Saintless

As if we don’t already have enough reasons to buy local, the King of Burgers has given us an extra one, apparently worth an entire penny.

Migrant farm workers in Florida earn 45 pennies for each 32 pound bucket of tomatoes they pick. A whopping 45 cents. And Burger King wants to reward them by giving them a 40% pay cut for Christmas.

In 2005, Florida tomato pickers gained their first significant pay raise since the late 1970s when Taco Bell ended a consumer boycott by agreeing to pay an extra penny per pound for its tomatoes, with the extra cent going directly to the farm workers. Last April, McDonald’s agreed to a similar arrangement, increasing the wages of its tomato pickers to about 77 cents per bucket. But Burger King, whose headquarters are in Florida, has adamantly refused to pay the extra penny — and its refusal has encouraged tomato growers to cancel the deals already struck with Taco Bell and McDonald’s.

And in case you don’t think the immigration debate is worthy of much attention, here’s one that should make you rush to one side or the other:

Migrant farm laborers have long been among America’s most impoverished workers. Perhaps 80 percent of the migrants in Florida are illegal immigrants and thus especially vulnerable to abuse. During the past decade, the United States Justice Department has prosecuted half a dozen cases of slavery among farm workers in Florida. Migrants have been driven into debt, forced to work for nothing and kept in chained trailers at night. The Coalition of Immokalee Workers — a farm worker alliance based in Immokalee, Fla. — has done a heroic job improving the lives of migrants in the state, investigating slavery cases and negotiating the penny-per-pound surcharge with fast food chains.

That’s right. Slavery, right here in the Good ‘ol US of A in the 21st century.

Back to the topic, though. The Florida Tomato Growers Exchange, which represents about 90% of the tomato growers in Florida, is making threats against any grower who accepts the extra $.01 for the workers.

Not sure how any of this fits together? Well, if Burger King hadn’t refused to pay the extra penny, McDonalds and Taco Bell would not be backing out of their new agreements which amount to about $.77 per bucket, up from the current $.45.

Burger King has justified its behavior by claiming that it has no control over the labor practices of its suppliers. “Florida growers have a right to run their businesses how they see fit,” a Burger King spokesman told The St. Petersburg Times.

Yet the company has adopted a far more activist approach when the issue is the well-being of livestock. In March, Burger King announced strict new rules on how its meatpacking suppliers should treat chickens and hogs. As for human rights abuses, Burger King has suggested that if the poor farm workers of southern Florida need more money, they should apply for jobs at its restaurants.

I’m adding Burger King to my list of places not to spend money at. They’re right up there with Wal-Mart, in my opinion.

If you’d like to do more, you can always write:

John W. Chidsey
Chief Executive Officer
Burger King Corporation
5505 Blue Lagoon Drive
Miami, Florida 33126

If you’re an investor with Bain Capital, the Texas Pacific Group or Goldman Sachs Capital Partners, you should be aware that these three control most of the stock - which means that could be another avenue of action.

And, again, don’t forget that buying local benefits you and your community. Check out this list of Food and Beverage companies from Local First. And if you know of businesses that should be on this list and aren’t, encourage them to get listed.

(h/t Geekesque, one of my favorite Kossaks)

The latest buzz seems to be that Barack Obama and Ron Paul ought to be running mates, in one fashion or another. Let’s do a comparison and see how that might work out.

Lobbyists
Paul voted NO to H.R. 437, to require lobbyist disclosure of bundled donations, May 2007.
Barack Obama has spoken out against such bundling.

Energy Independence and Environmental Impact
Paul Voted NO to H.R. 6
Obama voted YES to H.R. 6
to move toward energy independence and security, to increase the production of clean renewable fuels, to increase the energy efficiency of products, buildings, and vehicles, to promote research on and deploy greenhouse gas capture and storage options, January 2007.

Paul Rated 5% in 2003 by the League of Conservation Voters, indicating anti-environment votes.
Obama rated 100%, the highest environmental rating by the LCV.

Paul Voted NO on raising CAFE standards and providing incentives for alternative fuels, August 2001.
Barack Obama believes that we can meet energy needs while also protecting our environment, with such things as a Cap and Trade system, finding alternative fuels, and that the way to achieve that is to invest in them.

Paul Voted NO on the Kyoto Protocol, Jun 2000.
Barack’s energy policies are in alignment with the Kyoto Protocol.

Big Business vs. The People
Paul spoke out against Network Neutrality.
Barack Obama is most certainly for Network Neutrality.

Paul Voted YES on restricting bankruptcy rules, making it harder for the average American, while protecting business, January 2004.
Barack Obama spoke on the Floor of the Senate against such restrictions.

Individual Rights
Paul Rated 0% by NARAL in 2003, indicating a pro-life voting record.
Barack Obama has a 100% score from NARAL.

Paul Rated 100% by FAIR (Federation for American Immigration Reform), indicating a voting record restricting immigration.
Obama wants tough, practical reform, but not an end to immigration.

Paul Voted NO on H.R. 2, to increase minimum wage to $7.25 in January 2007.
Barack voted YES to minimum wage.

Paul Voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC in July 1999.
Barack Obama believes LGBT couples should have the same rights as everyone else.

Government Reform
Paul wants to close the Departments of Energy, Education & Homeland Security.
Obama wants to overhaul and improve them, not destroy them.

Paul wants to abolish federal Medicare and leave it to states.
Obama will give all of us healthcare that works.

Paul Voted NO on strengthening the Social Security Lockbox, May 1999.
Obama promises to fight for and strengthen Social Security.

Paul says he’ll abolish the IRS immediately after taking office.
Obama has a tax plan to both cut taxes and ease the hassle of filing.

In considering the above differences, and these are just a few, I do not believe that our country would benefit from a ticket including both of them. We need progress, and Ron Paul’s idea of progress is quite different from Barack Obama’s. Ron Paul’s voting history tells me he wants to protect businesses and eliminate government, while Barack Obama wants to protect the people of America, while eliminating government waste. Our President and Vice President should be working towards the same goals, not against each other with opposite goals.

I agree that Obama must work across party lines, which is usually the argument for this, but that doesn’t mean he needs to get in bed with them. He could pick Richardson, Edwards, or whoever it is that he’s inclined towards, and still be able to work just fine with the Republicans. That’s just who Obama is, and he doesn’t need a GOP running mate to do it.