McDonald's chief refuses to reveal pay in libel case
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.PAUL PRESTON, chief executive of the McDonald's restaurant chain in Britain, yesterday refused to reveal his salary to two libel defendants who claimed the corporation exploited its workers.
'I don't think it's any of your business,' he told Helen Steel and Dave Morris in the High Court.
Mr Justice Bell ruled their question out of order 'for the moment', although he said he would keep an open mind.
Ms Steel and Mr Morris argue that McDonald's is one of many multinational corporations that pay shopfloor workers as little as possible while making big profits and awarding top management large salaries.
McDonald's is arguing that its wages of around pounds 3 an hour are highly competitive in Britain's fast food sector.
Mr Preston shrugged off comparisons between his salary, which he said was typical for a senior executive in a large company, and the wages paid to shopfloor staff.
World-wide, the corporation made a profit last year of just over dollars 1bn. Cross-examining Mr Preston, Ms Steel suggested some of that profit could be used to raise wages. 'I suppose they could be paid higher,' Mr Preston said.
He added that it was his decision to pursue the libel action over an anti-McDonald's leaflet. The leaflet was published by London Greenpeace, a group with ecological and anarchist sympathies which is no relation to Greenpeace International and pre-dates it.
The case will last some three months and is likely to cost more than pounds 1m, with McDonald's having to foot the bill because the defendants have no substantial assets. They have no legal aid and are defending themselves, claiming that although they did not write or distribute the leaflet its contents are true or fair comment. The leaflet said McDonald's food is unhealthy and unsafe and that its production contributes to rainforest destruction and Third World hunger.
The case continues next week.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments