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
