The Lies The SEIU Tells Its Members

This week the SEIU sent out an email to its members hoping to drum up some hate against the fast food chain Wendy’s. The email not only had one outright lie, it was also a sad example of how stupid unions think their members really are.

The email starts out as if it is from a Wendy’s employee named Joshua Williams.

Mr. Williams may or may not really exist, but the union created a video featuring a person claiming to be this Williams fellow, so maybe he’s real and maybe he isn’t. But that isn’t the obvious lie. The obvious lie is in the email’s very first paragraph. The SEIU has been trying to unionize the fast food industry.

Last year, the CEO of Wendy’s took home $16.5 billion dollars while I barely scraped by on $16,000.

The email then goes on to suggest that the fast food industry needs to be unionized so that… oh, I don’t know … maybe so that guys like Mr. Williams can be the ones to take home “$16.5 billion dollars,” or something? Yeah, we all understand that a burger flipper takes exactly the same skills as the CEO of a multi-billion dollar corporation. It’s just the same, of course.


But let’s look at the claim of this “Mr. Williams,” if he really exists.

I sure seems a bit crazy that a fast food CEO “took home” $16.5 billion dollars! I mean, some whole countries don’t make so much money. Why, it’s an outrage.

But, wait. $16.5 billion dollars! Really??

No, not even close.

In the Forbes list of American CEOs, the current Wendy’s chief, Emily J. Brolick, is listed with a salary of $338,462 annually and a total compensation package of $4.6 million. Not even a tiny bit close to the lie that the SEIU tried to pass off on its members and potential members. (The AP reported on it here)

Brolick has only been onboard for a short time, so maybe “Joshua Williams” meant the previous CEO? Well, let’s look.

Former Wendy’s CEO Roland Smith left the company in 2011. Before he did he “took home” slightly less than $16.5 billion. Instead, Mr. Smith “took home” a $11.4 million in severance pay. In 2010 he made a paltry $4.9 million.

Gee, that seems a tad less than “$16.5 billion,” doesn’t it?

The union clearly lied.

As one of my friends said in an email, all these unions will do is turn the 99 cent menu into the $99 menu. It would be such a benefit to us all, wouldn’t it?

Bad Rap Duo Are Even Worse Kidnappers
Kansas City Chief Jovan Belcher Kills Girlfriend Then Commits Suicide At Stadium
  • JWH

    $16.5 billion does sound pretty far out there. Maybe they meant the whole company makes that much?


    In terms of the larger picture, I hope fast-food workers really, really think hard before welcoming a union. Fast-food workers’ pay is as low as it is because it’s for a low-skill job in a low-margin industry. A union might try to negotiate them a better deal, but it can’t change the restaurant sector’s underlying economics.

  • Brucehenry

    Your AP link contains this tidbit: “Wendy’s previous CEO, Roland Smith, received $16.5 million for the first part of 2011…”

    Million, not billion.

    So it’s a typo that you’re in such high dudgeon about. Typical.

    Also, funny how you failed to mention it, in the midst of so many other factoids you cite. But it’s the SEIU who is dishonest, right?

    • JWH

      That typo theory makes sense.

      • herddog505

        Yes: it makes sense that a guy with an axe to grind because his employer doesn’t choose to pay him what he wants would believe (or, at least, tell others) that said “employer” makes a thousand times what he actually does.

        “Like, it’s, you know, like, TOTALLY unfair that, like, I get paid $8 per hour when, like, the fatcat running the company makes, you know, like, A TRILLION dollars per hour.”

        • jim_m

          I think it’s totally unfair when a union worker making $44k per year takes an order form a union boss making $262k per year to go on strike and put his company out of business.

          If you think that CEO’s make too much money, why are we paying union bosses many times the salary of the workers they represent when they represent them so poorly?

          • Brucehenry

            I wouldn’t have any objection if the CEO of Wendy’s made $262K, and I doubt the SEIU would, either.

    • LiberalNightmare


      But it’s the SEIU who is dishonest, right?



      • Brucehenry

        I think you mean, “Riiiiigghhhtt”

        • jim_m

          That’s why one of their leaders was indicted. Because he is sooooo honest.

          That’s why the SEIU has been fined for illegally using union funds for political campaign funds. Why they have been ordered to pay restitution to members for misuse of funds. Why they have been fined by the left leaning NLRB for making illegal promises to wave union initiation fees if employees vote in the union.

          Or maybe it was just the union leader sent to prison for fraud that makes us think that they are sooo honest.

          Seriously Bruce. You think that the SEIU is clean? I will think that unions (all unions not just the SEIU because they are all corrupt and have a lengthy history of corruption and association with organized crime) are on the up and up as soon as Jimmy Hoffa returns from his lengthy absence from the public eye and explains what he’s been doing the last few decades.

          • Brucehenry

            I don’t dispute your reports of SEIU leadership dishonesty. My point was the irony of Warner calling this, repeatedly, a “lie,” when the source of the typo was HALF A SENTENCE AWAY from his “paltry $4.9 million” factoid in the AP link HE POSTED.

            You made a similar typo in another thread this past weekend. Did anyone call you a liar about it?

            As usual, your proclivity to try and put words in others’ mouths, and to treat every discussion as a verbal fencing match, leads you to miss an obvious point.

          • Wild_Willie

            A typo in response to liberal idiots is one thing. In a thousands upon thousands of emails sent out purposefully is another. Brucy, you never have gotten ahold of your comaprative skills. ww

          • Brucehenry

            Soon as I figure out what a comaprative skill is I’ll try to get ahold of it.

          • jim_m

            Those are the skills you get when you are in a coma. Not necessarily useful in real life.

          • Brucehenry

            LOL. Also, does Willie think that these emails go out one at a time? You type it once, press send, and it goes to millions of recipients, right?

          • jim_m

            I think that pointing out typos, when they are meaningful and not just misspellings, is constructive. I have appreciated when people correct my decimal placement and have edited my comments accordingly.

            My point was that the SEIU is as or more corrupt than most unions. I interpreted your comment that you thought they were not so, hence the questions “You think that the SEIU is clean?”

            I asked a question and did not put words in your mouth.

          • Brucehenry

            My point was the whole article is typical Warner: a tempest in a teapot.

            He would have no one to call a liar if the email (which he doesn’t link to) had said Million, not Billion. A typo, and this guy gets in a tizzy and writes an “article” that gets 50-some comments.

  • jim_m

    Just shows that the unions don’t really care about the little guy. They demand the unionization of Walmart and fast food chains. These are frequented by people in the lower economic strata. The unions just want to price these people out of the customer base by increasing the costs of doing business.

    Kind of like how the dems desire the price of gas to increase despite the fact that it hurts the lower class disproportionately.

    • 914

      They can demand and bitch all they want.. But I won’t shop there if it’s unionized. Become’s slothful and overpriced.

      • Carl


        • jim_m

          This has been discussed before and a suitable remedy suggested

          A Modest Proposal

          For Preventing The Children of Poor People in Ireland
          From Being Aburden to Their Parents or Country, and
          For Making Them Beneficial to The Public

          By Jonathan Swift (1729)

  • jim_m

    Tell the CEO’s… to pay hard working workers like me a living wage.”

    Yeah, because we haven’t priced teens completely out of the work force yet.

    The answer for America is not to pay fast food workers a better wage but to create better jobs than fast food worker. Unfortunately, obama and the left seem to think that the highest aspiration anyone should have is to ask, “Do you want fries with that?” Not surprising coming from the President who thinks that no one actually earns their success.

    • 914

      ” Not surprising coming from the President who thinks that no one actually earns their success.”

      Well, he didn’t. So that’s all he knows.

  • ackwired

    Fifty years ago the average CEO took home about 25 times the average production worker’s earnings. That would be about $400,000 for the Wendy’s CEO (his salary). Currently the average is about 200 times the average production worker. That would be about $3.2 million. Mr. Brolick’s $4.6 million would be over 275 times the employee’s $16000. Mr. Huston sounds reasonable when he points out that the CEO needs different skills than the burger flipper. But I question that there is any justification for the overwhelming increase in corporate officer compensation in the last 50 years.
    Now before you start frothing at the mouth and telling me what I believe, let me assure you that I do not think that the government has any business sticking their nose into this issue. It would be far more desirable if it were handled by the stockholders and unions.

    • LiberalNightmare

      Whats that old story about the sheep arguing about who should eat them, the unions or the stockholders?

      You present a false choice here.If they dont like thier salary, they should quit

      • ackwired

        Actually, I don’t present any choice at all. I’m simply pointing out that the corporate officers are taking about 8 times as much as they did. If they were earning it, I would not have any problem with it. But I can’t see that they are doing any more nor doing it better than the corporate officers of yesterday. In fact, many of them that are taking more are doing a poorer job than their predecessors.

        • jim_m

          I’m going to say that we don’t have enough data to say that. What we are seeing is that companies rise and then fall. The constant creation and dissolution of businesses is what makes the market work. Some CEO’s are no good and their companies either get rid of them or they fail.

          Smith Corona was a powerful company back in 1960. The market changed. it went out of business. That is not entirely the fault of the leadership. Survival would have required creating a whole new business and they may have lacked the core competencies as an organization to adapt to that new business.

          The fallacy is that all companies should always be improving and growing. This has never been the case. Just like the environmentalists are trying to create a global environment where nothing changes (which is antithetical to nature), the socialist left wants an economy where nothing changes. This is not normal and cannot work. An economy where all companies survive is an economy that doesn’t grow because you have institutionalized mediocrity.

          • ackwired

            I assume that you are saying that we don’t have enough data to know that today’s CEO’s are not worth eight times as much as CEO’s were in the past. It would seem to me that the burden of proof would be on you to prove that today’s corporate officers are nearly an order of magnitude better than their predecessors. I don’t think either liberal nor conservative ideological nonsense has anything to do with it.

          • jim_m

            I’m saying that we don’t even have data to determine whether CEO’s are performing either worse or better than in the past. The presumption that they are not as good is not based in fact but in ideology.

            Your demand that it be proven that they are better demonstrates your bias. You have no proof that CEO’s 50 years ago were demonstrably better than today. In fact they could have been worse. One could argue that the big 3 automaker CEO’s were significantly worse in the 70’s than they are today given the quality of their products and the long term inefficiencies they put into place.

          • ackwired

            LOL…saying that today’s CEO’s are not outperforming their predecessors by 800% has nothing to do with ideology. That is a ridiculous assertion on the face of it.

            My bias is that of a stockholder. Dividends (the payments to the owners of the company) have not increased in the same time period. If they are not performing better for the owners of the company, how can they justify taking more from the company?

          • jim_m

            Well there we have agreement. Excess profits should have gone to the shareholders.

            However, the equivalent 1950 salary for a CEO would have been $633k. With the current Wendy’s CEO’s salary and the current number of shares outstanding (~391.08 M) the value of the additional dividend is approx 1 penny per share.

        • Isn’t it up to the shareholders, and dare I say it—the CUSTOMER!—to make the call about whether the corporate officers are earning their pay?

          • ackwired

            Yes, and I would include the employees.

    • jim_m

      Wendy’s made $186.3 M in operating income (Before interest expenses, unusual expenses and taxes). In light of their performance, which has improved significantly more than doubling operating income since 2008, I think that they are getting good value for what they pay their executive officers.

      Is there a justification for paying a CEO $4.6M? Sure there is when they are doing a good job like that.

      • retired.military

        unlike the CEOs of say GM.

        • 914

          Or Solyndra.

          • jim_m

            Solyndra delivered exactly the benefit the left wanted it to,

      • ackwired

        Corporate officers usually take the same amount from the company regardless of performance. Typically the only part of their compensation that is tied to company performance is their stock options.

    • retired.military

      Let me ask you this

      50 years ago the average ball player’s salary wasnt even close to a million dollars. Hell I remember football and baseball cards from the 70s talking about how the players were car salesman in the off season.

      Today the higheset paid players (the CEOs of the game if you will) are paid tens of millions a season.

      Do you have an issue with this?

      • jim_m

        Hey how about Hollywood? Hollywood even gets a tax exemption.Up until the 50’s there was an excise tax of 20% on Hollywood profits. I’ll bet the IRS would straighten out tinsel town’s bogus accounting damn quick if it meant fixing the deficit.

        Does John Travolta REALLY need his own personal 707? Probably not. You don’t see the CEO of Wendy’s making the kind of money Hollywood stars or athletes do. But the left never complains about them.

        • JWH

          Does John Travolta REALLY need his own personal 707?

          No, but Samuel L. M.F. Jackson does.

      • Commander_Chico

        The players are still labor, not owners. They provide the value that people pay for, particularly since ballparks are either paid-off, municipally-owned, or subsidized.

        The owners make a lot of money off of their “brands” and the anti-trust exemption MLB has.

      • JWH

        For an athlete, especially a football player, regarding salary as a pure “per year” comparison to an ordinary worker is a mistake. An athlete’s outsized salary represents most of his lifetime work earnings. In most fields, a person will hit his stride wagewise after a decade or more of experience, then work for two or three decades more. An athlete has a window of about a decade, two decades if he’s lucky, to earn those wages, so his wages are concentrated up front.

        Now consider one more thing. A worker’s wages are based on a lot of factors. The person’s talent. Difficulty of the work. Number of workers who can perform the work. Amount of work done. And, significantly, the amount of risk taken on. When a person is playing with high stakes, his pay is increased commensurately. Yeah, ballplayers get paid a lot … but they get paid to punish their bodies for the amusement of the hoi-polloi. That’s a heckuva lot of risk, particularly considered the number of retired ballplayers with dementia stemming from TBI.

        And one more thing. The athletes making ridiculous sums of money are only the athletes we’ve heard about — NFL players, NBA players, MLB, NHL. There’s a wide, wide gulf between a star pitcher for the New York Yankees and a dude pitching ball in a AA club in Akron, Ohio.

      • Ken in Camarillo

        Ballplayers high salaries are influenced by all the same factors as anyone else’s job. The key for them is leverage in the number of customers they can serve. A teacher teaches about 30 students. A ballplayer entertains millions at a time. If the star athlete gets $0.10 from each viewer each game, he earns millions in a year. Owners know high quality players increase the size of the revenue pie, so they are willing to pay high salaries to get the excellence the fans demand.

        It has nothing to do with having to get their career earnings in a short playing career.

    • jim_m

      The average worker made $3300 in 1960 according to the US census. Corrected for inflation that’s $25,330 in today’s dollars.

      The average worker earned $42,979 according to the Social Security Admin in 2011. That means that the average worker’s salary has gone up 169% over the last 50 years even when corrected for inflation.

      Poor down trodden average worker. 🙁

      PS. When you correct for inflation the difference between what a CEO made in 1960 and today is only a 5 fold difference.

      Funny what you can do when you want to make it look really bad. Inflation has a way of making prices today look really high compared to the past.

      • ackwired

        When you compare what the average CEO takes today compared with the average production worker, he is taking about 8 times more from the stockholders than his predecessor took, and he is doing nothing to earn more than his predecessor took.

        • herddog505

          While I’m no fan of overpaying worthless executives (which is to say, almost all of them), I suggest that pay vs. performance is a matter for the shareholders to decide, not the rest of us.

          • ackwired

            Nice to have you on my side.

          • herddog505

            So, what’s your point? Why b*tch about executive compensation relative to worker compensation if all you’re REALLY bothered about it that – somehow – the greedy execs are pillaging their companies? How is wage disparity bad for a company so long as it is paying enough in wages to attract the caliber and quantity of employees it needs to produce its goods or services?

          • ackwired

            My point is simply that over the last few decades the corporate officers
            have been taking more and more out of the companies that they are
            supposed to be working for. It has gotten completely out of whack. The
            owners don’t get a bigger share. The workers don’t get a bigger share.
            Just the officers. It’s time for the workers and owners to call them
            on it and start to move toward a healthier, more normal ratio. As a stockholder, I resent that the corporate officers are taking 8 times as much out of my company as their predecessors while my owner’s share remains the same or decreases. It may not be obvious that gross unfairness is hurting a company. But it creates a less productive atmosphere as pointed out in the Wendy’s example.

          • JWH

            IMO, executive pay is something of a self-reinforcing loop. Executive compensation is set by boards of directors, many of whom are themselves executives at other companies. So as executive pay keeps getting pushed up, the current level seems “normal” to them simply because it’s close to what they take home themselves.

        • jim_m

          If income inequality is your concern, obama has made it worse with his policies and not better. When you increase marginal rates you make moving into higher brackets more difficult. The left’s class warfare demagoguery is just a fig leaf covering the fact that they are actually increasing the gulf between themselves and their rich cronies and the rest of the public and making it harder for the average person to join their ranks.

          The fact remains that income inequality historically has been made worse by left wing policy and made less by conservative policy. This should not be surprising for just as with racism, the left needs the problem to continue so they can benefit from it. The point is to have an issue that they can whip up resentment over (and thus votes) without ever actually doing anything to fix the problem.

          • ackwired

            Here is the history. There is no reliable correlation to political policy. They just take as much as they can.


          • lasveraneras

            What’s the point of your comments? That years of education, training and competitive advancement produces a CEO who is responsible for the tactics and strategy of deploying millions and billions of dollars of land, labor, and capital in an efficient manner so as to maximize shareholder value. That’s is job. If he doesn’t perform effectively, it is the job of the share holders, through the boards of director, to ensure the changes, including the possible sacking of the CEO, to get the business’ performance back on track.

            How much of the millions and billions of dollars of company value is the average fast food employee responsible for? What special educational or training investment is required to make him or her productive? Point out the place to stand and where the spatula and ground beef are! Therefore it’s CEO – millions and billions of asset value and thousands of jobs – compared to the burger flipper – a coupla hundred dollars of equipment and raw materials and his continued employment. Seems to me that if the CEO only earns 25 times the earnings of the average production worker he’s actually underpaid. Power to the CEOs!

          • ackwired

            My point is simply that over the last few decades the corporate officers have been taking more and more out of the companies that they are supposed to be working for. It has gotten completely out of whack. The owners don’t get a bigger share. The workers don’t get a bigger share. Just the officers. It’s time for the workers and owners to call them on it and start to move toward a healthier, more normal ratio.

          • jim_m

            The problem is that the Dow 30 industrials average was 615 on 12/30/1960. Today it closed at 12,965.60. That’s a 2008 % increase.

            Executives give shareholders value through dividends as well as stock price. I would say that the increase in stock price justifies the commensurate increase in pay.

          • ackwired

            Actually the Dow has just kept up with inflation since 1950 and 1960. While it is much more volatile, the average is very close to inflation. Take a look:


          • jim_m

            You read the graph incorrectly. The graph is yearly return. Growth is compounded year after year. a dollar in 1960 is worth $7.81 today. If the Dow was 615 in 1960 and had only kept up with inflation it would only be 4806 today.

            You have mistaken the yearly growth for the compounded annual growth.

          • ackwired

            I’m afraid that doesn’t help me. Nor does it help the average stockholder because the average holding period for stock is less than one year.


      • Commander_Chico

        First, if wages went from $25,330 to $42,979, that is not 169% growth. That is a 69.6% increase. Make sure you lambaste the SEIU for a typo, though.

        You actually prove ackwired’s point with that stat on wages. double FAIL.

        Adjusted for inflation (2005 dollars), GDP per employed person in 1960 was $41,409 and it was $89,626 in 2008. That is a 116% increase.

        Per capita GDP went from $15,644 in 1960 to $43,250 in 2008. That is a 176% increase.

        (BLS pdf)

        If wages only grew in accordance with GDP per worker, the average wage according to your stat would now be $54,712, not $43K.

        Wages have not been growing along with GDP or productivity per worker. That is part of the problem. The other part is benefit cuts and the division of full time jobs into part-time jobs. That is at the core of the fast-food workers’ complaint.

        • jim_m

          That is a 69.6% increase

          Yes it is. But then I also never made any statement of criticism about the SEIU error either so screw you.

          There are lots of ways to look at this. Your comparison with GDP is a reasonable way of looking at it. I think the simple ratios of 400 times the earnings of the lowest paid employee is BS.

          • Commander_Chico

            I give you credit for considering the issue of GDP per employed person growth vs wage growth.

            The boom in CEO pay is one thing that accounts for the lower wages among line workers, but most of the intervening revenue growth reflected in GDP is going to shareholders. The globalized labor market and illegal immigration are other factors.

          • jim_m

            I disagree that CEO pay accounts for or suppresses the salaries of line workers.

            Line workers are paid what it takes to hire competent staff. If CEO pay suppresses that in one company, then another would be able to hire better staff, produce better quality and drive the other company out of business or force it to correct their practices.

            You are more correct with the globalized labor market. Since transportation of goods is not the barrier to the market that it once was production can seek the cheapest labor available that produces exceptable quality. That means that production moves to the places where labor is cheapest suppressing wages for the line worker. This is not affected by CEO compensation in any way.

            Illegal immigration does the same thing, but to a lesser extent since the numbers of workers and availability are limited.

          • Commander_Chico

            Unions are one of the ways for workers to mitigate these factors.

          • jim_m

            No they exacerbate them. Demanding higher wages when you are already the high cost labor only accelerates the loss of jobs.

            Look at Hostess. Not only was the company dealing with high cost of materials due to ignorant US tax policy, but the workers demanded higher wages that were not justified since workers in Mexico made significantly less.

            Unions cannot mitigate the difference between executive and worker pay when the labor market is as fluid as it is today. That’s why unions hate free trade because it means that companies can move production to foreign operations and reap the benefit.

            Part of that benefit goes to the consumer so the unions are effectively demanding higher costs for the consumer in order to pay for their higher wages.

          • Carl

            “No they exacerbate them. Demanding higher wages when you are already the high cost labor only accelerates the loss of jobs.”

            Do you ever stop to think about what you’re saying?

            You’re saying these minimum wage workers are contributing a “high cost of labor”?

            What? $8 an hour is too high? Michelle Bachman, TeabIlly Queen, makes that same claim – that we should do away with minimum wage laws.

            I love it when conservatives prove our point.

          • jim_m

            I’m saying that whatever the wage is if a company can get equivalent labor for less cost then those wages are unsustainable.

            It doesn’t matter what the minimum wage is if workers in Mexico will do the same work for less. If the differential covers the transportation costs etc then the work will eventually go south of the border.

            Oh, and the Hostess workers earned $44,000 per year. Hardly minimum wage.

          • JWH

            Look at Hostess

            Union contracts (especially pension benefits) were an issue. More problematic, IMO, was that Hostess failed to innovate and/or diversify in the face of lower demand for its core products.

          • jim_m

            Agreed. But in their condition they needed to reduce their labor costs. The unions said no to that and the company went out of business.

          • JWH

            Well, I can’t put that entirely on the unions’ doorstep, either. According to the coverage I read, Hostess was pressing for significant wage concessions on top of wage reductions that already happened a couple years ago. Hostess’s leadership committed a significant management no-no by proposing these cuts while (IIRC) not significantly cutting execs’ salary. That kind of management doesn’t lead your line-level workers to think of themselves as part of the company.

          • jim_m

            The proposal turned down by the union would have cost ownership $170,000,000(yes, million). It was hardly asking for the unions to make the only sacrifice.

            Remember also that the Teamsters accepted similar terms so the ask was not entirely unreasonable.

          • Commander_Chico

            Not sure the low cost/low wage/no benefit model is working out for the bottom third of workers.

          • jim_m

            It isn’t. But the answer is not to artificially inflate wages. That only increases the flight of jobs elsewhere, increasing the size of the potential labor pool with respect to the remaining jobs and thus further suppresses wages.

            If you chose to resolve this by creating an increased minimum wage you succeed only in making foreign goods more cost competitive so you enrich foreign companies that can sell their product at a higher cost than they otherwise would have and they can still undercut US manufactured products.

            Your solution to fixing low wages is to price the whole company out of the market.

            Long term the solution is to allow foreign workers to improve their standard of living. In time the cost to hire those workers will rise negating the benefit to moving operations abroad and the cost of transportation of goods will make US labor more appealing. That is if the unions and government regulation have not driven up the cost of US labor further so it remains uncompetitive (which is what obama is trying to do).

          • jim_m

            Actually the answer for most people at the bottom is to move yourself out by applying yourself and getting a better job. Few people want to remain in the kinds of jobs that make up the lower quintile of employment. Many succeed in moving upward and onward.

            The idea is not an equality of outcome but an equality of opportunity. Everyone has the opportunity to move upward. Not everyone has the ability to do so.

          • Carl

            So let’s see – using Jimm’s idea of calculating the annual growth of employee wages — but using the 69.6% increase – not the one Jim lied about.

            The average worker earned $42,979 according to the Social Security Admin in 2011. That means that the average worker’s salary has gone up 169% over the last 50 years even when corrected for inflation.

            Poor down trodden average worker. 🙁

            69% increase over 50 years — that’s an annual increase average of of 1.3%

            “Poor down trodden average worker. :(“

            Poor stupid conservative proves liberal’s point.

          • jim_m

            That’s above and beyond the rate of inflation. So even if you are a crappy employee like yourself you still get ahead without ever having to earn a promotion.

            Too bad you couldn’t understand the part about it being corrected for inflation.

            Average wages in 1960 were $3300. So the increase in wages was actually a change of $39,679. $39679 is 1202% of $3300. That’s an average increase of 24% per year. (OK, yes that is a straight line average and the actual pay increases would be somewhat less due to compounding but you get the point)

            Yeah, poor downtrodden average worker. 🙁

  • GarandFan

    Message to Joshua Williams: Maybe you should have paid attention in class when you were in high school. And since “minimum wage” is entry level – how long have you been working at Wendy’s?

  • yetanotherjohn

    Perhaps unions should be subjected to Sarbenes-Oxley like regulations so Union leaders have to individually certify every communication concerning attempts to organize, strike, negotiate, etc and have the same sort of penalties for false statements.

  • sabbahillel

    Wendy’s yearly profits statement shows that the lie (even allowing for the billion. typo that should be million) claimed that the CEO “took home” the entire net profit of the company.

    Income 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007

    Revenue 2.431B 2.375B 2.437B 1.823B 1.264B

    Cost of Revenue 1.816B 1.757B 1.812B 1.416B 919.63M

    Gross Profit 615.25M 618.48M 625.04M 407.23M 344.08M

  • Pingback: The Lies The SEIU Tells Its Members()