Day 302 - 18 Nov 96 - Page 47


     
     1        that.  I think that was the other report.  Sorry,
     2        McDonald's wages were two years later, therefore they were
     3        actually inflated compared to the others.  I don't think
     4        this is this particular report.  Anyway, he deals with it
     5        all in this section of his evidence, so I will not read it
     6        all out.  Or much of it.
     7
     8        He said, this is page 43, line 9, "It would be difficult my
     9        Lord", answering a question from you, "to underestimate the
    10        importance of this market intelligence to McDonald's."
    11        I asked him, "Where is their position, do you conclude?"
    12        He said, "At the bottom quarter."  Question, "Of catering
    13        workers?"  Answer, "Catering rates".  Question, "Which is
    14        the whole category, which is in the low paid category in
    15        any event, given the whole of the catering."  Answer,
    16        "Within a low paid industry."  So that is all very clear,
    17        really.
    18
    19        And the point was made that 50 percent of the participants
    20        gave information that they had variable pay on top of the
    21        quoted hourly rates.  So McDonald's cannot argue they were
    22        the exception, because they had their, what I might call
    23        Micky Mouse performance review system, because I am sure
    24        other companies had other ways of making small increases in
    25        their employees' wages as well.
    26
    27        I think, the survey, that McDonald's had actually the wrong
    28        year's rates in comparison to what was dealt with on
    29        page 46 at the bottom.  This was a 1987 survey, if I can
    30        find it.  The new earnings survey, April 1987, G1.  I think
    31        that was again part of Lynne Mead's document.  It was dated
    32        28th April 1989, and what had happened is McDonald's were
    33        comparing their rate in 1989 with the average basic adult
    34        rates of equivalent work positions, such as shop
    35        assistants, catering chefs, barmen, that kind of stuff,
    36        from two years previously, and McDonald's still came out
    37        bottom in all categories even though they were comparing
    38        their rate in 1989.
    39
    40        So obviously, 1989 is a relevant time in this case and even
    41        compared to people in similar jobs, two years previously
    42        they still came bottom.  In fact, from my understanding of
    43        this chart, there was only one position for males or
    44        females of any equivalent type of job which came out
    45        slightly less than McDonald's own pay, and that was for
    46        women working in bars, and that would not take into
    47        account, of course, tips and things like that which would
    48        guarantee to bring up the wage rates for people who were
    49        doing bar work.  Helen can verify that, apparently.  This
    50        has gone somewhat slowly, but the second day of his
    51        evidence, a lot of it was just repetitive, so it will not
    52        need to be touched on.
    53
    54        Moving on to page 47, he goes on to the subject of
    55        overtime, and this is a very obviously important issue.
    56        Basically, Mr. Pearson's position is that people should get
    57        time and a half above 39 hours, and that should be on top
    58        of any premium shift rates.  In some industries where there
    59        is union strength they would be, of course, trying to get
    60        the figure below 39 hours a week.  That was page 48, line

Prev Next Index