sorry if i made certain assumptions... unless everyone is to be expected to write a novel explaining every facet of their argument/point, i think making the occasional judgement call is helpful if anything.
and quite frankly... yes. minimum wage would make a difference to me. generally speaking, a person who makes minimum wage (or close to) has either little experience, little skill, or short on brain power. just a generalization. the signmaker's pay wouldn't matter as the sign would have been approved by a committee and/or legal departments. they are the ones who made an executive decision based on factual evidence. the employee is just giving an opinion; one that is based on the lack of experience/skill/knowledge mentioned earlier.
the cups didn't always have a warning. the first amercian lawsuit was successful partially due to lack of such a warning. with precedent set, it's hard to remove the liability just by printing words, but it is an attempt at due diligence.
The big picture is that companies can verbally promise the world while their contracts state exactly the opposite and there is currently no real recourse.
just to clarify, the recourse you are speaking of is for the incorrect verbal "agreement"? basically saying as long as they have it on paper, your feel they are free to say whatever they want and that is wrong, or that they are allowed to say whatever they want because they are covered in writing?
hopefully i'm not coming across as an ass in this post... i don't mean to. just explaining myself and trying to get clarifications.