McDonald's Strike
Image: © Rui Vieira/PA Wire/PA Images

Would you pay more for McDonald’s if it meant staff were paid better?

"If McDonald’s don’t listen to their staff, I'd probably stop going."

Across the US, fast food workers are going on strike next Monday for higher pay and the right to join a union. Staff at two branches of McDonald's in the UK are joining them, asking for better wages, a fixed number of hours of guaranteed work a week, and for their union to be recognised.

It's the first time McDonald's staff in the UK have gone on strike, ever.

We went to our local McD's, and asked customers how they felt about it – whether they think staff are underpaid, and whether they'd be willing to pay a bit more for their burgers if that's what it came down to.

Here's what a few of them had to say:

Georgia, 20

McDonalds strike Georgia

"I think they should do it. It’s completely justified. They’re overworked and underpaid.

I’ve seen people punch those self checkout machines

"I’ve worked in hospitality before – zero-hours contracts aren’t fair, you can work 40 hours or 4 hours. We live in one of the most expensive cities in the world and people have got rent to pay.

Ethically I shouldn’t come and eat here but I still will... it’s cheap and easy. If the burgers cost a pound more I’d still pay it. In places like McDonald’s, humans are important. Machines won’t replace the human element – I’ve seen people punch those self checkout machines."

Fiona, 48

McDonalds Strike Fiona

"I think it’s wrong for them to go on strike. They knew the conditions when they took the job. People need McDonald’s open, it’s ridiculous. If pay’s not fair then it should be changed across all McDonald’s and strikes in two places aren’t going to change that.

I think it’s wrong for them to go on strike. They knew the conditions when they took the job

"I understand they’ve got a point to make but if they’re interrupting people from getting their food then it’s going too far. They’ve got a job to do, and they should appreciate that. Some people don’t.

I don’t really think about how much people are paid when I get food, I’ve got my own things to think about, it’s not really my responsibility to think about it. If somebody had spoken to me personally, maybe I’d think about it more.

I worked at McDonald’s a long time ago, just as a part-time job. I only lasted a few months; I couldn’t handle the workload, and we were paid a lot less then. I remember thinking I can’t work for this. I know how they feel.

...I’m changing my mind now. They’re standing up for what they think is right. I have to respect that."

Sheni, 37

McDonald's Stike Sheni

"I think people have the right to strike. They’re working hard. It’s always busy. I think £10 an hour is fair. People want to be happy with their work, they want to have a stable future.

The point isn’t about how much the burgers cost. If you’re making a billion a year you can top up the salary of the staff. They don’t have to put the prices up.

If McDonald’s doesn’t listen to its staff I’ll stop going. I could go to Burger King

"If there was a machine working in the restaurant, would you go there? I wouldn’t go there. It doesn’t make sense. If they do that people will be out of jobs, they’ll be waiting for Job Seeker’s Allowance – they’ll mess up the system and they don’t need to do it.

If McDonald’s don’t listen to their staff I would probably stop going. I could go to Burger King – look, there are bare chicken and chips shops on the high street. The food isn’t alright, it’s quick. I’m a chef myself, you can say the work’s unskilled, but it’s not like you can just get anyone to make your food. I think it’s very skilled.

When I go to McDonald’s all I think is that I shouldn’t be eating it – ‘oh my God, I’m buying this mass production food again’... But we still do it."

Anastasia, 21


"I think people don’t realise how badly people are treated at chain places like McDonald’s. Going on strike raises awareness. I’ve boycotted McDonald’s for about five years.

Saying prices go up if you pay people more is just lies. They just want people to support strikers less

"I went when I was a kid, but since I’ve been old enough and had my own money I don’t go. If my friends go to McDonald’s I wait outside.

I think saying prices go up if you pay people more is just lies. They just say that because they want people to support strikers less. One of the main reasons I boycott it is the way it treats employees both here, and the people who source their food.

I’d want people to be getting living wage in the UK – in London that’s £9.75, but I’d also want proof of sustainable investments, at the moment lots of farmers can’t afford to treat themselves. If they were treating humans correctly, then yes, maybe then I’d get a Big Mac."

Lisa, 48

McDonald's Strike Lisa

"I’ve been eating here since I was eleven. I’m 48 now. This McDonald’s has been here since I was a little girl. I speak to the staff all the time, they work really hard in there, they deserve more money. We all do.

I’m not talking about bankers, or people with really high up jobs. I’m talking about people like you and me. We all deserve to be paid better

"The cost of living in London is so high, we all deserve more. I’m not talking about bankers, or people with really high up jobs. I’m talking about people like me and you, we all deserve to be better paid.

McDonald’s are rich, aren’t they? They make a lot of money. They should keep their employees feeling safe and secure, getting paid what they deserve and on secure contracts. You have to look after your staff no matter what. If the price of burgers have to go up then they have to go When it’s too cheap I eat too much of it anyway. Maybe it would be a good thing

I’m glad the employees are standing up for themselves. Everybody has to."

Paul, 26

McDonald's Strike Paul

"Train strikes, the miners' strike, it just holds the country at hostage. If everyone does it, the economy shuts down.

When medical staff don’t get paid enough, maybe it’s justified. The world would live without McDonald’s but we couldn’t live without doctors. 

Strikes just hold the country hostage. Change has to come from the top downwards

"I’ve backed myself into a hole here, but I don’t know the answer. In some cases there might need to be some sort of action, but I don’t know where I sit. Change has to come from the top downwards. It’s up to the government to make sure there are minimum standards.

I don’t really like going into McDonald’s anyway, it’s not a great company. I eat here occasionally. Knowing about the strike probably hasn’t changed my mind – I know they’re a shitty company anyway."

Recent articles

Reader Comments

  • Macrocompassion

    Look to who owns the land of Greece and why they are not using it properly!

    Discover how much the value of the land is being speculated in by holding it unused and the resulting lack of opportunity. Why can’t small scale farmers begin their own production of farm produce and the selling of it to local suppliers for domestic consumption?

    Adam Smith (“Wealth of Nations”,
    1776) says that land is one of the 3 factors of production (the other 2 being
    labor and durable capital goods). The usefulness of land is in the price that
    tenants pay as rent, for access rights to the particular site in question. Land
    is often considered as being a form of capital, since it is traded similarly to
    other durable capital goods items. However it is not actually man-made, so rightly
    it does not fall within this category. The land was originally a gift of nature
    (if not of God) for which all people should be free to share in its use. But its
    site-value greatly depends on location and is related to the community density
    in that region, as well as the natural resources such as rivers, minerals,
    animals or plants of specific use or beauty, when or after it is possible to reach them. Consequently,
    most of the land value is created by man within his society and therefore its
    advantage should logically and ethically be returned to the community for its
    general use, as explained by Martin Adams (in “LAND”, 2015).

    However, due to our existing laws, land is owned and formally registered and its
    value is traded, even though it can’t be moved to another place, like other
    kinds of capital goods. This right of ownership gives the landlord a big
    advantage over the rest of the community because he determines how it may be
    used, or if it is to be held out of use, until the city grows and the site
    becomes more valuable. Thus speculation in land values is encouraged by the law,
    in treating a site of land as personal or private property—as if it were an
    item of capital goods, although it is not (Mason Gaffney and Fred Harrison:
    “The Corruption of Economics”, 2005).

    Regarding taxation and local community spending, the municipal taxes we pay are
    partly used for improving the infrastructure. This means that the land becomes
    more useful and valuable without the landlord doing anything—he/she will always
    benefit from our present tax regime. This also applies when the status of unused
    land is upgraded and it becomes fit for community development. Then when this
    news is leaked, after landlords and banks corruptly pay for this information,
    speculation in land values is rife. There are many advantages if the land
    values were taxed instead of the many different kinds of production-based
    activities such as earnings, purchases, capital gains, home and foreign company
    investments, etc., (with all their regulations, complications and loop-holes).
    The only people due to lose from this are those who exploit the growing values
    of the land over the past years, when “mere” land ownership confers a financial
    benefit, without the owner doing a scrap of work. Consequently, for a truly
    socially just kind of taxation to apply there can only be one
    method–Land-Value Taxation.

    Consider how land becomes
    valuable. New settlers in a region begin to specialize and this improves their
    efficiency in producing specific goods. The central land is the most valuable
    due to easy availability and least transport needed. This distribution in land
    values is created by the community and (after an initial start), not by the
    natural resources. As the city expands, speculators in land values will
    deliberately hold potentially useful sites out of use, until planning and
    development have permitted their values to grow. Meanwhile there is fierce
    competition for access to the most suitable sites for housing, agriculture and
    manufacturing industries. The limited availability of useful land means that the
    high rents paid by tenants make their residence more costly and the provision
    of goods and services more expensive. It also creates unemployment, causing
    wages to be lowered by the monopolists, who control the big producing
    organizations, and whose land was already obtained when it was cheap. Consequently
    this basic structure of our current macroeconomics system, works to limit
    opportunity and to create poverty, see above reference.

    The most basic cause of our continuing poverty is the lack of properly paid
    work and the reason for this is the lack of opportunity of access to the land
    on which the work must be done. The useful land is monopolized by a landlord
    who either holds it out of use (for speculation in its rising value), or
    charges the tenant heavily for its right of access. In the case when the
    landlord is also the producer, he/she has a monopolistic control of the land
    and of the produce too, and can charge more for this access right than what an
    entrepreneur, who seeks greater opportunity, normally would be able to afford.

    A wise and sensible government would recognize that this problem derives from
    lack of opportunity to work and earn. It can be solved by the use of a tax
    system which encourages the proper use of land and which stops penalizing
    everything and everybody else. Such a tax system was proposed 136 years ago by
    Henry George, a (North) American economist, but somehow most macro-economists
    seem never to have heard of him, in common with a whole lot of other experts.
    (I would guess that they don’t want to know, which is worse!) In “Progress and
    Poverty” 1879, Henry George proposed a single tax on land values without other
    kinds of tax on produce, services, capital gains etc. This regime of land value
    tax (LVT) has 17 features which benefit almost everyone in the economy, except
    for landlords and banks, who/which do nothing productive and find that land
    dominance has its own reward.

    17 Aspects of LVT Affecting Government, Land Owners, Communities and

    Four Aspects for Government:

    1. LVT, adds to the national
    income as do other taxation systems, but it replaces them.

    2. The cost of collecting the LVT is less than for all of the production-related
    taxes–tax avoidance becomes impossible because the sites are visible to all.

    3. Consumers pay less for their
    purchases due to lower production costs (see below). This creates greater
    satisfaction with the management of national affairs.

    4. The national economy
    stabilizes—it no longer experiences the 18 year business boom/bust cycle, due
    to periodic speculation in land values (see below).

    Six Aspects Affecting Land Owners:

    5. LVT is progressive–owners of
    the most potentially productive sites pay the most tax.

    6. The land owner pays his LVT regardless of how his site is used. A large
    proportion of the ground-rent from tenants becomes the LVT, with the result
    that land has less sales-value but a significant “rental”-value (even
    when it is not used).

    7. LVT stops speculation in land prices and
    the withholding of land from proper use is not worthwhile.

    8. The introduction of LVT initially reduces the sales price of sites, even
    though their rental value can still grow over a longer term. As more sites
    become available, the competition for them is less fierce.

    9. With LVT, land owners are unable to pass the tax on to their tenants as rent
    hikes, due to the reduced competition for access to the additional sites that
    come into use.

    10. With LVT, land prices will
    initially drop. Speculators in land values will want to foreclose on their
    mortgages and withdraw their money for reinvestment. Therefore LVT should be
    introduced gradually, to allow these speculators sufficient time to transfer
    their money to company-shares etc., and simultaneously to meet the increased
    demand for produce (see below).

    Three Aspects Regarding Communities:

    11. With LVT, there is an
    incentive to use land for production or residence, rather than it being unused.

    12. With LVT, greater working opportunities exist due to cheaper land and a
    greater number of available sites. Consumer goods become cheaper too, because
    entrepreneurs have less difficulty in starting-up their businesses and because
    they pay less ground-rent–demand grows, unemployment decreases.

    13. Investment money is withdrawn from land and placed in durable capital
    goods. This means more advances in technology and cheaper goods too.

    Four Aspects About Ethics:

    14. The collection of taxes from
    productive effort and commerce is socially unjust. LVT replaces this extortion
    by gathering the surplus rental income, which comes without any exertion from
    the land owner or by the banks–LVT is a natural system of national income-gathering.

    15. Bribery and corruption on information
    about land cease. Before, this was due
    to the leaking of news of municipal plans for housing and industrial
    development, causing shock-waves in local land prices (and municipal workers’ and
    lawyers’ bank balances).

    16. The improved use of the more
    central land reduces the environmental damage due to a) unused sites
    being dumping-grounds, and b) the smaller amount of fossil-fuel use, when
    traveling between home and workplace.

    17. Because the LVT eliminates
    the advantage that landlords currently hold over our society, LVT provides a
    greater equality of opportunity to earn a living. Entrepreneurs can operate in
    a natural way– to provide more jobs. Then earnings will correspond to the
    value that the labor puts into the product or service. Consequently, after LVT
    has been properly introduced it will eliminate poverty and improve business