While the Alberta Federation of Labour thinks they have the best argument against the two year old rule change that let all restaurants employ 12 year olds†, I think I have a better one.
An exerpt of my conversation at McDonalds on Wednesday:
Feynman & Coulter's Love Child: Yeah, I'll have two Big Xtras with cheese and bacon, no tomato. Also a Crispy Chicken with extra mayo and bacon, no tomato. Um, and a large iced tea and a Big Mac meal.
Zit Infested Underage McDonalds cashier: No tomato on the Big Mac too?
Feynman & Coulter's Love Child: Uh....no.
"Two all beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles, onions on a sesame seed bun."...yeah, you know what....?
† Actually, all this does is put all businesses on an equal footing. I know of several restaurants (Duke's Donair, for example) that already hire kids 14 and under [hell, 9 and under! -ed] to work in the restaurant...they could get away with it because they used their own children. All this law did, IMHO, was put everybody on equal footing: business owners without children could employ them now, and children whose parents didn't happen to own restaurants could get experience working in them. Not quite the disaster the NDP are claiming, is it?
