Fast Food Workers’ Rights

At a glance it is easy to see that the winning formula for the high economic success in the fast food industry is comprised of cheap food and cheap labor. Their ability to sell food at a low price in a matter of minutes caters to families or individuals limited on time or money, and in many cases both of these factors are of equal importance. Inordinately the consumption of low cost labor in the fast food industry has resulted in an underpaid and under protected workforce. In many ways limitations on workers’ rights in the fast food industry have been instrumental in the high profitability of the corporations that dominate it; however, the formation of unions or other sources of support for fast food workers would have implications on the price and/or quality of the final products sold. These implications, in particularly the price of the food, would force a complete restructure of the expectations and needs of customers who currently frequent the restaurants. A key element in sourcing low cost labor has been the excessive employment of teenagers. The fast food industry has exploited the needs and vulnerability of teenagers in order to create a high turnover workforce that is willing to accept low wages and easily taught. The industry has capitalized on assembly line production models, which require little skills from the workers; however, the machinery necessary for these conditions is often times dangerous and violates OSHA guidelines for underage employees (Fast Food Nation: Chapter 3). Parallel to the disregard of safety standards, the industry continues to accept government subsidies for worker training while increasing capabilities of said machinery in hopes of minimizing required skill levels. Furthermore, the teenagers employed are forced to sacrifice their time in such excessive amounts that the prioritization of education is diminished drastically. This creates a toxic environment for the teenagers who risk their education in exchange for a low paying job with little opportunity for significant salaries imperative for economic sustainability beyond the teenage years. Due to the nature of the workforce employed in the fast food industry, the possibilities for the formation of labor unions are inherently disparaged. The high turnover rates and part time hours employed make it difficult for the workers to organize effectively against these corporations. In the event that employees do collaborate towards unionization, trained executives and lawyers promptly terminate the efforts. The extremity of resistance against the formation of labor unions is demonstrated in the case of a McDonald’s in Michigan that went so far as to shut down operations and reopen with a new staff in response to union movements (Fast Food Nation: Chapter 3). This opposition displayed by fast food restaurants coupled with the tendency towards a teenage employee demographic is attributed to the ongoing efforts for a low cost, pliable labor force. In considering the viable possibilities for the formation of an organized and well-protected workforce within the fast food industry, it is important to contemplate ways in which a mutually rewarding scenario for both the employee and the employer can be produced. The major companies that currently dominate the industry will not risk their own profitability for the benefit of its tactfully chosen young and minimally trained workforce. For them a viable solution to the labor debate without sacrificing profit would be even further compromising of the quality of the food and/or a significant increase in selling prices of the food. In effect, the current demographic of the money-restricted customer would need to be restructured. This could create ever further implications regarding the socioeconomic conditions that produce this ideal fast food consumer; however, this would now require the industry to consider both worker and consumer rights.

Obesity and Individual Choice Traditionally, our society has structured body image and weight as an individual choice in varying degrees dependent on current cultural influencers at any given time. More recently the probable solutions for the obesity epidemic has been a topic of great consideration in America. These discussions too often focus on the behavior of the individual rather than the societal influences that have created the epidemic. Individual responsibility in regards to health is a practical discussion; however, this can only be debated as a consequence of a complete restructure of the societal conditions upon which the stigma of obesity has been built. The current state of our food system requires that both the stigma and responsibility of obesity be shifted from the individual to our society as a whole. A fundamental aspect to understand is the emphasis placed on consumption in American culture that has allowed for obesity to be viewed as an individual choice. Patel’s Stuffed and Starved highlights the role that war has habitually impacted American consumption. For example, the popularity of processed and canned foods can be traced back to food rations during the US Civil War. Later, Coca Cola was exempt from the sugar ration of WWII for US soldiers. Instilled in American culture through their apparent associations to patriotism, the markets behind these items and others like them were able to flourish. Furthermore, the excess consumption of these goods has become a staple of the American way (Julier “The Political Economy of Obesity”). In juxtaposition with this American ideology is the importance of making healthy food choices and the stigmatized assumptions of making the wrong choices. The culture that has so adamantly embraced processed food and consumption beyond need is now ostracizing those who have succumb to the societal influences of patriotism that have impacted the way American’s eat. Another factor worth discussing is the correlation between poverty levels and obesity. An entire industry has been capitalized around health and ways to prevent obesity including medical procedures, diets, and fitness. The health industry has proven to be an extremely profitable market; however, it remains out of the reach of many Americans due to the high expenses associated with it creating an assumption that obesity is a consequence of poverty. In addition to these cultural inferences we must also consider that “the links between poverty and obesity are compounded by such things as: food deserts in poor neighborhoods and the unequal distribution of good quality food for a decent price across socioeconomic areas” (Julier 552). In conjunction these factors create an automatic association between obesity and poverty. Obesity is in effect stigmatized by poverty when the concern should lie in the underlying dynamics of these conditions. Combined, these American consumption ideologies and economic implications of obesity demonstrate the influences that go beyond individual choice or control. To simply say that obesity is an individual condition that is a consequence of personal choice fails to consider the both conscious and unconscious societal influences of these choices. In order to solve the “problem” of obesity we must reshape the way Americans eat food and solve the economic and political issues behind the distributions of healthy food. Fixing the prices and availability of healthy food options would be a good start for stabilizing the supposed epidemic, however, larger issues such as poverty and other socioeconomic conditions should be the focus of such conversations. The individual cannot hold responsibility for obesity in a society where excess consumption is glorified and healthy options are also the expensive option. Therefore, the solution to the obesity epidemic requires a restructuring of both cultural norms and economic condition.