National Survey of Franchisee Employees Finds Overwhelming Job Satisfaction


**To RSVP for a 10:30 am press call on 1/10 with the lead survey researcher, email [email protected]**

Andy Puzder, CEO of CKE Restaurants (Hardee’s and Carl’s Jr), has been nominated by President-elect Donald Trump for Secretary of Labor, and his confirmation hearing is scheduled for the week of January 16th. The nomination has generated considerable interest in the work environment for employees of Carl’s Jr. and Hardee’s locations, most of which are independently owned and operated by franchisees.

To answer this question, the Employment Policies Institute (EPI) today released the results of a national survey conducted by CorCom Inc. of employees of CKE franchisees. 92 percent of surveyed employees agree that Carl’s Jr./Hardee’s is a great place to work, and that management is willing to accommodate schedules outside of work. 90 percent of employees agree that they admire store and company management, that they have learned marketable job skills, and that Carl’s Jr./Hardees provides an opportunity to move up in the workplace. Notably, 93 percent of female employees agree that they feel “safe and respected” in the workplace, including three-quarters of female employees who strongly agree that they feel “safe and respected.”

Percentage of CKE Employees who agree with the following statements:

I have learned valuable, marketable job market skills working here. 90%
I feel safe and respected in this working environment. 92%
I work in a diverse workplace. 92%
Carl’s Jr./ Hardee’s provides…an opportunity to move up in the workplace. 90%
Carl’s Jr./Hardee’s is a great place to work. 92%
I have the opportunity to work as many hours as I’d like. 73%
Management is willing to accommodate my schedule outside of work. 92%
I admire the store management and the management of the company. 90%

Percentage of Female CKE Employees who agree with the following statements:

I have learned valuable, marketable job market skills working here. 91%
I feel safe and respected in this working environment. 93%
I work in a diverse workplace. 96%
Carl’s Jr./ Hardee’s provides…an opportunity to move up in the workplace. 88%
Carl’s Jr./Hardee’s is a great place to work. 93%
I have the opportunity to work as many hours as I’d like. 77%
Management is willing to accommodate my schedule outside of work. 93%
I admire the store management and the management of the company. 91%

METHODOLOGY

A total of 242 telephone interviews were completed with Carl’s Jr. and Hardee’s employees from January 6, 2017 to January 9, 2017.  The survey was conducted by CorCom, Inc. and has a margin of error of plus or minus 7%. The full survey and results can be viewed here.

The contact list for this survey was built from a total of 3,503 employee phone numbers that were provided directly from Carl’s Jr. and Hardee’s franchisees, representing 305 stores in the South, Midwest and Western United States. Franchisees were provided with the following standard disclaimer to distribute to employees:

A third-party survey research firm, CorCom, Inc., is conducting a survey of quick service restaurant employees to ask questions about their working environment. They have requested a list of employee telephone numbers for this project, without any other identifiable information such as your full name or address. You may be hearing from them within the next week. If you would like to opt-out of this survey, please let YOUR COMPANY CONTACT know as soon as possible.

Employees who responded to this survey were guaranteed confidentiality and all individual responses were kept confidential by CorCom, Inc. and have not made available to either EPI or the franchisees who provided the contact information.

 

Franchisee breakdown of respondents:

 

Carl’s Jr. 16%
Hardee’s 84%

 

Geographic breakdown of respondents: 

Northeast
Midwest 60%
South 20%
West 17%
Not answered 3%

Local Voices in Maine Speak Out Against Extreme Wage Hike

The debate over whether to raise Maine’s minimum wage by 60 percent (and raise its tipped minimum wage by over 200 percent) is a study in contrasts.

On the one side, advocates for the extreme wage increase have been powered by five- and six-figure checks flooding in from out-of-state donors. We previously reported that at least three-quarters of the monetary contributions for Mainers for Fair Wages come from out of state, and the Bangor Daily News confirmed that at least two-thirds of all donations (including in-kind contributions) are also coming from out of state.

On the other side of the debate are local Maine business owners, who have provided nearly 90 percent of the modest budget for the campaign against an extreme increase in the state’s minimum wage. (The coalition website is available here.) One of these local business owners is Randy Wadleigh, who offered the following warning in a recent Daily News submission:

Many restaurant owners believe they will need to raise menu prices to make ends meet, with some owners estimating an increase between 25 percent to 50 percent. So if you have breakfast and your bill currently comes to $8, you can expect to pay as much as $12 in the future for that same meal. This is not some scare tactic, this is math. …

Mainers on a fixed income have no ability to make up for the increases if Question 4 passes. For a restaurant like mine, the impact will be significant as seniors citizens are our bread and butter. Losing their business on top of higher wages will create the perfect storm for layoffs and other cut backs as we struggle to make ends meet.

Another local business owner who’s concerned about the extreme wage measure is Steve DiMillo. His family’s restaurant, a Portland institution, was founded by his father long before Commercial Street was the popular destination it is today. The proposed wage increase would force DiMillo to give his best-paid employees (tipped servers), who already earn as much as $35 an hour, a pay boost–costing the company over $600k a year that it doesn’t have, and that its customers can’t pay for.

As DiMillo explains in this video, the measure would have a significant negative impact on his business and the people he employs–which is why he, and his employees, are opposed to it.

Earlier this year, EPI released an analysis by Drs. David Macpherson of Trinity University and William Even of Miami University which found that roughly 3,800 jobs would be lost in the state at $12, the majority of which would come from smaller businesses rather than large corporations.

 

 

How a $15 Minimum Wage Will Change New Jersey

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie is currently deciding whether or not to sign a $15 minimum wage into law, and the Employment Policies Institute today released a new commercial that should help him make his decision.

Earlier this year, EPI released an analysis by Drs. David Macpherson of Trinity University and William Even of Miami University that examined the impact of a $15 starter wage in New Jersey. It found that the policy would cost the state 33,500 jobs, 92 percent of which would come from employees without a college degree. The analysis also found that a $15 starter wage would have little effect on poverty rates in New Jersey poverty rate because two-thirds of the state’s working age poor are unemployed.

The commercial concludes by stating that a minimum wage hike in New Jersey “won’t change the lives of people who need a job, not a raise.” Governor Christie should reject a hike in the starting wage hike in the interest of increasing New Jersey’s entry-level employment opportunities.

Cherry-Picking Arguments for $12 in Maine

A $12 minimum wage will cost the state of Maine at least 4,000 jobs, but that hasn’t kept proponents in the state from advancing bad arguments to support it.

Consider a recent release by the labor union-backed National Employment Law Project (NELP), which argues that large businesses rather than small mom-and-pops will have to pay the cost for a $12 minimum wage.

In Maine, it is large retailers—not mom-and-pop businesses—that employ the majority of workers earning less than $12. According to analysis of the latest available data from the Survey of Business Owners, large businesses (defined here as those with 500 or more workers) employ 52.4 percent of all retail workers in the state…

NELP’s decision to ignore food service is a curious one, given that it has previously dedicated entire reports to criticizing restaurants. A closer look at the data reveals why the organization cherry-picked its numbers.

Using the same data as NELP to examine employees of restaurants and hotels in Maine, a very different picture emerges. Fewer than one in five employees in this industry works for a large business with 500 or more employees; by contrast, two-thirds work for very small businesses with fewer than 100 employees. (Even this analysis is incomplete, as it focuses on the entire industry rather than just those employees affected by a $12 minimum wage.)

Maine restaurant

It appears NELP left this data out of its analysis because it didn’t support the “big business” narrative. It’s an unacceptable omission, because small businesses in the accommodations and food service industry stand to be most-impacted by the proposed $12 ballot measure, which takes the radical step of raising by 220 percent the base wage for employees who earn tip income.

Michelle Cory, owner of restaurant Five Fifty-Five in Portland, had a stark warning for voters: “To eliminate this long-standing statute will not only stop investors from opening new table-service restaurants in Maine, but also make the survival of many of Maine’s small, iconic restaurants difficult at best.”

SEIU vs. Cleveland Grocery Stores

With a revitalized downtown and a commitment to reducing pollution and crime, Cleveland will be hosting the Republican National Convention in July and plans to become a destination city. All of this could come crashing down, however, with the passage of a $15 minimum wage.

The Service Employees union has selected Cleveland as its next target for $15, but has run into opposition from unexpected quarters: The city’s Democratic Mayor, Democratic Council President, and some of its most powerful union leaders have all come out against the proposal. They’re concerned that labor’s fight for a Cleveland-specific $15 wage, if successful, would drive small businesses out of existence and take the heart out of the city’s revival.

Recent testimony before the City Council suggests that nearly doubling the state minimum wage would have a uniquely harmful impact on the city’s grocery stores—in particular, those stores that serve low-income neighborhoods. Joel Ratner, president and CEO of the community development nonprofit agency Cleveland Neighborhood Progress, explained:

[Ratner] said his organization has played a role in the development of nearly every grocery store in the city, and he knows of two grocery chains that continue to operate some stores at a financial loss because they are committed to meeting the needs of the neighborhoods.

“If this were to pass, there would be a wholesale closing of grocery stores in Cleveland,” Ratner said. “In fact, we think most grocery stores in the city would close, because their margins are already so narrow. … And I would expect that it would create a huge spike in hunger and demand on emergency food systems.”

One of those grocery chains operating locations at a loss appears to be Dave’s Markets, a local favorite that has made an investment in low-income neighborhoods in the city.

At a Cleveland City Council committee meeting Thursday morning, the Saltzmans of Dave’s Markets (Steve, Dan and their papa, Burt) testified that the proposed city minimum wage increase, to $15 from the state’s current $8.10, would cripple their grocery store business. … [A] precipitous wage increase in the city of Cleveland alone might necessitate closing a location or two, Steve Saltzman said.

The Plain Dealer’s retired editorial director Brent Larkin succinctly characterized the SEIU and its effort to impose $15 on Cleveland: “[The SEIU’s] great weakness is it doesn’t give a damn about collateral damage. In this case, the collateral damage would be right here.”

The Impact of a $12 Federal Minimum Wage

The “Raise the Wage Act,” introduced by Sen. Patty Murray (D-CA) and Rep. Bobby Scott (D-VA) in March 2015 would raise the federal minimum wage by 66 percent to $12 an hour. The legislation received a high-profile backer this fall in Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.

Proponents say that such a boost will reduce poverty without reducing jobs. But the academic evidence suggests otherwise. Economists from American and Cornell University studied the 28 states that raised their minimum wages between 2003 and 2007 and found no associated reduction in poverty. And, last year, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) drew on the best available minimum wage research to analyze the impact of a $10.10 federal minimum wage and concluded that 500,000 employees would lose their jobs if the legislation came into effect.

In this new analysis, Drs. William E. Even and David Macpherson, economists from Miami University and Trinity University, respectively, use the same methodology as the CBO and conclude that 770,000 jobs would be lost if this legislation mandating a $12 minimum wage were enacted.

The analysis also explores the reasons why minimum wage increases have historically had such little success in decreasing poverty. The analysis finds that the average household income of those affected by the $12 legislation is $55,800. That’s largely because, as the analysis reveals, 60 percent of those affected by the hike are secondary or tertiary earners in their household.

Presidential primary candidate Hillary Clinton has argued for a minimum wage increase as part of her policy platform to boost the middle class. But this analysis shows that those with household incomes between $35,000 and up to $100,000 would bear a large portion (43%) of the job loss from this higher minimum wage.

 

Job Loss

 

In the table below, the economists use Current Population Survey (CPS) data to identify the number of employees in each state who would be affected by a $12 minimum wage. Using the CBO methodology, they estimate the amount of job loss that would occur if the minimum wage increase were enacted. In total, they conclude that approximately 770,000 jobs would be lost nationwide at a $12 minimum wage.

 

Number Affected and Employment Loss by State

State Employment Loss Number Affected
ALABAMA 12,672 436,264
ALASKA 896 36,663
ARIZONA 15,085 560,480
ARKANSAS 9,792 288,450
CALIFORNIA 36,868 2,745,977
COLORADO 9,665 351,603
CONNECTICUT 3,260 203,048
DELAWARE 2,503 71,367
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 64 13,978
FLORIDA 46,357 1,669,425
GEORGIA 32,675 972,185
HAWAII 854 81,875
IDAHO 6,606 162,522
ILLINOIS 28,462 909,686
INDIANA 25,488 655,922
IOWA 12,964 296,424
KANSAS 12,307 277,724
KENTUCKY 14,504 385,656
LOUISIANA 14,937 415,619
MAINE 3,707 115,096
MARYLAND 2,981 308,409
MASSACHUSETTS 758 165,938
MICHIGAN 30,266 851,156
MINNESOTA 10,525 389,068
MISSISSIPPI 10,406 264,235
MISSOURI 21,909 527,664
MONTANA 2,674 90,815
NEBRASKA 4,657 165,500
NEVADA 6,745 250,388
NEW HAMPSHIRE 4,102 103,620
NEW JERSEY 15,605 619,732
NEW MEXICO 4,035 150,605
NEW YORK 33,409 1,310,273
NORTH CAROLINA 36,922 1,037,398
NORTH DAKOTA 2,050 55,431
OHIO 32,029 946,626
OKLAHOMA 10,812 298,454
OREGON 3,086 231,217
PENNSYLVANIA 40,430 1,055,487
RHODE ISLAND 2,560 77,950
SOUTH CAROLINA 14,824 455,845
SOUTH DAKOTA 1,769 69,287
TENNESSEE 26,275 628,054
TEXAS 91,645 2,673,048
UTAH 10,171 248,033
VERMONT 558 32,134
VIRGINIA 24,223 661,336
WASHINGTON 3,561 314,605
WEST VIRGINIA 5,188 168,778
WISCONSIN 24,547 496,486
WYOMING 1,616 44,333

Other minimum wage proponents, most notably presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, have backed the proposal as part of a policy package to help middle class. However, in the table below, the economists show that those households with incomes between roughly $35,000 and $100,000 would bear a large proportion of the job loss, losing approximately 43 percent of the 770,000 lost jobs.

 

Employment Loss by Household Income

Family  Income Employment Loss # Affected % of Employment Loss
Up to $34,999 316,801 11,347,257 41%
$35,000 – $99,999 329,122 10,583,633 43%
$100,000 or More 124,082 3,410,980 16%

 

Using CPS data, the economists also identify which demographics would be hardest hit by this job loss. They find that it would disproportionately impact black Americans, who would suffer 18 percent of the lost jobs despite being 13 percent of the U.S. population.

 

Employment Loss by Race

Race Employment Loss # Affected
White                               584,403     19,026,468
Black                               129,212        4,232,848
Other Race                                  56,390        2,082,554

 

Family Income and Family Status

 

The CPS also allows the economists to identify the income and family characteristics of those who would be affected by the wage hike. Contrary to the claims of minimum wage proponents, who argue that the minimum wage needs to be raised to help those in poverty, the analysis finds that the average family income of those affected by the proposed wage hike is $55,800 – around three times the federal poverty line.

 

Family Income of Affected Employees

State Average
ALABAMA $48,181
ALASKA $69,365
ARIZONA $51,459
ARKANSAS $42,235
CALIFORNIA $57,441
COLORADO $60,571
CONNECTICUT $80,132
DELAWARE $57,702
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA $69,667
FLORIDA $48,771
GEORGIA $49,526
HAWAII $70,118
IDAHO $46,912
ILLINOIS $69,481
INDIANA $53,124
IOWA $52,585
KANSAS $53,436
KENTUCKY $42,387
LOUISIANA $51,146
MAINE $54,313
MARYLAND $78,635
MASSACHUSETTS $84,474
MICHIGAN $54,773
MINNESOTA $70,135
MISSISSIPPI $45,113
MISSOURI $57,157
MONTANA $43,828
NEBRASKA $54,477
NEVADA $50,371
NEW HAMPSHIRE $75,658
NEW JERSEY $75,709
NEW MEXICO $49,589
NEW YORK $62,636
NORTH CAROLINA $43,853
NORTH DAKOTA $62,401
OHIO $55,118
OKLAHOMA $52,235
OREGON $48,953
PENNSYLVANIA $62,981
RHODE ISLAND $62,731
SOUTH CAROLINA $48,210
SOUTH DAKOTA $57,170
TENNESSEE $48,353
TEXAS $49,792
UTAH $57,369
VERMONT $62,362
VIRGINIA $65,459
WASHINGTON $58,382
WEST VIRGINIA $51,555
WISCONSIN $62,462
WYOMING $55,504
UNITED STATES $55,769

Further examination of the CPS data helps explain this apparent paradox. The economists find that roughly 60 percent of those affected by the proposed minimum wage hike are secondary or tertiary earners in their families. In other words, most minimum wage earners supplement family incomes rather than drive them. In fact, only 9 percent of those affected by the wage hike are single parents.

 

Family status of those affected by $12

State Single Adult Single Parent Married Sole Earner Married Dual Earner Living w/ Family or Relative
UNITED STATES 21.37% 9.09% 8.91% 20.14% 40.49%

 

Methodology

 

Drs. Even and Macphersons’ estimates rely on data from the Current Population Survey from January through December 2014.   The Current Population Survey (CPS),  jointly sponsored by the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the  U.S. Census Bureau, contains data obtained  from monthly interviews with approximately 60,000 households from all 50 states and the District of Columbia.     The data provides weights that allow researchers to estimate labor market statistics at the national or state level.   For example, the CPS is the primary data source for estimates of the national and state unemployment rate, as well as hours worked and hourly wages.

When a household is selected for inclusion in the CPS, it is included for four consecutive months, then excluded for 8 months, and then it returns for an additional 4 months.   Earnings data is collected from household members only in their 4th and 8th interview when they are considered part of an “outgoing rotation group” (ORG).   Because earnings data is essential to our analysis of minimum wage effects, they rely on data collected from households who are part of a CPS-ORG between January and December 2014.

To project the distribution of wages in 2020 without passage of the new legislation, they assume that every potentially affected worker has wage growth of 2.9 percent annually until 2020 and that the labor force will grow by 0.86 percent annually.  These assumptions are based on the CBO’s own forecast of wage growth for low skill workers in their study of the employment effects of minimum wage hikes, and their projection of employment growth.   Also, for any state that indexes their minimum wage for inflation, they assume that the minimum wage would grow by 2.1 percent  annually based on the CBO forecast of inflation for 2015 and 2020.    For any worker who earned at or above the minimum in the year of the survey (2014) and whose predicted wage in 2020 was below the projected minimum in their state of residence, they increase their wage to the state’s minimum in 2020.   For workers who earned up to $.25 below the minimum in the year of the survey, they increase by the amount that the state’s minimum wage would increase based on current law.   This means, for example, that a person who earned $.15 less than the minimum wage in 2014 would still earn $.15 below the state’s new minimum in 2020.

 

Estimating Affected Workers and Employment Loss

 

After generating the forecast of the 2020 distribution of wages reflecting wage growth and the effects of indexing on the minimum wage, they identify workers who would be affected by the new law mandating a $12.00 minimum as those with wages between the predicted state minimum wage legislated for 2020 and the proposed minimum ($12).  They also include those workers who theyre slightly below (up to $.25) the old and new minimum.

 

To estimate the number of affected workers, they estimate the number of affected workers for 2020 based on the 2014 data.    They estimate the number of affected workers by summing their earnings weights (adjusted for labor force growth through 2020) and dividing the total by 12  (the number of months of data).

 

To estimate employment loss, for each affected worker they compute:

 

L = e *(Proposed Min Wage /Min Wage 2020 – 1)

 

where e is an assumed elasticity of employment with respect to changes in the minimum wage, Min Wage 2020 is the minimum wage currently legislated for 2020 and Proposed Min Wage is the $12.00 minimum that is being proposed for 2020.   To estimate the aggregate employment loss in the economy, they use adjusted earnings weights to sum L across workers. They also follow the Congressional Budget Office (2014) and use an elasticity of 0.15 for non-teenagers and 0.45 for teenagers.

 

 

 

Should Portland Listen to “Patriotic” Millionaires?

Voters in Portland, ME, will next week decide at the ballot box whether to raise the city’s minimum wage to $15 an hour.

It’s a controversial proposal: The City Council just increased the city’s minimum wage  to $10.10 an hour, and many local voices — including the editorial board of the Press-Herald and the Maine Medical Center — have spoken out against the $15 mandate. Even  advocates for Portland’s $10.10 minimum wage have joined other small businesses in opposition to $15.

Given the overwhelming opposition from local voices, it was curious to see a commercial air this week in support of the $15 minimum wage mandate from a group calling itself “Patriotic Millionaires.” The commercial features twelve different speakers–all of whom earn or have a net worth in the seven figures–offering quick soundbites in support of a minimum wage increase.

The speakers include wealthy heirs to family fortunes, tech millionaires, media moguls, real estate investors, and finance types. The only one of the bunch who’s currently involved in the sort of low-margin business that would be hurt by a $15 minimum wage is Scott Nash, founder and CEO of Mom’s Organic Market.

But here’s the rub: Even Scott Nash doesn’t pay a starting wage of $15 an hour.

Nash explained last year that he pays an $11-an-hour starting wage at his stores; at his Washington, DC, location, he’s increased the starting pay level to $12.50 an hour. If Nash isn’t paying $15 at this own locations, why is the Patriotic Millionaires organization using him as a spokesperson for $15 in Portland?

It’s a question that Portland residents should keep in mind this weekend when they next see the out-of-town “Millionaires” appear on their TVs.

Labor Loophole Coming Soon to Santa Monica?

The Los Angeles County Federation of Labor was widely-ridiculed for its attempt to exempt union members covered by collective bargaining agreements from the $15 minimum wage it had championed for the city. As the Los Angeles Times wrote in a scathing editorial: 

It’s stunning that after leading the fight for a $15 citywide minimum wage and vehemently opposing efforts to exempt restaurant workers, nonprofits and small businesses from the full wage hike, the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor is now lobbying for an exemption for employers with union contracts. … This is hypocrisy at its worst, and it plays into the cynical view that the federation is more interested in unionizing companies and boosting its rolls of dues-paying members than in helping poor workers.

After drawing national condemnation, even from staunch allies of the labor movement, you’d think that Federation head Rusty Hicks would have learned his lesson. You’d be wrong.

This Tuesday, at the encouragement of Mr. Hicks and his labor allies, the Santa Monica City Council will consider an ordinance to create a citywide minimum wage of $15 an hour. Sure enough, tucked away on page 8 of the proposed ordinance is a loophole that exempts collective bargaining agreements from the wage requirement:

CBA waiver

It’s worth remembering that these union carve-outs are so controversial that not even other union bosses will defend them. Mr. Hicks’ counterpart in Kansas City, for instance, argued that what’s good for goose is good for the gander: “If it’s the right thing to do, it’s the right thing to do for all working people.”

The real reason for the collective bargaining opt-out, as mentioned by the Times in its editorial, is that it provides labor unions with a useful carrot & stick tool in organizing drives, to encourage employers to play along. David Rolf of the SEIU, who was responsible for pushing the $15 minimum wage ordinance in SeaTac, described it this way in a radio interview:

Host: Was that (the union waiver) included as a way of trying to incentivize employers to accept unions in their workplaces?

Rolf: We always want to offer an olive branch and a high road approach to employers of conscience who would prefer to have direct and honest dealings across the bargaining table with a union that their employees vote for. So, yes, we hope that amongst the several unions that are active in the airport economy — such as SEIU Local 6, Unite Here Local 8, Teamsters Local 117, and UFCW Local 21 — that if workers choose to join those unions, we want to, you know, facilitate and encourage productive, bilateral collective bargaining agreements.

When he says “facilitate and encourage,” what Rolf means is that he wants to use the minimum wage to make unionization the less painful of two options. It may be smart business for unions seeking new dues-paying members, but it makes their support of the Fight for $15 a self-serving decision rather than an honorable one.

The labor movement in Los Angeles County received a major dent in its halo when it fought for (and lost) a union loophole in the city’s minimum wage law. It’s hard to believe that they’re back at it again in Santa Monica.

 

Big Labor Tries (and Fails) to Dismiss the Consequences of $15

Advocates for a dramatically-higher minimum wage–in cities including Seattle, San Francisco, and Oakland–have come face to face with an embarrassing downside for their movement: Unflattering press coverage.

Past increases in the minimum wage were often in the range of a dollar or less, phased in over a number of years. That’s enough to result in some job losses, but typically not enough to generate massive, business-altering changes. However with new minimum wage levels that are phasing up to $15 an hour, or with a wage law that includes an overnight jump of close to 40 percent, the potential for unintended consequences for employees is much more serious.

We’ve chronicled many of these press stories at a website called Faces of $15, which we launched earlier this year. The site pulls from first-hand interviews or third-party news sources to document the real consequences–dramatic price hikes, lost jobs, and even closed doors–of these minimum wage increases. Importantly, the site offers no editorial comment on each business owners’ personal feelings on wage hikes.

Despite this hard evidence, Big Labor and its allies are doing what they do best: Equivocating, making stuff up, and otherwise hiding the ball from the public about consequential evidence of minimum wage harm.

The latest example comes from the Madison, WI-based Center for Media & Democracy (CMD). CMD, which can always be relied on to parrot the talking points of its labor union donors, is best-known for its hypocrisy: In 2013, CMD was caught accepting six-figure anonymous donations after railing against the same donation practice by groups on the political right.

In a new blog post on its PR Watch website, CMD tries to poke holes in the stories on the Faces of $15 project. Evidently, they couldn’t find many holes to poke: Of the nearly thirty stories on the website, only a handful made it into CMD’s write-up. Even in the stories it highlights, CMD’s “smoking guns” turn out to be water pistols.

For instance, a Seattle restaurant called The Walrus and the Carpenter responded to the city’s dramatic wage mandate by eliminating tips and replacing them with a steep service fee on the bill. The move was newsworthy enough that Seattle Eater reported on it, so we noted this dramatic change on the Faces of $15 website. CMD subsequently called the restaurant, found out that the owners support the city’s higher wage policy, and tried to call “gotcha” on our Faces project.

CMD needs to try harder. Our website reported the facts via Eater–nothing more, nothing less–and CMD’s stunt did nothing to change that. The owners of that restaurant might support a wage mandate that forces them to eliminate tips, but survey data shows that most tipped employees do not support this change.

CMD’s other criticisms are equally vacuous. They dismiss the story of one pizza business that closed explicitly as a consequence of Seattle’s wage mandate by noting that another pizza business is moving in behind it. Unmentioned in CMD’s write-up: This new business is subject to a very different wage structure than the closed one that it’s replacing.

CMD’s write-up failed to make a splash, and it’s not hard to figure out why: When business owners explicitly finger the minimum wage as a factor in their decision to raise prices, cut jobs, or close, not even well-crafted, union-funded spin can obscure this inconvenient truth.

New York’s Fast Food Flop

When New York Governor Andrew Cuomo announced in May his intention to impanel a wage board to “examine the minimum wage in the fast food industry,” fair-minded observers understood the implications: The minimum wage was going up, and it was most likely rising to the $15-an-hour level demanded by the SEIU.

Three months later, the Governor’s hand-picked board dutifully delivered a set of recommendations that matched these expectations, raising the hourly wage to $15 over three years in New York City, and over six years in the rest of the state.

A survey of nearly 1,000 New York fast food businesses, released by EPI earlier this year, documented the harm that this extreme mandate will cause to the state’s small businesses and the people they employ. Now, a new billboard in Times Square highlights another unintended consequence of the law: Devaluing the hard work of more-experienced employees who have worked their way up the career ladder.

This isn’t a hypothetical concern. In a survey this summer of 301 employees who earn $12-$15 an hour, 46 percent opposed a law that would require entry-level employees to be paid the same wage that they earn. It’s understandable: A majority of these employees had two or more years of job experience and at least some college education, suggesting they wouldn’t be thrilled at a new law that allows people with neither of these characteristics to earn their same wage.

The billboard, which succinctly makes this point, can be seen for the next month on Broadway in New York City’s Times Square, just south of West 46th St.

Barry_FastFood.indd