Forcing Burger King to Backtrack on Employee Free Choice

by: ZP Heller

Sat Feb 21, 2009 at 14:11


All week long, Brave New Films, SEIU and many progressive bloggers have been holding Burger King's feet to the deep fryer.  Together we exposed Burger King's horrendous working conditions; launched a contest asking people to Have It Their Way with Goldman Sachs (Burger King's top shareholder) for squandering $6.5 billion of the bailout on bonuses while average BK workers earn less than the federal poverty line; and staged peaceful demonstrations at Burger Kings across the country protesting the fast-food chain's low wages, lack of healthcare, and lobbying against unionization legislation.  So what was Burger King's response?  They served up this flamebroiled pile of garbage yesterday:
"Burger King Corp. (BKC) believes unions serve a purpose in some workplaces and a number of its guests, vendors and franchisees have positive union membership experiences. BKC is not anti-union. BKC and its franchisees serve a diverse consumer base and, therefore, aim to remain neutral on political issues."

Neutral on political issues, eh?  If that's the case, why did Burger King spend $319,648 between 2006 and 2008 lobbying against pro-labor laws like the Employee Free Choice Act?  Why did Goldman Sachs spend $15,849,000 in 2008 alone lobbying against the Employee Free Choice?  And why, as SEIU's Michael Whitney noted, has Burger King fought this legislation through their involvement with the National Retail Federation, which stands firmly behind an anti-union group called the Coalition for a Democratic Workplace?
ZP Heller :: Forcing Burger King to Backtrack on Employee Free Choice
If Burger King is "not anti-union" as they claim, then let's see them stay out of their workers' efforts to unionize.  And if they're "not anti-union," does that mean they're suddenly pro-worker?  Then perhaps they should quit dropping hundreds of thousands on lobbying efforts to oppose federal minimum wage hikes.  They should improve workplace conditions to comply with the Fair Labor Standards Act.  And while they're at it, they could also provide their employees healthcare so they no longer have to rely on publicly-funded health insurance programs that cost taxpayers up to a quarter of a billion dollars a year.

If Burger King is really "not anti-union," let's see them put their money where their mouth is.  Until then, we'll continue to have it our way.


Tags: , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
o/t but (4.00 / 2)
I went to the Congressional Black Caucus web site today and it featured the CBC receiving a large check from Wal-Mart.  These guys are insidious.  What's worse, in the case of defence contractors, they use taxpayer dollars to lobbby against taxpayer benefits and interests ("Buy American" for one).

I think it's right on topic. (0.00 / 0)


[ Parent ]
Thanks for this well-informed and funny post! (0.00 / 0)
"...holding Burger King's feet to the deep fryer."

Harharharhar!!!


Burger King isn't anti-union. (4.00 / 1)
They're just anti-worker.

Where is the EFCA right now? (4.00 / 1)
I know I'm displaying my woeful ignorance, but felt I had to ask. How many hurtles does this thing have to jump yet?

USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS
Powered by: SoapBlox