Will Historic Vermont Newspaper Bite The Dust?

The Rutland Herald in better days, winning
the Pulitze Prize for editorials in 2001. 

UPDATE:

The situation still is mirky at the Rutland Herald, with management still not really explaining what's going on.

As you saw before this update, pay checks for reporters and staff bounced, and there are other signs of a sinking financial ship at the nation's oldest family owned newspaper.

A newspaper that stresses transparancy sure isn't demonstrating it.

Management finally did have a meeting with staff Monday. Such a meeting had been previously delayed

Editor in chief Rob Mitchell would only release a statement to the media, and not take further questions.

Mitchell said the financial picture "looks worse from the outside than it is," and "At this point, there are still things we can't talk about, for a variety of reasons."

Mitchell said the Rutland Herald has a future.

Let's hope so.

Meanwhile, Alan Keays, the editor who was fired for wanting to pursue the story of what's going on with the Herald's finances over the objection of management, spoke out to Vermont Public Radio.

Keays said:

"This is actually the first day since I left college that I haven't had a job in journalism. I had to do the story, I just wish there was a way that the management would have trusted us to do it in a fair way and in a credible way.  I wish they would have trusted me and the staff to do that."

PREVIOUS DISCUSSION

There's a soon-to-be not so daily, once venerable newspaper in Vermont called the Rutland Herald that might be tottering on the edge of its existence.

If it is about to close, it'll be one of the nation's oldest newspapers to fold.

It started in 1794 and has been a fixture in central Vermont ever since. It even won a Pulitzer Prize in 2001 for its editorials on civil unions, which was a precursor to gay marriage.

It's plain, though, that the iconic Rutland Herald is in trouble. Like many newspapers nationwide, the Herald has been suffering for years.  
  
The Rutland Herald recently announced it was only going to be published  four days a week, instead of every day.

Even worse and more ominously, staff payroll and expense checks bounced, and the management of the family-owned newspaper has not yet explained why, says a front page article in the Rutland Herald this week.

Worse, according to the Burlington weekly paper Seven Days, the Rutland Herald's editor in chief, Alan Keays, was fired Friday afternoon, either for approving running the story, or for OK'ing another follow up story he'd planned for today's paper.

The people doing the firing were Rutland Herald owner R. John Mitchell and publisher Catherine Nelson.

Seven Day says so far, Mitchell and Nelson are not returning their phone calls and emails.

That Keays  might have been fired for OK'ing reporting on something that was definitely of interest to readers of the Rutland Herald is a no-no.

True, no business likes their dirty laundry aired to the public, but newspapers are a special case. Journalism is supposed to be all about transparency. When the owner of a newspaper interfered with editorial decisions like this, it's not good. 

Keay's dismissal prompted a walkout by much of the rest of Rutland Herald's staff, says Seven Days, but I think enough people returned to put out a paper. Seven Days, at last check was calling it a "fluid situation" at the Herald.

VTDigger.org said staffers were convinced to come back after Mitchell said he might un-fire Keays. But it was unclear as of this writing if that actually happened.

Morale must be SO wonderful at the Rutland Herald. A popular editor is canned, the staff wants to revolt, and they are not getting paychecks, at least not in a timely manner.

The payroll problems that started in July seem to be ongoing, too. VTDigger,org says no direct deposit payroll checks were available Friday, but the Herald issued checks without full payroll deduction information.

Some employees cashed their checks at the company bank because they worried about getting bounce fees if they tried it at their own banks, says VTDigger.org

Yikes!

By the way, the Rutland Herald might get in trouble with the Vermont Department of Labor because of this payroll mess if it keeps going on, says VTDigger.

As was the case with Seven Days reporter, the publisher and owner of the Rutland Herald did not return numerous calls from VTDigger.

Reporters and other staffers at the Herald also said they have been kept in the dark about the financial crisis, too.

There's journalistic transparency for ya!

In general, newspapers have not figured out how to stay profitable when everything is available at the click of a mouse.

Like it or not, it gets more and more apparent every year that newspapers are passe.  At least in traditional forms, like, you know, actual newspapers.

The newspapers are on line, too, but being online apparently isn't profitable for the papers.

In 2013, I was booted from my position as a reporter for the Burlington (Vermont) Free Press as part of cost cutting moves by Gannett, the Free Press parent company.

You don't realize when you're in it how bad things get amid repeated cost cutting until the issue is forced, like in my case when I was finally laid off. I actually felt better after being let go.

I still miss the daily rush of trying to meet deadlines, explaining in written words the issues of the day in a way that was compelling and interesting to people, directly questioning and holding accountable state and even national leaders, and being among the most informed people I know.

The reason I still write blog posts like this one is I like to have that writing outlet still in play

I also know toward the end of my reporting days that  I was glorifying things.

I noticed the difference right away after I left the Free Press and still do. I've changed careers and now work at Gardener's Supply and also do independent work as a gardener.

No offense to the people at the Burlington Free Press, (though some offense intended at the parent company Gannett) I frankly have to say that since I left the Freeps three years ago, I now sometimes come home from work tired, but I never come home from work angry.

Still, I feel pangs of sadness when I see the Burlington Free Press as a shadow of its former self. Even worse watching the Rutland Herald implode.

I grew up around Rutland, Vermont, so that paper was a daily part of my existence for decades.

The world changes, industry changes, some things fall by the wayside. But I'm already think I should start mourning a Vermont institution that's been around for something like 220 years.

Some Employers Still Nickel And Diming Employees In Wage Theft Moves

A Hormel plant in Wisconsin. A judge
there ruled, reasonably, if you
must put on protective gear to do your
job at Hormel, they must pay you
for the time it takes to put that stuff on.  

Hormel is the latest company caught trying to rip off its owner workers in a nickel and dime fashion.

In this case, many workers at Hormel's large plant in Wisconsin have to put on sanitary clothing, hairnets, and ear and eye protection before they can hit the factory floor.

Hormel contended it didn't have to pay workers for the time it took to do this, because it really wasn't part of their job. As if the workers were putting on this federally required gear just to get their jollies, I don't know.

True, it probably takes only five or six minutes or so to take the stuff on and off, but that amounts to about 24 hours a year for each worker, according to the Associated Press. When you're not making much money, every little bit helps.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court, in a 4-2 decision, said no, Hormel has to pay its workers to get in gear to do their jobs.

According to the AP:

"Cleanliness and food safety are 'intrinsic elements' of preparing and canning food at the Hormel canning facility,' Justice Shirley Abrahamson wrote for the majority. 'The clothing and equipment is intergral and indeispensable to the performance of the employees' job function....of preparing canned food.'"

More than 300 workers were awarded a total of $195,000 in back wages.

Hormel said in a statement, "While we are disappointed the decision was not in our favor, we value our employees and respect the court's decision."

No, if you respected your employees you would pay them for all the work they do for you, not just the majority of it.

As Gawker pointed out, it's a bit shocking that swaths of corporate America think it is controversial to pay its workers for all the hours they put on the job.

As Gawker editorialized:

"We are talking about multibillion dollar corporations adding to their profit margins by taking money directly out of workers' paychecks. In some cases, legally! 

In 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court (with Scalia, may he rest in peace) rules that Amazon did not have to pay its workers for the time they spent standing in line waiting to be checked by corporate security guards to make sure they didn't steal anything from Amazon. 

That half-hour of time, which was not optional, the company got for free."

The line between work and leisure is more blurred than ever. People do regularly check their work email from home often. I did so today, even though the company I work for discourages it. They're one company that does not want its employees to work unless they're on the clock and getting paid.

But most people, like me, don't mind taking a few minutes every now and again to check in with work. We do want to do a good job, after all.

However, the tricks by Hormel and Amazon were so blatant you wonder if these companies think that workers should work for free.  

The editor at the Huffington Post UK says paying writers
 for their work would make their words "inauthentic."

That's true in the gig economy, too. Huffington Post recently took a lot of deserved grief.

They generally don't pay their writers, and especially not their bloggers, under the theory that the "exposure" of people seeing their words in the Huffington Post would lead to some sort of benefit.

Last mont, Stephen Hull, editor-in-chief of the Huffington Post UK, was asked in an interview why he doesn't pay his writers.

Hull responded: "If I was paying someone to write something because I want to get advertising, that's not a real authentic way of presenting copy. When somebody writes something for us, we know it's real, we know they want to write it. It's not been forced or paid for. I think that's something to be proud of."

Oh, so no writer should try to make a living at it? Or by Hull's logic nobody should work for money, because doing so is "inauthentic."

I trust that Hull collects no salary and does his duties as Huffington Post UK's editor-in-chief because that would make the end product inauthentic. How could I possibly trust anything I read in the Huffington Post if somebody is paid to edit the copy?

Or, as New Statesman editorialized, Hull's life must be very difficult if he's forced to live by his rules of authenticity:

"Presumably, he can't go out to eat at restaurants, because the food the (paid) chefs cook him is inauthentic. And when he's ill, he must have to research his symptons online instead of visiting a GP, because their salaries mean the diagnoses they give aren't real. He must have to walk to work because of all those pesky salaried workers driving tube trains and buses, ruining the authenticity of daily commutes."

There have always been people who want something for nothing.  Do some cheap employers think that most everyone wants to toil 40, 50, 60 or more hours a week for no benefit, just the joy of making some rich guy or gal richer?

Almost everybody wants to do a great job at work. But a well completed task has value. If you want something of value, you have to buy it, pay for it.

So pay your damn workers!!!

Will Wheaton's Warning To Not Write For Free Makes Him My New Best Friend.

Wil Wheaton Vs. Huffington Post. I'd say Wheaton won. 

Wil Wheaton caused a big stir this week and it has me totally cheering for him.

For the uninitiated, Wil Wheaton was a child actor in the movie "Stand  By Me," has since been in the series "Star Trek: The Next Generation" and has had a recurring role in TV's "The Big Bang Theory."

He's also a very popular blogger, gamer, tech geek and pretty much a Renaissance guy.

Anyway, in his blog, he said this week that Huffington Post offered to publish an earlier Wheaton blog post about the seven things he did to reboot his life.

Very nice. But when Wheaton asked Huffington Post how much he would be paid for the Huffington's Post publication of the blog post, the Huffington Post said nothing. Zero. Zip. Nada.

An editor wrote, (insultingly in my opinion, but Wheaton was professional and nice about it) that Wheaton and other would-be bloggers should contribute for free, because the "exposure" Huffington Post will give to the writer.

Wheaton Tweeted about this to his three million or so followers (Disclosure: Including me). One of his posts said "If you write something that an editor thinks is worth being published, you are worth being paid for it. Period."

Wheaton also nicely expounded on this topic through his blog. 

This had me cheering wildly for Wheaton.

There are dissents. Salon reported that Internet entrepreneur Damon Brown says that people beginning their careers sometimes need to work for free, and you're not being cheated if you volunteer work at some charitable organization.

Which is totally true.

But writers, photographers, graphic designers, musicians and others who do need to get their names out there also need to make a living.

Says Salon:

"They constantly, in a digital age that has already destabilized their earnings, are asked to do it for free. For a brand. For a friend. For any number of reasons, but often, the hustle is that the gratis work will serve as 'free advertising' for work someone else is supposed to pay them to do, somewhere down the road."

In other words, the gratis work is a scammy merry go round in which everybody expects free work from writers and artists and such. So how are they actually supposed to make a living?

I know it's sometimes easier said than done, but I won't work for free, unless it's for charity or you really, really want to help a friend. If I ever need to promote myself I'll do so through blogs, social media,  a web site, maybe good old fashioned advertising.

Besides, if you're that good and need exposure, you'll get it through people citing your great work, like Wheaton's blog. 

I Hate Welfare Queens. You Know, Like Walmart and McDonald's

Are low wage employers the new welfare queens?
If we are using tax dollars to subsidize
the workers who don't make enough to sustain
themselves, they probably are the queens.  

Like pretty much everyone else, I don't like my tax dollars going to welfare cheats.

You know the type. These are the people who get public assistance when they shouldn't. They've found a way to receive government largess even though they already make tons of money.

The latest incarnation of the proverbial Welfare Queen some companies, like Walmart and McDonald's and all kinds of other major firms that pay minimum wage or just barely above.

They pay their workers to enhance their corporate bottom lines. The pay is so low many of the employees are on public assistance.

They can't get by on their meager salaries. So they live in subsidized housing. They're collecting SNAP benefits to put food on the table. (SNAP is the latest federal incarnation of what is commonly known as food stamps.)

This arrangement benefits the corporations, since they don't have to pay their employees adequately. Let the government do it. Your taxes and mine.

The University of California/Berkeley Center for Labor Research and Education says us taxpayers are really, really subsidizing companies like Walmart and McDonald's.

It turns out us American taxpayers are subsidizing these corporations to the tune of $153 billion, yes that's billion a year.

Here's what the University of California/Berkeley Center for Labor Research and Education says:

"Nearly three quarters (73 percent) of enrollees in Amerca's major public support programs are members of working familiies. The taxpayers bear a significant portion of the hidden costs of low wage work in America."

Or, to put it in more explicit terms, here's how Gawker described the situation in an article about the Berkeley study:

"It is one thing to say 'Fast food workers don't deserve $15 per hour.' But realize that what you are saying really amounts to, 'I prefer to pay the difference between what fast food workers earn and what they need to live myself, rather than making their employers pay it.' 

Yep. Your tax dollars at work. The corporate executives and shareholders, many of whom already have tons of money, are welfare queens. By paying such low wages, the government keeps these employees out of homelesseness and hunger, or at least we hope.

Shouldn't the employers be paying the workers enough money to live on, rather than making us tax payers do it? Sure, that would mean the price of some goods and services from places like Walmart and McDonald's would go up.

But either way, we're already paying.  Plus, those of us who don't even like going to Walmart and McDonald's are subsidizing the rich executives and the (often somewhat rich) shareholders in these
companies.

I know the argument. The burger flipper jobs are said to go to teenagers trying to make an extra buck for their weekend partying.

Some teenagers do work low wage jobs for that reason, or as a means of saving money for something more worthwhile.  However, most of the employees are trying to make a living on money that's not enough to live on. So they're on public assistance. On us taxpayers' dime, I will remind you again.

Or, I suppose we could be completely heartless and end government assistance to these working poor. That's one way to get rid of the problem. Starve 'em to death.

I still like the idea of pay increases more, though.

A lot of low wage workers get this. And they don't want to be on public assistance. They'd rather just collect an adequate paycheck and go on with their lives. Protests are ongoing around the country fighting for a $15 an hour wage.

I don't think that wage level will happen anytime soon, but I'd like to see some serious pay increases. Even if I have to pay more for a Big Mac to get there.

Some companies pay their workers more and do just fine. Costco is widely cited as having higher wages than most retailers and the warehouse store chain is doing just fine. It doesn't hurt that the higher wages helps Costco retain employees, who become proficient at their job, which leads to better customer service, which leads to more customers, and more profits for the company.

Well, why don't these people in low wage jobs look for other jobs, or get some education or training to obtain a higher paying job?

A lot of them probably would if they could.

A big trend among low wage employers is helping to prevent worker mobility, or their ability to seek training and education elsewhere.

It's hard enough that education is expensive, but now it's even harder because employers are preventing workers from having a set schedule so they go to classes, obtain reliable daycare for kids, or have a specific time of day to get things done.

The New Republic explains it:

"Just-in-time scheduling, as the practice is known, allows employers to efficiently allocate resources. Scheduling software offers real time analysis for staffing needs.

When customers flock to a store, managers bring in on-all workers. When business is slowk managers don't call those workers in - or they turn they away.

In some cases, these workers will have already commuted to work, paid for child are and arranged their lives around a shift that evaporates, leaving them no recompense for their troubles.

The unpredictable schedules interfere with such basic daily activities as grocery shopping, doctor's appointments and looking for a better job."

I suppose there are people who like these flexible schedules and it works for them. But what of the employees who can't manage it? They're still forced to live this way without relying on a steady paycheck.

I noticed yesterday that the New York Attorney General is looking into this practice to see if it is even legal in that state.

With all this going on, yeah, it's definitely time to put a stop to the new breed of Welfare Queens. I'd love it if Walmart and those other companies reimburse me and the millions of other taxpayers that subsidizes them.

I mean, what benefit is society as a whole getting by having our tax dollars subsidize big corporations like this.

The arrangement needs to change. I'm not holding my breath, though.

Woman Fired From Crappy Low Paying Job By Crappy Boss For Saying The Pay Was Low

A minimum wage employee at this Pine Bluff, Arkansas
Days Inn says she was fired after telling a reporter
her minimum wage salary doesn't cover her expenses.  

My latest nominee for the worst boss in America is Herry Patel, who manages a Days Inn in Pine Bluff, Arkansas.

This all started when Washington Post reporter Chico Harlan stopped at the Days Inn to talk to people about an upcoming 25 cent increase in the Arkansas minimum wage.  He was working on an article about the subject. 

Harlan interviewed Patel, who then suggested the reporter speak with Shanna Tippen, a minimum wage employee, about the paltry pay increase coming her way.

Tippen told Harlan that the increase would help a bit, but wouldn't lift her above the poverty line. Harlan dutifully reported all these facts.

In a column in Monday's Washington Post, Harlan reports he's learned that Patel fired Tippen for talking to him. Remember, Patel was the one who suggested Harlan and Tippen have a conversation.

From Harlan's column Monday:

"'He said I was stupid and dumb for talking to (the Post),' Tippen said. 'He cussed me and asked me why you wrote the article. I said, 'Because he's a reporter; that's what he does.' He said it was wrong for me to talk to you."

At that point, she was summarily fired.

There might be more to the story, of course. Maybe Tippen wasn't totally innocent, but this whole thing looks bad.

On the day in which Harlan talked to Tippen about being fired, Patel called the Post because he objected to having been (accurately) quoted that he objected to that 25 cent minimum wage hike.

To be specific, Patel said the tiny 25 cent minimum wage increase was "bad for Arkansas. Everybody wants free money in Pine Bluff."

Yeah, there's nothing worse than somebody who works 40 hours a week and actually expects to make enough money during those 40 hours to put food on the table and pay the rent. How selfish!

Harlan said he tried calling Patel for comment about his firing Tippen, but Patel sounds like a belligerent scardy cat.

Writes Harlan:

"A man who sounded like Patel, reached recently at the Days Inn, declined to comment in several separate phone calls. On one call, the man said he'd never met Herry Patel and did not know who he was. On another call, he threatened to call the police if 'you keep bothering us.'"

Hours after Harlan's story on Tippen's firing was published, there must have been blowback down in Pine Bluff because Patel called Harlan back, finally.

In an update to his Monday Washington Post piece, Harlan wrote that Patel disputed Tippen's version of events. He said she walked out on the job after a disagreement. Patel said he'd approached Tippen to ask about her past criminal record, which was outlined in the previous Washington Post story.

Tippen stood by her story, and said Patel didn't bring up her criminal history during the hiring, and only spoke heatedly to him after she'd been fired.

The parent company of the Days Inn in Pine Bluff, Wyndham Worldwide, seemed to wash its hands of the situation.

The company said in a statement, "While we do not control or oversee staffing decisions at our franchised locations, we do require that each independently owned and operated hotel comply with all local, state and federal laws, especially as it relates to employment practices."

Way to sidestep things, Wyndham. Labor laws are weak in Arkansas, so Patel probably was complying with Arkansas law. Federal law is pretty hands off in this area, too.

Ever think to look into whether or not this firing was ethically OK, even if it was legal?  

Look, I get it. Raising the minimum wage probably affects prices for all of us. But NOT raising the minimum wage does, too.

I'm not happy with the idea of paying taxes for government assistance so that people who are working 40 or more hours a week can survive.

I'd much rather pay an extra nickel or whatever for a Big Mac or a cheap toy at Walmart so that people can make a livable wage.

I also get it that the CEOs of these big corporations ought to be making much more money than the chambermaids, the hamburger flippers and the gal behind the register at the mini-mart.

Still, I don't think making it a little easier for people to make ends meet without government assistance will ruin the frickin' economy.

With the income gap in this nation putting us into another 1890s Guilded Age, maybe it's time to put a little dignity back into working for a living. That means paying people fairly when they do work, and not kicking them aside if they object to NOT being paid fairly.

I know my little screed here won't make any difference on this topic. But the more we all say it, and the more often, the better off everybody will be.

Including the ultra-rich CEOs. After all, employees who are treated fairly tend to do a better job. And maybe make more money their employer, too. 

Low Paid, Put-Upon Airport Workers A Security List

OK: Now I've got yet another thing to worry about.

I'm guessing the NSA, in its relentless combing of phone and database records, is probably looking for some Middle Eastern terrorists who might be a threat to our country.

Could bad airport working conditions and wages
lead to crime or terrorism? Workers want
higher wages. Photo by Dave Sanders/SEIU  

That threat might be real, but the New York Times and other news agencies might have indirectly uncovered another threat to our security, especially at airports.

Airports have substantially cut the pay of already low paid airport workers, deny them vacation time or days off, all in the name of cost cutting, according to the Times.

Upon reading this Dan Savage in his blog   raised a good point. The Powers That Be, who slash airport workers' wages, who make them work without breaks or time off, who willfully lower there standards of living because, Profits! might be opening the door to a domestic attack.

Some of these workers will get so resentful, goes Savage's reasoning, that they might resort to illegal activities. Drug running, even helping terrorists.

I think Savage is right.

Of course the airport workers, no matter how lousy their pay and working conditions, have a moral responsibility to not help criminals or terrorists.  But resentment sometimes overcomes morals, like it or not.

Airlines might be saving some cash for their bottom lines (not to mention their executive pay) But are they increasing the threats to our security at the same time?

Yeah, we can't all be millionaires, but maybe treat the workers a teensy, tiny bit better, and maybe give them an occasional pay raise, especially if they do a good job?

It could be a better investment than you'd think.

McDonald's To Low Wage Employees: Don't Forget To Give Your Au Pair and Nanny A Christmas Bonus!

Sometimes, the best thing to keep in mind is if you want to help, don't.

McDonalds (sort of) suggests she just send
back the Christmas gifts she gets so she can
pay her imaginary au pair.  

McDonald's needs that advice.

It seems like every other day, some news trickles out on how they are giving their low wage employees financial advice. (My advice is, hard as it is to do, all you McDonald's employees out there, keep trying to find a job with higher wages)

Anyway, much of the source of McDonald's advice comes from the McSource line, which is McDonald's way of offering helpful lifehacking hints to their employees.

The latest installment gives their often minimum wage employees advice on how much to tip their au pairs, housekeepers, pool cleaners, massage therapists, garage attendants and personal fitness trainers for the holidays.

Because it's no problem affording all those people, and the holiday bonuses on a $7.50 hourly wage with a limit of 30 hours a week, right?

McDonald's tells CNBC that the advice comes from the etiquette experts at the Emily Post Institute in Vermont. They ought to know what's the proper way to acknowledge employees at the holidays, right?

Well, we can't find anything wrong with Emily Post's advice, either. But I wonder if Post would consider it rude to mock low wage employees, however unintentionally, with this advice for people who have money, in other words, people who aren't McDonald's employees.

And I have to note it wasn't Post's idea to give this advice to McDonald's employee. It seems some contractor working for McDonald's lifted the Emily Post etiquette advice from some other side. After CNBC's embarrassing little questions about this matter, the "holiday gift to your au pair" advice has apparently disappeared.

This little crisis I guess is an improvement to previous advice the low wage McDonald's workers got. That was to return the unopened Christmas gifts they got and cash them in, to supplement their poverty level pay.

 Just a little Scrooge-like, no?

Before that, McDonald's helpfully provided sample budgets for its workers so they can figure out how to stretch their measly dollars.  The budgets included no money for heat (take THAT, Minnesota McDonald's workers) and only $20 a month for health care.

No wonder so many fast food workers have been going on strikes this week, despite the fact there's no real organized union backing them.

I remember back in the 1980s or 1990s, when politicians railed against "welfare queens" who got government benefits they didn't  qualify for or deserve.

I totally agree that only people truly in need should get a helping hand from the government.  So why are the corporate CEOs and such getting rich in part by paying their employees so little that they can get food stamps?

My tax dollars, then, are going to enrich the already rich because they're benefitting from food stamps by not paying their employees enough. What, some millionaire or billionaire needs my help to give the annual Christmas bonus to their pool boy at his mansion in Barbados?

Here's my Christmas gift to myself: No eating at McDonald's for me. It'll be a healthy choice anyway.

Your Tax Dollars At Work: You're Not Getting The Bargain You Think You Are at McDonald's, Walmart

I'm like the conservatives: If you're able to work you should at least try to find a job and well, work.   I don't want my tax dollars going to able bodied people so they can get food stamps and other benefits.

Worker demonstrate for higher wages
at McDonald's in New York recently  

Which is why I'm pissed off at outfits like McDonald's and Walmart.

Wuh, what?

It turns out there are a bunch of able bodied people out there collecting food stamps, Medicaid and such. These people are working, so you'd think they shouldn't get such benefits. But their wages are so low, they qualify.

So to some extent, our tax dollars are not propping up some lazy, shiftless would-be workers who should just get off their duff and well, work.  Our tax dollars are already going to already insanely rich corporate executivesso they can pay low wages and let the government, i.e. us taxpayers, foot the bill for the living expenses these workers can't meet on their low wages.

Bottom line: Your Big Mac or the so-called bargain you find at Walmart might be costing you more than you think.

 McDonald's actually advised a worker, Nancy Salgado, who couldn't get by on her fast food wages to apply for food stamps and Medicaid. 

The nation's minimum wage over the past decade or two hasn't kept up with inflation. Many employees at fast food joints and discount stores make minimum wage or just a little above that.

I'd love to find a way to figure out how much my Big Mac would cost if I factored in the money I'm paying for people's food stamps and such.

 To be fair, Salgado is an activist advocating for higher wages for fast food workers.  And it's true some employees of fast food places and discounters like Walmart are just teenagers or whatever trying to make an extra buck.

But still, why are we subsidizing the very, very rich owners of these outfits by using our tax dollars to let them pay employees low, low, wages. We clearly aren't getting the bargain they've advertised.

According to the National Employment Labor Project, McDonald's alone costs taxpayers $1.2 billion annually because employees need public assistance because their wages are so low.

Yes, I know this is a complicated issue. I'm no economist, so I'm not sure how a living wage for everyone would affect the overall economy.

But when something doesn't seem fair, like this situation, there really needs to be a fix. I'm certainly willing to pay a bit more for a Big Mac rather than pay for somebody's food stamps so a corporate executive can get even richer.

Here's an (edited) YouTube recording of Saldago's McDonald's call