the minimum wage issue is gaining momentum. In April 2015, an estimated 60,000 workers in 236 cities world-wide took part in rallies to support wage increases. Although the goal of a $15 an hour minimum wage may not be realistic in all parts of the country, the fact that the movement is enjoying some level of success is a hopeful sign that it will serve as a first step in revitalizing the labor movement, which will be needed if the issue of social inequality is going to be seriously addressed in the coming years.
473
Further Reading Benford, Robert D., and David A. Snow. 2000. BFraming Processes and Social Movements.^ Annual Review of Sociology, 26: 611–39. Dray, Philip. 2010. There is Power in a Union: The Epic Story of Labor In America. New York: Anchor Books. Ritzer, George. 1996. The McDonaldization of Society. Pine Forge Press. Walder, Andrew G. 2009. BPolitical Sociology and Social Movements.^ Annual Review of Sociology, 35: 393–412. Western, Bruce, and Jake Rosenfeld. 2011. BUnions, Norms, and the Rise of American Wage Inequality.^ American Sociological Review, 76 (4): 513–537.
William Beaver is professor of sociology at Robert Morris University.
