Fast Food and Retail Workers Strike - Are You Serious?

188 replies
  • OFF TOPIC
  • |
In Chicago (where else) - Fast Food workers want a 100% pay increase.

fast food strike: Chicago Fast food, retail strike planned - Chicago Tribune

When did jobs start paying "what I need to earn" instead of what the job classification merits?

$15/hr to be a sales clerk at Sears?

Who supports this? Community organizers and a union looking to gain power.

Good way to stop people from eating fast food and encourage them to shop online....


The problem may be the "new jobs" added since the recession are in low paying industries while the mid level jobs have not returned.
  • Profile picture of the author ThomM
    Most of the fast food workers around here don't deserve what they make now.
    On the other hand the best friend of my last wife worked at McD's here for years. She started out on the counter at min. wage.
    When she left McD's she was a floating manager making 50,000 a year. But she was one of those stupid people who works hard and does her job.
    In the past I've started a few jobs at min. wage, but always with the understanding that if I proved I was worth more I'd get a raise.
    Oh and yes I am opposed to a mandated min. wage. The govt. has no business telling a company what they should pay their workers. Besides it's just a ploy so the govt. takes in more in taxes.
    Signature

    Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
    Getting old ain't for sissy's
    As you are I was, as I am you will be
    You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8018746].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
    You say that like $15 an hour is a great wage. Sure, if you compare it to the minimum wage, which has not been raised in many years and has not kept up with the cost of living increases, it seems like a lot but in reality it isn't a great income. These people just want to be able to work full time and get by.
    Originally Posted by Kay King View Post


    $15/hr to be a sales clerk at Sears?
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8018747].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author tagiscom
      Hmmm, might also explain why some fast food outlets, charge twice what they should, by not putting your meal into meal deals. Or they pocked the difference and charge full price!!!!

      Shane
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8018770].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Kay King
      What people "want to earn" isn't how salaries for jobs work. You want a better salary - you work/educate yourself to a better job.

      In the past five years there have been few cost of living increases for any workers. That's the result of a continued bad economy.

      $15 an hour is what they are asking for - that's over $30k a year for unskilled labor. "I only work half time" - OK....get another half time job and work full time!

      Many of the workers say they are on food stamps, Medicaid, ADC, etc - that adds a bit to the bottom line. If you pay wages that allow someone to live reasonably with a low end job - where's the incentive to improve?

      How many current fast food workers would keep their jobs at $15/hr when that salary would attract more experienced workers to that field?
      Signature
      Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog
      ***
      One secret to happiness is to let every situation be
      what it is instead of what you think it should be.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8018780].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Kay King
        Unless it has changed, Sears and other retail work is often incentive based. I had a cousin who worked at Sears his entire career and he did well because he was a good salesman with excellent people skills.

        His income took a hit toward the end of his career when Sears increased hourly wage and reduced incentive payouts. His view was the company was rewarding mediocrity and he thought Sears would suffer for that.
        I think they have done just that in recent years.
        Signature
        Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog
        ***
        One secret to happiness is to let every situation be
        what it is instead of what you think it should be.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8018791].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author ThomM
          Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

          Unless it has changed, Sears and other retail work is often incentive based. I had a cousin who worked at Sears his entire career and he did well because he was a good salesman with excellent people skills.

          His income took a hit toward the end of his career when Sears increased hourly wage and reduced incentive payouts. His view was the company was rewarding mediocrity and he thought Sears would suffer for that.
          I think they have done just that in recent years.
          That kind of reminds me of a job my oldest step daughter had once.
          She worked for a mortgage company. When she started the base pay was 1000 a month with 2.5% commission on sales. They changed that to a base of 2000 and 2.0% com. Sales dropped because the employees lost the need to sell. The company went back to the original base pay and com. A few employees quit (including my step daughter) because they said they couldn't afford to loose 1,000 a month in pay. I tried to explain to her that she actually lost 2,000 a month not 1,000 and if she sold just a couple mortgages a month she would not of lost any money at all.
          When you have the govt. setting wages everyone looses. Employees fell "entitled"and don't work as hard and employers stop rewarding the better workers with better pay.
          Signature

          Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
          Getting old ain't for sissy's
          As you are I was, as I am you will be
          You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8018831].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author RobinInTexas
        Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

        What people "want to earn" isn't how salaries for jobs work. You want a better salary - you work/educate yourself to a better job.

        In the past five years there have been few cost of living increases for any workers. That's the result of a continued bad economy.

        $15 an hour is what they are asking for - that's over $30k a year for unskilled labor. "I only work half time" - OK....get another half time job and work full time!

        Many of the workers say they are on food stamps, Medicaid, ADC, etc - that adds a bit to the bottom line. If you pay wages that allow someone to live reasonably with a low end job - where's the incentive to improve?

        How many current fast food workers would keep their jobs at $15/hr when that salary would attract more experienced workers to that field?



        Just sayin
        Signature

        Robin



        ...Even if you're on the right track, you'll get run over if you just set there.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8018862].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Kay King
          Can you point out one single example where the wages of ANY hourly employee - or mid level salaried employee - have kept pace with the rise in executive salaries?

          No, you can't.

          It's apples and coconuts - you can't compare the salary of the lowest level of employee with the highest....and ignore the MAJORITY of workers in between the two.

          You also ignore the years spent moving up in an industry to reach the top rungs - and the relatively small number of people who command those high salaries.
          Signature
          Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog
          ***
          One secret to happiness is to let every situation be
          what it is instead of what you think it should be.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8018879].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
            Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

            and ignore the MAJORITY of workers in between the two.
            OK, we won't ignore those in between. Here ya go:

            Signature
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8018888].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author seasoned
          Originally Posted by RobinInTexas View Post




          Just sayin
          That is BULL! Inflation would skyrocket(making the money worth NOTHING), or the stores would go BANKRUPT!

          Steve
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8019405].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author travlinguy
          Originally Posted by RobinInTexas View Post




          Just sayin
          And a Big Mac would cost $62. :rolleyes:
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8019411].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Dennis Gaskill
          Originally Posted by RobinInTexas View Post






          Just sayin

          If those making minimum wage had worked as hard to improve their education and skills as those same executives do, they may well be making more than $23 an hour now.

          Just sayin...
          Signature

          Just when you think you've got it all figured out, someone changes the rules.

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8019422].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author seasoned
            Originally Posted by Dennis Gaskill View Post

            If those making minimum wage had worked as hard to improve their education and skills as those same executives do, they may well be making more than $23 an hour now.

            Just sayin...
            DEFINITELY!!!!!!

            Steve
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8019434].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author fin
            I really hope people don't value their time at $7.50 per hour.

            That's like $60 per 8 hour shift.

            I always thought Australia got it right with their wages and prices.

            They get about $18 p/h, but if you want to buy luxuries they are generally more expensive. Groceries, rent, and transport (the essentials) are pretty cheap.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8019440].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Guest Post Sharks
          [QUOTE=RobinInTexas;8018862]



          Alright - it's somewhat already been mentioned here, but if 1990 was such a glamorous year that we want to use as a marker, then yes the Big Mac would be that much more expensive as well. Frankly, let's look at the price of a McDonald's hamburger over the last 3 decades:
          1980: 39 cents
          1990: 59 cents
          2000: 79 cents
          2010: 92 cents

          Since 1990, the price has gone up 55% on average. Minimum wage in 1990 was $3.80. Today minimum wage is about 7.79 (at least here in FL). This is over a 100% increase. So if we're basing things off the price of the burgers here, minimum wage is increasing too fast!

          The fact is is that when you artificially raise the minimum wage too high, you will see inflation because you have to remember (as a business owner), the business has to pay an even higher wage than that because they have to cover the 7.8% or something like that on top. The higher the wage, the more tax. If you spread this over every employee of an entire company, that's a major shift in the quarterly financials. As a result, the prices are raised because the top dogs just simply aren't going to take a pay cut. Nobody wants a pay cut, and this is why inflation exists in the first place.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8019464].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author AprilCT
            I see no one has mentioned the tendency of most companies to seriously downsize the number of employees, while the remaining employees carry not only all their own workload, but have the duties of those chucked out in the street redistributed to them as well.

            To add further insult to the public, services that used to be provided have long since gone the way of the dodo bird. Ever try calling a company and getting a human being to pick up the phone instead of sent through an almost incomprehensible rat maze? Even if you are fortunate enough to find the path to speak with a CSR, sometimes the wait is almost intolerable.

            Automation did open up other types of work, but then we are right back to the same scene where the executives earn fantastic money and a lot of the workers still qualify for the public dole.

            This brings me back to the same thought as before: No executive at any company who sticks it to the public to support a company's workers is worth their own wage.

            One other thing to be mentioned...has anyone noticed the number of older adults working in kids' types of jobs? Just go to the fast food places, grocery stores and other typical places, you'll see plenty of them.

            Oh, and while I'm on a roll here, "wages" of executives vs. workers isn't the only thing. The benefits and perks in addition to wages of higher status can be rather outrageous, yet the workers' benefits come from the public dole via the public taxpayer; thus the public supports the executives' excessive lifestyle.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8019554].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author derekwong28
          Originally Posted by RobinInTexas View Post




          Just sayin
          This is an article from none other than The Fortune Magazine itself about CEO pay.

          Have They No Shame? Their performance stank last year, yet most CEOs got paid more than ever. Here's how they're getting away with it. - April 28, 2003

          "But the pigs were so clever that they could think of a way round every difficulty. --George Orwell, Animal Farm"
          Signature

          Do not get between a wombat and a chocolate biscuit; you will regret it dearly!

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8021146].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author HeySal
      Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

      You say that like $15 an hour is a great wage. Sure, if you compare it to the minimum wage, which has not been raised in many years and has not kept up with the cost of living increases, it seems like a lot but in reality it isn't a great income. These people just want to be able to work full time and get by.
      It's not a great wage. However - don't forget you live in about the most expensive area in the US. There are places where min wage at 40 hrs can still support a person (not a family, but a person). They won't be rich, but they will be housed and fed.

      I worked retail when I first got back from Germany (lived overseas for the first year and a half out of high school). I got commissions on my sales. Kay and Thom are right. Those that did their jobs well made a lot more than those that didn't. I've also worked as service (bartending) at places you kept your tips - and I worked at one that they pooled tips. I'd never work anywhere that pools tips again. Those that are complete crap at their jobs get to dip in what you make being really good at it. Not only that, the mgmt seemed to have a way of dipping into those tips themselves.

      I do agree it's bull for a company to hire nothing but part time just to avoid having to pay out benefits. They didn't know when they started a company that employees cost money? These companies like Walmart that have a vast majority of their employees working 20 hours a week are putting a strain on right now. It's not as easy to have 2 part time jobs as people may think. Once you are hooked into a schedule in one place, another place is often very unwilling to work around those hours. Employers more and more want you available 24/7 even though they only want to give you part time work.

      Basically, most of what we can find going wrong with employment today, though, is the fault of a government that wants its nose into everything. Companies have so many frivolous regulations that only serve the purpose of making work for more gov workers and more money for gov. It's out of control.

      That - and people just don't keep their employers in line anymore either. I remember the days people would just walk out of jobs when the employers were a**holes. Now they are ALL becoming a**holes and people are so scared to leave a job that they actually reinforce the bad behavior on the part of the company. Here we're seeing strikes now - and what is it about? People who didn't even finish high school want the same pay as a lot of educated workers are making.

      I got news for anyone working at a no skill required job. When the prices of those crap products goes up enough to have to compete with REAL products, your job is gone completely, so you better start getting an education right now. You'll need it to work at all later on.
      Signature

      Sal
      When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
      Beyond the Path

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8019141].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
      Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

      You say that like $15 an hour is a great wage. Sure, if you compare it to the minimum wage, which has not been raised in many years and has not kept up with the cost of living increases, it seems like a lot but in reality it isn't a great income. These people just want to be able to work full time and get by.
      It is a FANTASTIC wage, considering that it is for like kids that want extra money! And people that aren't paid minimum wage often have to ASK for a raise, etc...

      When I am at sears, I often do what I have done for years! I hold up my items and yell, IS IT FREE TODAY? Nobody EVER seems t react! When I was a kid, I heard of a LOT of people getting a "five finger discount", generally at SEARS! Lucky for them, I never did the same. BTW $15/hour is AT LEAST $30,600!

      BTW if it seems obscure, etc... five-finger discount - Idioms - by the Free Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

      Steve
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8019399].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author bluecoyotemedia
      Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

      You say that like $15 an hour is a great wage. Sure, if you compare it to the minimum wage, which has not been raised in many years and has not kept up with the cost of living increases, it seems like a lot but in reality it isn't a great income. These people just want to be able to work full time and get by.
      Tim

      I am confused.. so please clarify???

      so working at a sears cash counter makes $15 per hour

      how much exactly should she make sticking with this example of course

      $50???

      thanks

      eddie

      ps. do be nasty
      Signature

      Skunkworks: noun. informal.

      A clandestine group operating without any external intervention or oversight. Such groups achieve significant breakthroughs rarely discussed in public because they operate "outside the box".
      https://short-stuff.com/-Mjk0fDExOA==

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8019451].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
        I'm a bit confused by your question so we are even. The Sears worker wants $15 an hour, not $50, if that is what you are asking.
        Originally Posted by bluecoyotemedia View Post

        Tim

        I am confused.. so please clarify???

        so working at a sears cash counter makes $15 per hour

        how much exactly should she make sticking with this example of course

        $50???

        thanks

        eddie

        ps. do be nasty
        Signature
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8019618].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author ahlexis
      Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

      You say that like $15 an hour is a great wage. Sure, if you compare it to the minimum wage, which has not been raised in many years and has not kept up with the cost of living increases, it seems like a lot but in reality it isn't a great income. These people just want to be able to work full time and get by.

      You say

      These people just want to be able to work full time and get by.
      Trouble is, there's only a certain amount of profit that does not change along with the raise in pay, and the business owner is not going to relinquish that just to meet a government mandate or he'd wind up in bankruptcy court.

      So when the wage is raised...especially if it's doubled, then the employer figures out a way to lay off 3 or more workers when the pay is required to be doubled! But everybody wants to be that one lucky guy or gal that still has a job when the dust settles, and life doesn't work out that way...
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8044293].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
        I think you are jumping to big conclusions there. If they paid the employees just a few bucks an hour more it doesn't mean they will go bankrupt. Or even have to lay off employees.
        Originally Posted by ahlexis View Post



        Trouble is, there's only a certain amount of profit that does not change along with the raise in pay, and the business owner is not going to relinquish that just to meet a government mandate or he'd wind up in bankruptcy court.

        So when the wage is raised...especially if it's doubled, then the employer figures out a way to lay off 3 or more workers when the pay is required to be doubled!
        Signature
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8045995].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author ronrule
          Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

          I think you are jumping to big conclusions there. If they paid the employees just a few bucks an hour more it doesn't mean they will go bankrupt. Or even have to lay off employees.
          Like I said before, if you're open 20 hours a day and you have 10 employees on the clock at any given time, and you increase each of those employees' pay by $4 per hour, that comes out to $24,000 a month in increased costs. Where is that extra money going to come from? That could easily kill a franchised restaurant if they don't let go of a couple and raise their prices.
          Signature

          -
          Ron Rule
          http://ronrule.com

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8046006].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
            Well, the average McDonalds:

            * makes about $2.5 million a year is sales.
            * Crew payroll is about 20% at $540,000.
            * Managers make about $108,000.
            * Advertising is about $108,000.
            * Profit after controllable expenses is about $781,400.
            * 1584 customers a day x $4.75 per average customer = $7524 a day
            * Using your average increase per hour of $4 for 10 employees for a franchise open 20 hours a day, that equates to $800 a day. Which in turn equates to 9.4% of sales, which equates to an average increase of about $0.51 a day per customer. This is assuming all increases would be passed on to the customers. Increases to "crew" employees could be made up in other ways besides passing them on to customers.

            I find it hard to believe the increases above would lead to either bankruptcy of lay offs. Plus, I was originally just pointing out that $15 an hour isn't some sort of incredible amount of money. It's just what these people are asking and they may agree to a lesser amount.

            Originally Posted by ronrule View Post

            Like I said before, if you're open 20 hours a day and you have 10 employees on the clock at any given time, and you increase each of those employees' pay by $4 per hour, that comes out to $24,000 a month in increased costs. Where is that extra money going to come from? That could easily kill a franchised restaurant if they don't let go of a couple and raise their prices.
            Signature
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8046116].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author seasoned
              Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

              Well, the average McDonalds:

              * makes about $2.5 million a year is sales.
              * Crew payroll is about 20% at $540,000.
              * Managers make about $108,000.
              * Advertising is about $108,000.
              * Profit after controllable expenses is about $781,400.
              * 1584 customers a day x $4.75 per average customer = $7524 a day
              * Using your average increase per hour of $4 for 10 employees for a franchise open 20 hours a day, that equates to $800 a day. Which in turn equates to 9.4% of sales, which equates to an average increase of about $0.51 a day per customer. This is assuming all increases would be passed on to the customers. Increases to "crew" employees could be made up in other ways besides passing them on to customers.

              I find it hard to believe the increases above would lead to either bankruptcy of lay offs. Plus, I was originally just pointing out that $15 an hour isn't some sort of incredible amount of money. It's just what these people are asking and they may agree to a lesser amount.

              Profit after ***CONTROLLABLE*** expenses is about $781,400.

              OK, so we know that your average mcdonalds makes LESS than $781,400. What about Power? Gas? Water? Licensing? Food(INCLUDING WASTAGE, and PILFERAGE)? RENT? SIGNAGE? MAINTENANCE? COOPS? A LOT of these are not really controllable. and don't forget, franchisers buy to make a profit, They DON'T want to feel like an employee in their own restaurant. OF COURSE they usually make more than the managers.

              The owner of your restaurant will likely want to make about $200K minimum, so the income will be less than $581,400. 1584 customers a day, 365 days a year, if they cost $1 each, would cost $578,160! How much do you feel they cost? At 578160, there is only $3240 left!!!!! That is likely not enough to pay for one month's rent!

              Steve
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8046269].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
                The other expenses are listed here:

                http://www.burgerbusiness.com/wp-con...Janney_McD.jpg

                Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

                Profit after ***CONTROLLABLE*** expenses is about $781,400.

                OK, so we know that your average mcdonalds makes LESS than $781,400. What about Power? Gas? Water? Licensing? Food(INCLUDING WASTAGE, and PILFERAGE)? RENT? SIGNAGE? MAINTENANCE? COOPS? A LOT of these are not really controllable. and don't forget, franchisers buy to make a profit, They DON'T want to feel like an employee in their own restaurant. OF COURSE they usually make more than the managers.

                The owner of your restaurant will likely want to make about $200K minimum, so the income will be less than $581,400. 1584 customers a day, 365 days a year, if they cost $1 each, would cost $578,160! How much do you feel they cost? At 578160, there is only $3240 left!!!!! That is likely not enough to pay for one month's rent!

                Steve
                Signature
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8046332].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author seasoned
                  Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                  The other expenses are listed here:

                  http://www.burgerbusiness.com/wp-con...Janney_McD.jpg
                  WOW, that is WORSE than my estimate!

                  Profit after ***CONTROLLABLE*** expenses is about $781,400
                  TOTAL NON CONTROLLABLE expenses $607,500.
                  TOTAL PROFIT, if the owner gets ******NOTHING******, $173,900!

                  So he makes about 61% more than the manager. NOTE though, they did NOT include COOP or licensing fees!!!!!!!! Last I heard, that was well over $100K a year.

                  Steve
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8046503].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Jeff Burritt
    Banned
    Let's not be too cynical here. Just think about where we'd all be without McDonald's
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8018843].message }}
    • {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8019086].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author AprilCT
        Kay, this is not an argument to side with the people who want their wages doubled, but it annoys the daylights out of me when businesses are not pulling their own weight because they are paying such hefty executive salaries vs. what the person behind the counter or sent via an employment agency earns.

        It means that every one of us paying taxes and paying our own bills contribute heavily to the welfare of the minimum-wage or just-above worker in the form of food stamps, welfare, housing vouchers, day care subsidies, free cell phones, medicaid and a bunch of other entitlements just so some executive can be paid megabucks and laugh all the way to the bank.

        What we end up doing is you, me, and the rest of us, are contributing to some unbelievably high executive wages. That doesn't sit well with me at all. Why should we, and all the rest of us, have to contribute to executive salaries?

        If you can't keep your workers off the public teat, so to speak, an executive is not worth their salary.

        On the other hand, I also resent the payment structures of larger companies that pay everyone so well (and often, over the top) that the general public has to go without many important and necessary things for their families to pay their inflated bills. This is definitely wrong when the service is provided to captive audiences with little to no other choice.

        I don't see any easy resolutions to either of these situations, but it is going to have to be dealt with sooner or later, and I'd certainly rather see people and businesses sit down together to work out a reasonable solution rather than the government making more complicated laws that hog tie businesses and raise taxes.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8019177].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author arronlee
          Thank you, I 100% agree! It's a problem I see where I live in New Orleans, LA. I know of a lady on welfare who's on benefits. She has section 8 housing where she only has to pay $200/month rent, the full rent is $1000/month. None of them actually work, her daughter gets $2000/month for her therapy sessions from the government and gets money for each of her 6 kids. Oh and by the way she has a 7th coming. They're also on food stamps and get free health insurance. I personally believe any minimum wage job should be paid on a performance basis. If you work hard, you'll make more money. If you just do the minimum, you'll get minimum wage.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8046725].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Jeff Burritt
    Banned
    For one thing, we'd have no clue when breakfast officially ends and lunch begins.

    Exactly, 10:30am.

    There now, just one of many significant contributions. Seriously people, be more grateful
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8018849].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author HeySal
    What company is it - Costco or someone - that pays their employees somewhere around $15 bucks an hour and wallstreeters are going nuts over it. The Costco owner or president or whatever said that they really gave him hell for not keeping wages artificially low like they are getting other companies to do. There is definitely something wrong going on somewhere.

    When a company keeps its workers in poverty for the sake of the top level execs making exorbitant draws, that company has sociopaths at the top. A healthy company should care about the workers conditions - because if they show the worker a little loyalty, those people are happy and do a better job. It's just sick the way corps have become slaveholders instead of employers.
    Signature

    Sal
    When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
    Beyond the Path

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8019391].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
      Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

      What company is it - Costco or someone - that pays their employees somewhere around $15 bucks an hour and wallstreeters are going nuts over it. The Costco owner or president or whatever said that they really gave him hell for not keeping wages artificially low like they are getting other companies to do. There is definitely something wrong going on somewhere.

      When a company keeps its workers in poverty for the sake of the top level execs making exorbitant draws, that company has sociopaths at the top. A healthy company should care about the workers conditions - because if they show the worker a little loyalty, those people are happy and do a better job. It's just sick the way corps have become slaveholders instead of employers.
      I don't know, but STILL costco has fewer employees than many stores. Also, the average sale is higher. Still, do you REALLY think that the US can afford to pay the citizens $10,098,000,000,000+/year and STILL have reasonable costs and all? And this is ASSUMING that MILLIONS, including all those CEOs, etc take a pay CUT!!!!!!!! IMAGINE though! Over 10 TRILLION just for being here! WOW!

      Steve
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8019428].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author whateverpedia
      Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

      What company is it - Costco or someone - that pays their employees somewhere around $15 bucks an hour and wallstreeters are going nuts over it. The Costco owner or president or whatever said that they really gave him hell for not keeping wages artificially low like they are getting other companies to do. There is definitely something wrong going on somewhere.

      When a company keeps its workers in poverty for the sake of the top level execs making exorbitant draws, that company has sociopaths at the top. A healthy company should care about the workers conditions - because if they show the worker a little loyalty, those people are happy and do a better job. It's just sick the way corps have become slaveholders instead of employers.
      One of the most ardent capitalists of all time, Henry Ford, paid his workers a decent wage and gave them benefits so that the workers would be happy and productive and that fathers would encourage their sons to work for him as well.

      Nothing gets my goat more than a CEO on a multi-million $ salary claiming that it's in the best interest of the company to slash workers pay, benefits and conditions. Then having done that, award most, if not all of the cost savings to themselves for a "job well done".

      All part and parcel of workers being regarded as "human resources"* rather than people.

      * I hate that @#$%ing term. I hated when I first heard it, I hate it even more now.
      Signature
      Why do garden gnomes smell so bad?
      So that blind people can hate them as well.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8019725].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author ronrule
        Originally Posted by whateverpedia View Post

        Nothing gets my goat more than a CEO on a multi-million $ salary claiming that it's in the best interest of the company to slash workers pay, benefits and conditions. Then having done that, award most, if not all of the cost savings to themselves for a "job well done".
        Sometimes it is.

        Let's take a look at CEO pay objectively. The Wal-Mart CEO makes a salary of about $20 million per year. But Wal-Mart also employs 2.1 million people. That means even if the CEO took $0.00 and divided his salary among all 2.1 million workers, it would only amount to a raise of $9.52 per worker per year.

        The question really is how much is a job worth. If your job is so low-brain that it basically consists of pushing buttons with pictures of food on it, sorry man, that's just not worth $15 per hour. Every time there is a minimum wage increase, all it does is cause fewer jobs to be available and pushes everyone who was making more than minimum wage closer to the bottom. People talk about the "shrinking middle class" in this country and say how "wages are stagnant" - this is why. Maybe you're my best programmer, work your butt off every day, and damn it you and your whole team deserve raises. But oh, sorry about your luck, the government says I have to pay the janitor more and buy health insurance for the part time customer service team.

        So what do I do? Burn my development team, responsible for making all of the products our customers buy? Or reorganize and, unfortunately, let someone go so the company can continue to thrive. It's a tough choice no matter what, but if we let the government decide who gets a raise and who doesn't, the people who are the most crucial to EVERYONE'S long-term success will never get a pay bump.

        Now back to leadership for a minute... Why should I - the one who founded the company, took all of the risk, put in the long hours, and did everything I did early on to grow the business into something real, be the one who takes a pay cut? Sorry, that's not gonna happen. If the company is in a crunch due to my own mistake, you bet your ass I'll be the FIRST one to take a payroll deferment until things get right. But "because Uncle Sam says you should pay a low-brain worker more" will never be an acceptable answer for me.

        You know how I know when the pay is too low? When no one wants the job.

        No one starts a company to "create jobs". I started mine to create ME a job. Everyone else's job is a side effect of that. I would say something like "go back to school and learn how economies work", but apparently they don't actually teach that in schools anymore, otherwise we wouldn't have crap like this making the news.

        So you know what? I'll say the same thing I said when the auto unions were threatening a strike: let them. Because there are PLENTY of people out there who are unemployed right now who would LOVE to step up and fill those positions.
        Signature

        -
        Ron Rule
        http://ronrule.com

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8019774].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author seasoned
          Originally Posted by ronrule View Post

          Sometimes it is.

          Let's take a look at CEO pay objectively. The Wal-Mart CEO makes a salary of about $20 million per year. But Wal-Mart also employs 2.1 million people. That means even if the CEO took $0.00 and divided his salary among all 2.1 million workers, it would only amount to a raise of $9.52 per worker per year.

          The question really is how much is a job worth. If your job is so low-brain that it basically consists of pushing buttons with pictures of food on it, sorry man, that's just not worth $15 per hour. Every time there is a minimum wage increase, all it does is cause fewer jobs to be available and pushes everyone who was making more than minimum wage closer to the bottom. People talk about the "shrinking middle class" in this country and say how "wages are stagnant" - this is why. Maybe you're my best programmer, work your butt off every day, and damn it you and your whole team deserve raises. But oh, sorry about your luck, the government says I have to pay the janitor more and buy health insurance for the part time customer service team.

          So what do I do? Burn my development team, responsible for making all of the products our customers buy? Or reorganize and, unfortunately, let someone go so the company can continue to thrive. It's a tough choice no matter what, but if we let the government decide who gets a raise and who doesn't, the people who are the most crucial to EVERYONE'S long-term success will never get a pay bump.

          Now back to leadership for a minute... Why should I - the one who founded the company, took all of the risk, put in the long hours, and did everything I did early on to grow the business into something real, be the one who takes a pay cut? Sorry, that's not gonna happen. If the company is in a crunch due to my own mistake, you bet your ass I'll be the FIRST one to take a payroll deferment until things get right. But "because Uncle Sam says you should pay a low-brain worker more" will never be an acceptable answer for me.

          You know how I know when the pay is too low? When no one wants the job.

          No one starts a company to "create jobs". I started mine to create ME a job. Everyone else's job is a side effect of that. I would say something like "go back to school and learn how economies work", but apparently they don't actually teach that in schools anymore, otherwise we wouldn't have crap like this making the news.

          So you know what? I'll say the same thing I said when the auto unions were threatening a strike: let them. Because there are PLENTY of people out there who are unemployed right now who would LOVE to step up and fill those positions.
          Most of sams wealth, and that of his family, is STOCK! It really didn't cost the company anything. Often, there are strike conditions and hold conditions, so it would be virtually worthless to most employees for possibly years, and you wouldn't want to dilute your holdings, or sell too much too quickly.

          HEY, if a guy spends a day assembling $10 worth of parts for a $50 computer, he may get say $20/day for the computers. What about the other $20? You have to pay for administrators, employee subsidies/benefits, advertising, shipping, etc..... OK, you say, let's raise the price of the computer by $10! OK, now taxes go up, duties go up, customers may balk, you may lose business, and the final price of that computer could skyrocket! Look at apple! All that overhead I mentioned for the manufacturer will apply to the main company, main warehouse, buying company, etc.... HEY, my LOWEST bill rate is about 3 times what I get! I KNOW about the other costs and understand though!

          Steve
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8019860].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author seasoned
        Originally Posted by whateverpedia View Post

        One of the most ardent capitalists of all time, Henry Ford, paid his workers a decent wage and gave them benefits so that the workers would be happy and productive and that fathers would encourage their sons to work for him as well.

        Nothing gets my goat more than a CEO on a multi-million $ salary claiming that it's in the best interest of the company to slash workers pay, benefits and conditions. Then having done that, award most, if not all of the cost savings to themselves for a "job well done".

        All part and parcel of workers being regarded as "human resources"* rather than people.

        * I hate that @#$%ing term. I hated when I first heard it, I hate it even more now.
        I actually AGREE with you THERE, but CEOs are often paid in terms that don't really cost anything, and getting rid of REAL workers will only HURT the company. MOST people at most companies spend little time working.

        steve
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8019843].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
    April,

    The insurance system in the US, as I predicted, is crumbling! Doctors are leaving, prices are going up, costs are going up, wait times are going up, etc.... and it hasn't even really started yet. It WAS due to start 2014, but some things are going to start even LATER. and the economy is NOT getting better. HECK, the cost of food, etc... in the US IS going up!

    But HEY! CBC recently said the US is only the FIFTH worst healthcare nation out of 25 surveyed! They said the WORST is CANADA. CBC is a canadian broadcaster. As I recall, the rest of the 5 worst were austria, Sweden, and France.

    Steve
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8019588].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author bluecoyotemedia
      Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

      April,

      The insurance system in the US, as I predicted, is crumbling! Doctors are leaving, prices are going up, costs are going up, wait times are going up, etc.... and it hasn't even really started yet. It WAS due to start 2014, but some things are going to start even LATER. and the economy is NOT getting better. HECK, the cost of food, etc... in the US IS going up!

      But HEY! CBC recently said the US is only the FIFTH worst healthcare nation out of 25 surveyed! They said the WORST is CANADA. CBC is a canadian broadcaster. As I recall, the rest of the 5 worst were austria, Sweden, and France.

      Steve

      Steve

      those figures are whats going on in the big corrupt bankrupt countries like canada/U.S. etc

      in the smaller up and coming countries

      costa rica

      healthcare is very good

      for example

      both my sons were born in the public hospitals.

      here is a pic of the hospital. on par with any hospital in the U.S.

      https://www.google.com/search?q=hosp...2F%3B550%3B413

      just last week my son had an accident and had a bad concussion.. had to take him to emergency.. where he was attended to and stayed for 2 days.



      he was fed a natural breakfast and lunch and the room was semi private.

      excellent doctors

      3 years ago I had to have my appendix removed. excellent.

      is it perfect.. there is no such thing as perfection except in your own mind.

      my coverage includes myself. wife, and 3 kids and I pay $35 bucks per month

      cuba has excellent healthcare and doctors

      panama has excellent hospitals and healthcare

      Venezuela has excellent healthcare

      Chile has excellent healthcare

      there are more but I just want to limit to my personal experience.

      my only wish is that people stay in that sleep like state back in the U.S. and stay there because my friend

      the party is just about to come to an end

      BTW Steve how much are you guys paying for health care in the U.S. nowadays???
      Signature

      Skunkworks: noun. informal.

      A clandestine group operating without any external intervention or oversight. Such groups achieve significant breakthroughs rarely discussed in public because they operate "outside the box".
      https://short-stuff.com/-Mjk0fDExOA==

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8019651].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author seasoned
        Originally Posted by bluecoyotemedia View Post

        Steve

        those figures are whats going on in the big corrupt bankrupt countries like canada/U.S. etc

        in the smaller up and coming countries

        costa rica

        healthcare is very good

        for example

        both my sons were born in the public hospitals.

        here is a pic of the hospital. on par with any hospital in the U.S.

        https://www.google.com/search?q=hosp...2F%3B550%3B413

        just last week my son had an accident and had a bad concussion.. had to take him to emergency.. where he was attended to and stayed for 2 days.



        he was fed a natural breakfast and lunch and the room was semi private.

        excellent doctors

        3 years ago I had to have my appendix removed. excellent.

        is it perfect.. there is no such thing as perfection except in your own mind.

        my coverage includes myself. wife, and 3 kids and I pay $35 bucks per month

        cuba has excellent healthcare and doctors

        panama has excellent hospitals and healthcare

        Venezuela has excellent healthcare

        Chile has excellent healthcare

        there are more but I just want to limit to my personal experience.

        my only wish is that people stay in that sleep like state back in the U.S. and stay there because my friend

        the party is just about to come to an end

        BTW Steve how much are you guys paying for health care in the U.S. nowadays???
        Well, I am lucky that I am paid enough that I don't have to worry so much, ****YET****, about how much it costs. Also, my employer obviously subsidizes a bit. But it IS high. I HEARD stories of increases of over 50%, and recently they spoke of another 40+% increase. That is about 100% total! It IS getting bad. And the plans are that health care workers will get paid MORE than top dollar. With the added workload, and distancing from bills, and doctors dropping out, it can only get worse.

        Steve
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8019837].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author HeySal
      Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

      April,

      The insurance system in the US, as I predicted, is crumbling! Doctors are leaving, prices are going up, costs are going up, wait times are going up, etc.... and it hasn't even really started yet. It WAS due to start 2014, but some things are going to start even LATER. and the economy is NOT getting better. HECK, the cost of food, etc... in the US IS going up!

      But HEY! CBC recently said the US is only the FIFTH worst healthcare nation out of 25 surveyed! They said the WORST is CANADA. CBC is a canadian broadcaster. As I recall, the rest of the 5 worst were austria, Sweden, and France.

      Steve
      First off - the US ranks 37th in health care - not 5th. It's been at 37 for several years now. CBC is just plain spouting more propaganda.

      Second - if you don't give people enough money, your consumerism folds. Like April said - our workers are on public dole, they aren't out spending and creating more wealth for the country.

      Tim -- I don't know where you are that Safeway employees get that kind of bucks. My roomie is a bookkeeper for Safeway and gets 10.50 an hour. The cashiers get less - she's been there around 6 - 7 years. She started as a cashier, which was union - then she was moved into bookeeping, a non-union position and they cut her hours to below 20 pw so they can quit furnishing her healthcare.

      Tourism - I LOVE tourism. Would love to get back into it for awhile. Can't afford to start at minimum wage. When I was in tourism decades ago the going wage was 9 bucks an hour for the average position. Now, decades later and with a cost of living double to triple what it was back then, the jobs are mostly minimum wage jobs - that is, the starting pay has gone DOWN. There are several industries that the pay is going down. Some companies have major layoffs that cut a lot of long term workers and then they hire other people instead of hiring laid off workers back - and they hire the new workers cheaper. All corporate regulations are being made for purposes of gov getting money from them - nobody gives a crap about the workers.

      Until we get the banking cartel operatives arrested and in jail like Iceland did - there's going to be NO economic recovery. I don't see that happening here until the crash is so complete that we won't even recognize life as we know it now. These people at the top want to own everything and everyone and they are bleeding us very literally to death to get it.

      Population 7 billion makes human life a very valueless commodity.
      Signature

      Sal
      When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
      Beyond the Path

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8019950].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author bluecoyotemedia
    Tim

    sorry my fault. let me rephrase

    in your opinion how much should the sears cashier make that would be a decent wage??
    Signature

    Skunkworks: noun. informal.

    A clandestine group operating without any external intervention or oversight. Such groups achieve significant breakthroughs rarely discussed in public because they operate "outside the box".
    https://short-stuff.com/-Mjk0fDExOA==

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8019625].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
      $15 ain't bad. It's not a crazy amount either. It's a decent wage for a cashier but not an exorbitant wage. Safeway cashiers I believe make more than that for example and Safeway does pretty well. I get more upset at the money CEO and executives make as other have mentioned in this thread. Why get upset at someone trying to make a decent honest living? :/

      Originally Posted by bluecoyotemedia View Post

      Tim

      sorry my fault. let me rephrase

      in your opinion how much should the sears cashier make that would be a decent wage??
      Signature
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8019647].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author bluecoyotemedia
        Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

        $15 ain't bad. It's not a crazy amount either. It's a decent wage for a cashier but not an exorbitant wage. Safeway cashiers I believe make more than that for example and Safeway does pretty well. I get more upset at the money CEO and executives make as other have mentioned in this thread. Why get upset at someone trying to make a decent honest living? :/

        Tim

        Hmm.. $15.. interesting.. i will have to refrain from responding because at this point I have been out of the U.S. for the last 15 years so i am not on the pulse of this so I dont want to speak out of my ass if you know what I mean

        thanks for replying.

        eddie
        Signature

        Skunkworks: noun. informal.

        A clandestine group operating without any external intervention or oversight. Such groups achieve significant breakthroughs rarely discussed in public because they operate "outside the box".
        https://short-stuff.com/-Mjk0fDExOA==

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8019667].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author RobinInTexas
    Checkout Germany

    Hours for a five-day workweek average between thirty-five to forty hours. The daily time can’t exceed eight hours. Sometimes you can work up to ten hours in a day if it averages out so that in a period of six months the average daily time doesn’t exceed the eight hours.
    You’ll find the law prohibits working on Sundays and holidays, so if you are a workaholic, you will have to restrain yourself! If you do have an exception where you need to work at these times, you will have to get prior approval from the government.
    Each year you are entitled to four weeks of vacation time. It’s more typical to receive about 25 to 30 days a year however, which depends on the type of business it is and your seniority.
    Another good thing to know is that under German employment law, you are entitled to fully salary for up to six weeks in case of an illness. Sometimes your employer will have to continue the payments for up to 12 weeks. If the illness extends this time your health insurance continues to pay the gross of your salary.

    Be Familiar With German Employment Law When Working In Germany
    Signature

    Robin



    ...Even if you're on the right track, you'll get run over if you just set there.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8019690].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author bluecoyotemedia
      Robin

      so you consider this a good thing???

      I guess it all depends where you are in life

      if your an employee.. you will like the socialistic goverment managment style

      if your a buisness owner you will NOT

      example: costa rica has a very socialistic employment environment which I experienced first hand for 8 years actually having a Brick and Mortar business

      and let me tell you

      IT SUCKS!!!

      sold the business and I will never employ anyone ever again.. so now I live in costa rica and I outsource Filipinos lol


      Originally Posted by RobinInTexas View Post

      Checkout Germany

      Hours for a five-day workweek average between thirty-five to forty hours. The daily time can’t exceed eight hours. Sometimes you can work up to ten hours in a day if it averages out so that in a period of six months the average daily time doesn’t exceed the eight hours.
      You’ll find the law prohibits working on Sundays and holidays, so if you are a workaholic, you will have to restrain yourself! If you do have an exception where you need to work at these times, you will have to get prior approval from the government.
      Each year you are entitled to four weeks of vacation time. It’s more typical to receive about 25 to 30 days a year however, which depends on the type of business it is and your seniority.
      Another good thing to know is that under German employment law, you are entitled to fully salary for up to six weeks in case of an illness. Sometimes your employer will have to continue the payments for up to 12 weeks. If the illness extends this time your health insurance continues to pay the gross of your salary.

      Be Familiar With German Employment Law When Working In Germany
      Signature

      Skunkworks: noun. informal.

      A clandestine group operating without any external intervention or oversight. Such groups achieve significant breakthroughs rarely discussed in public because they operate "outside the box".
      https://short-stuff.com/-Mjk0fDExOA==

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8019708].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author travlinguy
        Originally Posted by bluecoyotemedia View Post

        Robin

        so you consider this a good thing???

        I guess it all depends where you are in life

        if your an employee.. you will like the socialistic goverment managment style

        if your a buisness owner you will NOT

        example: costa rica has a very socialistic employment environment which I experienced first hand for 8 years actually having a Brick and Mortar business

        and let me tell you

        IT SUCKS!!!

        sold the business and I will never employ anyone ever again.. so now I live in costa rica and I outsource Filipinos lol
        Exactly. The government makes it really hard on businesses, especially smaller ones. People complain that all the jobs are overseas. This is why.

        This thread is about fast food & retail workers wanting more, $15 an hour for a cashier. How is it that a cashier should be in the pay neighborhood of a rookie teacher? Once upon a time a cashier had to actually think to do that job.

        They had to be able to do math and make change. Now a computer tells them how much change to give the customer. I'd bet that a LARGE percentage of cashiers couldn't do the simple math to make change of $5 in their head. Most cashier gigs are entry level with entry level pay as it should be.

        All the comments about how they should be able to have a decent wage are fine. Maybe they should get the training it takes do get the decent wage on their own rather than having the government pass laws that hurt everyone (including those they're designed to help) by causing inflation.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8019758].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author bluecoyotemedia
    Ron AKA Batman

    is 100% correctamundo

    Its my company.. I sacrificed MY money and time and RISK.. if I lost I would have lost everything

    then who would have bailed me out?? my employee's ??

    the marketplace should determine the jobs.. government sucks.. oops sorry I slipped LOL

    many years ago I had a small business in NYC the big apple. it was my very first entry into being an entrepreneur after reading all the books about being your own boss and how great it is etc

    I invested all the money I had and really believed in the dream

    after 3 years.. I was starting to actually make some money.. after the long hours.. but let me say that no one is in your corner.. everyone wants their money

    corrupt city officials
    employee's who skimmed
    vendors
    etc

    and near the end the IRS was hounding me..

    hounding me and

    hounding me

    it was a cash business ( DELI) and one day they came all of a sudden to do an audit and based on one days sales they concluded I owed them a specific amount of money

    finally on a day they sent another rep to do another internal audit

    when they came in I gave them the keys and said here you go

    its all yours

    and I just gave it up

    ( of course it closed and they auctioned whatever for pennies on dollar)

    that was my very first experience and it made me stronger.

    since then I started and sold a few profitable businesses..
    Signature

    Skunkworks: noun. informal.

    A clandestine group operating without any external intervention or oversight. Such groups achieve significant breakthroughs rarely discussed in public because they operate "outside the box".
    https://short-stuff.com/-Mjk0fDExOA==

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8019826].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author ronrule
    Originally Posted by Ken_Caudill View Post

    They bust their asses, take crap from the public, take crap from their bosses.

    There is dignity in all work. Pay them.
    If you feel so strongly about it, tip them. Tip them more than you normally would. Put your own money where your mouth is and stop trying to spend mine.
    Signature

    -
    Ron Rule
    http://ronrule.com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8019878].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author ronrule
      Originally Posted by Ken_Caudill View Post

      I do tip generously. I hope they win the strike and make a decent wage. I hope it doesn't put you in poverty.

      Who knows? You might have to work a job like that some day, Big Money.

      We certainly couldn't have that.
      And what would you say to the ones who end up getting let go to compensate for the increased costs?

      You aren't seeing the big picture. You say "It's $4 more, what's the big deal" - it's actually a very big deal. Take that $4 multipled by 20 hours a day, times 10 employees and that's an extra $24,000 a month the employer has to come up with. And that's just one location.

      What if I owned 4 McDonalds locations? You just increased my costs by about $100,000 a month - I guarantee you I'm not making anywhere near $100k a month as a salary, so even if I was willing to work for free, there's still a huge shortfall. Where is that extra $100k going to come from?

      This is what I'm talking about, man ... you guys love spending other people's money based on feel good policies, but you don't understand the math behind it.
      Signature

      -
      Ron Rule
      http://ronrule.com

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8019952].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author fin
        Originally Posted by ronrule View Post

        And what would you say to the ones who end up getting let go to compensate for the increased costs?

        You aren't seeing the big picture. You say "It's $4 more, what's the big deal" - it's actually a very big deal. Take that $4 multipled by 20 hours a day, times 10 employees and that's an extra $24,000 a month the employer has to come up with. And that's just one location.

        What if I owned 4 McDonalds locations? You just increased my costs by about $100,000 a month - I guarantee you I'm not making anywhere near $100k a month as a salary, so even if I was willing to work for free, there's still a huge shortfall. Where is that extra $100k going to come from?

        This is what I'm talking about, man ... you guys love spending other people's money based on feel good policies, but you don't understand the math behind it.
        Do you own 4 locations with 10 workers in each one?

        Or are you just exaggerating in an attempt to make your point louder?

        The only thing different about having extra outlets is that you'd be making more money.

        You make Y with one outlet. With 4 you take home 4Y.

        If you have one outlet you pay X to the workers. With 4 you pay 4X, but you're now making 4 times the money so it makes no difference.

        The only thing you're doing by artificially increasing the amount of outlets you have is giving yourself a bigger profit, of course that's going by the simple calculation you use.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8020420].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author seasoned
          Originally Posted by fin View Post

          You make Y with one outlet. With 4 you take home 4Y.

          If you have one outlet you pay X to the workers. With 4 you pay 4X, but you're now making 4 times the money so it makes no difference.
          MAN is that overly simplistic! For one, they will NOT make the same amount! That is pretty much a GIVEN! If they are two close to other ones, or competitors, income can DROP! If they are too far away there may be more taxes and regulations. ALSO, you need someone to manage them all! SO, the formula is NOT!

          4 times a equals 4a!

          The forumula is more like:

          4 times a equals a+b+c+d-(w+x+y+z)

          Where abcd are the branches, w is the manager, x is taxes, y regulations, and z is unseen. FOR EXAMPLE! Many regulations will NOT affect a company with 10 employees or less, but the second branch causes that to kick in for ALL!!!!!!!!

          The only thing you're doing by artificially increasing the amount of outlets you have is giving yourself a bigger profit, of course that's going by the simple calculation you use.
          AGAIN, ********BULL********

          Want a real life example? OK, I worked on a program used by a little company. Expenses were low, one area, etc... My program tracked EVERYTHING for their main business, so I got an inside view. As for expenses being low, they made sure to buy a LOT of a product that was expensive and likely to fail. I predicted that about a decade before when I saw people try it. It NEVER caught on! HECK, over 15 years have passed, and I would almost defy you to find a store selling a similar product TODAY! But this increased their costs by over about $10,000 per location! If they did that nation wide, that is about 1/2 a million for something the likely ended up virtually throwing away.

          I watched in HORROR as they expanded to nearly every state! They went NATIONWIDE! FINALLY, the first branch started making a profit. You know what happened NEXT? THEY WENT BANKRUPT!!!!!!! They just couldn't afford all this stuff. And they had different regulations and tax rates EVERYWHERE. BUT, by YOUR logic, they would have made 50 times the profit in their first shop! Too bad it didn't work, huh?

          Steve
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8021291].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author fin
            Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

            MAN is that overly simplistic! For one, they will NOT make the same amount! That is pretty much a GIVEN! If they are two close to other ones, or competitors, income can DROP! If they are too far away there may be more taxes and regulations. ALSO, you need someone to manage them all! SO, the formula is NOT!

            4 times a equals 4a!

            The forumula is more like:

            4 times a equals a+b+c+d-(w+x+y+z)

            Where abcd are the branches, w is the manager, x is taxes, y regulations, and z is unseen. FOR EXAMPLE! Many regulations will NOT affect a company with 10 employees or less, but the second branch causes that to kick in for ALL!!!!!!!!



            AGAIN, ********BULL********

            Want a real life example? OK, I worked on a program used by a little company. Expenses were low, one area, etc... My program tracked EVERYTHING for their main business, so I got an inside view. As for expenses being low, they made sure to buy a LOT of a product that was expensive and likely to fail. I predicted that about a decade before when I saw people try it. It NEVER caught on! HECK, over 15 years have passed, and I would almost defy you to find a store selling a similar product TODAY! But this increased their costs by over about $10,000 per location! If they did that nation wide, that is about 1/2 a million for something the likely ended up virtually throwing away.

            I watched in HORROR as they expanded to nearly every state! They went NATIONWIDE! FINALLY, the first branch started making a profit. You know what happened NEXT? THEY WENT BANKRUPT!!!!!!! They just couldn't afford all this stuff. And they had different regulations and tax rates EVERYWHERE. BUT, by YOUR logic, they would have made 50 times the profit in their first shop! Too bad it didn't work, huh?

            Steve
            I'm not even sure if you're being serious or not. I can only hope for your sake that you are.

            Did you miss the part where I said "of course that's going by the simple calculation you use" or did you leave it out on purpose before you went on your rant?

            The guy used a simplistic formula and I used the same one.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8021348].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author seasoned
              Originally Posted by fin View Post

              I'm not even sure if you're being serious or not. I can only hope for your sake that you are.

              Did you miss the part where I said "of course that's going by the simple calculation you use" or did you leave it out on purpose before you went on your rant?

              The guy used a simplistic formula and I used the same one.
              OH, OK, sorry. I guess I missed that. I meant the idea that increasing something means that the effect is likewise amplified is all BULL. HECK, I once had to pass on a house because, after a $5000 RAISE, I couldn't afford it!

              Steve
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8021742].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author fin
                Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

                OH, OK, sorry. I guess I missed that. I meant the idea that increasing something means that the effect is likewise amplified is all BULL. HECK, I once had to pass on a house because, after a $5000 RAISE, I couldn't afford it!

                Steve
                I thought you must have misunderstood because I was sure I couldn't have explained it any simpler.

                I know what you were trying to say, but it wasn't what I was talking about.

                The guy just seemed to be increasing his profits while trying to say he was losing money (with the formula he used).
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8021750].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Kay King
            That's about what will happen now. Back in the day if you picketed a business nobody would cross your picket line.
            Unions got puffed up on their own power and overplayed their hands in many instances. That's how you get auto workers who are paid for sitting in a room doing nothing for 8 hrs a day...and many of the other wasteful worker privileges than non-union workers don't have.

            Fast food workers are not highly skilled or highly educated. They don't have the leverage to demand 100% salary increases. The press releases will come from unions and community organizers - but it's the workers who will lose out if strikes spread.

            There have been many long standing companies that have closed their doors due to worker strikes that made demands the companies couldn't meet. No company will continue to operate if it's not profitable. Hostess is the latest example of workers destroying their own jobs.

            People don't "get" what the procedures are we need to follow to keep our freedoms, and they don't care a rat's patoot about anything but what they want right NOW.
            What "freedoms"? There is no "right to higher pay" in the Constitution. There is no guarantee you can walk off a job and keep the job. There is no "freedom" that allows you determine your own pay based on what you want or need - except the freedom to change jobs or add more work to your schedule.

            "People" are not only workers - they are the business owners, too. We've started interpreting "rights and freedoms" to include entitlements - and that's not going to work in the long run.
            Signature
            Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog
            ***
            One secret to happiness is to let every situation be
            what it is instead of what you think it should be.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8021396].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author MissTerraK
              Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

              Unions got puffed up on their own power and overplayed their hands in many instances. That's how you get auto workers who are paid for sitting in a room doing nothing for 8 hrs a day...and many of the other wasteful worker privileges than non-union workers don't have.

              Fast food workers are not highly skilled or highly educated. They don't have the leverage to demand 100% salary increases. The press releases will come from unions and community organizers - but it's the workers who will lose out if strikes spread.

              There have been many long standing companies that have closed their doors due to worker strikes that made demands the companies couldn't meet. No company will continue to operate if it's not profitable. Hostess is the latest example of workers destroying their own jobs.



              What "freedoms"? There is no "right to higher pay" in the Constitution. There is no guarantee you can walk off a job and keep the job. There is no "freedom" that allows you determine your own pay based on what you want or need - except the freedom to change jobs or add more work to your schedule.
              Kay, there are laws outside of the Constitution. No where in the constitution does it say anything about the speed you drive, but there are certainly laws about it. No where does the Constitution say anything about spitting in public, but there are laws about it. In the same manner, not all freedoms are derived from the Constitution.

              Michigan labor laws which give some freedoms to both employees and employers isn't in the Constitution as I'm sure is the same for all state labor laws.

              Terra
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8021934].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author seasoned
                Originally Posted by MissTerraK View Post

                Kay, there are laws outside of the Constitution. No where in the constitution does it say anything about the speed you drive, but there are certainly laws about it. No where does the Constitution say anything about spitting in public, but there are laws about it. In the same manner, not all freedoms are derived from the Constitution.
                Well, this is in the COMMON WELFARE area of the constitution, and the bill of rights. The government is to build and control the infrastructure, and the states are to govern to facilitate it. At the time apparently some thought going over 20MH ould be dangerous, and they only had horses, etc...

                Michigan labor laws which give some freedoms to both employees and employers isn't in the Constitution as I'm sure is the same for all state labor laws.

                Terra
                Yeah, the original idea was for people to be able to INDEPENDENTLY have LIFE LIBERTY and the PURSUIT of happiness. In short, along with the amendments, such law would be illegal and silly.

                Steve
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8022058].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author ronrule
          Originally Posted by fin View Post

          Do you own 4 locations with 10 workers in each one?

          Or are you just exaggerating in an attempt to make your point louder?

          The only thing different about having extra outlets is that you'd be making more money.

          You make Y with one outlet. With 4 you take home 4Y.

          If you have one outlet you pay X to the workers. With 4 you pay 4X, but you're now making 4 times the money so it makes no difference.

          The only thing you're doing by artificially increasing the amount of outlets you have is giving yourself a bigger profit, of course that's going by the simple calculation you use.
          I don't own any McDonalds franchises, but it's simple math... if a location is open for 20 hours a day and has 10 employees "on the clock" at any given time, then a single day = 200 payroll hours. If you increase those costs by $4 per hour per person, your operating costs just increased by $800 per day - that's $24,000 per month.

          Where is that extra $24,000 going to come from?

          As a manager or franchise owner, your choices are limited: you can lay some people off and raise your prices. A few people will lose their jobs, sucks to be them, and everyone else will have to pull together and work harder to earn their new forced raises. But then after that, there's potentially a ripple effect. When prices rise, sales decrease. Remember, we are talking about a CITY here - not a state or national deal. So how many people will pay more for the same food in Chicago that they can still get for the old, lower price the next town over? A lot will pony up and pay the higher price, but some won't. So in addition to increased labor costs, now there's the potential for fewer sales on top of it - resulting in lesser staffing needs - thus potentially resulting in another person getting let go.

          This is what happens to every industry every time government and "collective bargainers" meddle with wages. It will NEVER hit the top. Ever. The CEO of McDonalds will make the same money if this passes as he will make if it doesn't. The people it will hurt are the workers, and the feeling of "extra money" in their paychecks will be short lived. Because while we've kept this conversation about fast food, this will also affect grocery stores and department stores, all who employ low-wage workers. They will ALL be raising their prices if it were to pass, so that feeling of having extra money in the paycheck will be offset by higher prices at the cash register on everything they buy.

          Government meddling and collective bargaining never produce the intended result. There are always side effects.
          Signature

          -
          Ron Rule
          http://ronrule.com

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8022755].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author fin
            Originally Posted by ronrule View Post

            I don't own any McDonalds franchises, but it's simple math... if a location is open for 20 hours a day and has 10 employees "on the clock" at any given time, then a single day = 200 payroll hours. If you increase those costs by $4 per hour per person, your operating costs just increased by $800 per day - that's $24,000 per month.

            Where is that extra $24,000 going to come from?

            As a manager or franchise owner, your choices are limited: you can lay some people off and raise your prices. A few people will lose their jobs, sucks to be them, and everyone else will have to pull together and work harder to earn their new forced raises. But then after that, there's potentially a ripple effect. When prices rise, sales decrease. Remember, we are talking about a CITY here - not a state or national deal. So how many people will pay more for the same food in Chicago that they can still get for the old, lower price the next town over? A lot will pony up and pay the higher price, but some won't. So in addition to increased labor costs, now there's the potential for fewer sales on top of it - resulting in lesser staffing needs - thus potentially resulting in another person getting let go.

            This is what happens to every industry every time government and "collective bargainers" meddle with wages. It will NEVER hit the top. Ever. The CEO of McDonalds will make the same money if this passes as he will make if it doesn't. The people it will hurt are the workers, and the feeling of "extra money" in their paychecks will be short lived. Because while we've kept this conversation about fast food, this will also affect grocery stores and department stores, all who employ low-wage workers. They will ALL be raising their prices if it were to pass, so that feeling of having extra money in the paycheck will be offset by higher prices at the cash register on everything they buy.

            Government meddling and collective bargaining never produce the intended result. There are always side effects.
            I honestly don't know where it's going to come from, but does it really matter? I don't think where it will come from is the point.

            People need to be paid what they think they deserve. If they're not they can kick up a fuss, or they can quit and go home.

            The franchise can hire someone else that is happy with what they're willing to pay.

            If a business can't afford to pay employees what they think they deserve (and nobody else will work there) then it's not a profitable business.

            It's like if your profits were terrible and you could only be profitable if you were paying people $2 per hour (ignore the fact it's illegal). Just think of this on a grander scale.

            If $15 per hour isn't good enough for the employees you will need to get new ones. If new ones still refuse to work for X per hour then you will need to pay $15. If you can't afford what people want ($15) you're not a profitable business.

            People seem to be seriously missing the point in all of this. It doesn't matter whether or not they think $15 per hour is fair for unskilled labor.

            If a company can't find employees to work for less it will go out of business.

            Employees are entitled to earn whatever they want, or quit.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8022868].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author seasoned
              Originally Posted by fin View Post

              I honestly don't know where it's going to come from, but does it really matter? I don't think where it will come from is the point.
              GOOD, then the employer doesn't need to pay them!!! PROBLEM SOLVED!

              The employer has to pay from INCOME! If the income comes from increased prices, the payment will eventually mean less ANYWAY! It is called INFLATION!

              People need to be paid what they think they deserve. If they're not they can kick up a fuss, or they can quit and go home.
              OK, so I think YOU should pay me a million dollars a year! How do you want to pay me?

              If a company can't find employees to work for less it will go out of business.
              Not really true. You can move the job elsewhere, get rid of, or change, the project, automate, etc.... They are done ALL THE TIME! Heck, $15 is NOT bad pay. but you could always give another person a $5 raise to do something new, etc... Things ARE going to get harder!

              Steve
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8022910].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author fin
                Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

                GOOD, then the employer doesn't need to pay them!!! PROBLEM SOLVED!

                The employer has to pay from INCOME! If the income comes from increased prices, the payment will eventually mean less ANYWAY! It is called INFLATION!



                OK, so I think YOU should pay me a million dollars a year! How do you want to pay me?



                Not really true. You can move the job elsewhere, get rid of, or change, the project, automate, etc.... They are done ALL THE TIME! Heck, $15 is NOT bad pay. but you could always give another person a $5 raise to do something new, etc... Things ARE going to get harder!

                Steve
                Were you trying to make a point somewhere in the middle of that?

                It seems a lot of people don't understand how anything works.

                Every employee is the master of their own destiny. If they don't get paid enough they can continue to work, negotiate, or go home.

                A business doesn't have the last say in anything.

                And being skilled doesn't entitle you to more money. It entitles you to carry out a job someone else doesn't have the skills to perform. That's great if people want to pay you more, but you certainly don't deserve anything. It's all what the market dictates.
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8022944].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author ronrule
              Originally Posted by fin View Post

              I honestly don't know where it's going to come from, but does it really matter? I don't think where it will come from is the point.

              People need to be paid what they think they deserve. If they're not they can kick up a fuss, or they can quit and go home.

              The franchise can hire someone else that is happy with what they're willing to pay.

              If a business can't afford to pay employees what they think they deserve (and nobody else will work there) then it's not a profitable business.

              It's like if your profits were terrible and you could only be profitable if you were paying people $2 per hour (ignore the fact it's illegal). Just think of this on a grander scale.

              If $15 per hour isn't good enough for the employees you will need to get new ones. If new ones still refuse to work for X per hour then you will need to pay $15. If you can't afford what people want ($15) you're not a profitable business.

              People seem to be seriously missing the point in all of this. It doesn't matter whether or not they think $15 per hour is fair for unskilled labor.

              If a company can't find employees to work for less it will go out of business.

              Employees are entitled to earn whatever they want, or quit.
              I agree with everything you just said here - you're right. If you don't like the terms of the job, try to negotiate for a better deal or quit.

              It's when the government (or a union contract) forces an employer to pay higher wages that I have a problem with. The market is what sets the job prices, not some moral argument about CEO pay vs. low-brain worker pay. It's when people try to artificially tamper with that system that things fall apart.

              I actually support the strike - let them strike and try to get a better deal. I've done the same thing at an executive level more or less, telling employers I wanted more or I was walking. But there's a difference between when a skilled executive does it and a low-brain worker does it; every time I demanded a raise, it was only because I was showing measurable results that warranted it and I felt I deserved a bigger cut. If my only bargaining chip was "I have bills" and the employer could have replaced me with any number of other people, holding out for more pay probably wouldn't have been a very good strategy. So let them strike, and let the company fire them all in the process and train new staff.
              Signature

              -
              Ron Rule
              http://ronrule.com

              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8023918].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author Kay King
                I honestly don't know where it's going to come from, but does it really matter? I don't think where it will come from is the point.
                That doesn't make sense - money has to come from somewhere. You won't be in business long if you start paying out money without knowing where that money will come from.

                People need to be paid what they think they deserve. If they're not they can kick up a fuss, or they can quit and go home.
                No - people need to be paid what they are WORTH...not what they think they deserve. If they think they deserve more - they can get a better job (experience, education) or work to get promoted.

                Your ability to negotiate better terms from your employer is directly proportional to your worth to that company. If you can be easily replaced by some guy off the street - you don't have a lot of bargaining power. That's a big problem for these workers.
                Signature
                Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog
                ***
                One secret to happiness is to let every situation be
                what it is instead of what you think it should be.
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8024006].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author Joe Mobley
                  NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- Believe it or not, a place exists where companies are hiring like crazy, and you can make $15 an hour serving tacos, $25 an hour waiting tables and $80,000 a year driving trucks.
                  A little bit older post but it goes to show, where's there's demand, there's money.

                  Oil boom brings high-paying jobs to North Dakota - Sep. 28, 2011

                  Joe Mobley
                  Signature

                  .

                  Follow Me on Twitter: @daVinciJoe
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8024198].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author ThomM
                  Originally Posted by Kay King View Post


                  No - people need to be paid what they are WORTH...not what they think they deserve. If they think they deserve
                  more - they can get a better job (experience, education) or work to get promoted.
                  Your ability to negotiate better terms from your employer is directly proportional to your worth to that company. If you can be easily replaced by some guy off the street - you don't have a lot of bargaining power. That's a big problem for these workers.
                  Exactly Kay. WHen I went to work at mu first landscape company I started at min. wage as a laborer. 2 days later I got a raise and promotion to crew foreman. Six months later I was one of the highest paid. One year later I was the number 3 person in the company and with the exception of the owner had the second highest salary . I just kept improving my skills making myself more valuable to the company . The keys to me advancing so fast was 1. I kept improving my skills and advancing my knowledge and 2. I didn't see any job I was asked to do as 'beneath' me.
                  If the owner needed me to design a landscape, I'd do it. If he needed me to pull weeds I'd do it.
                  Signature

                  Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
                  Getting old ain't for sissy's
                  As you are I was, as I am you will be
                  You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8024238].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author KimW
                    Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

                    Exactly Kay. WHen I went to work at mu first landscape company I started at min. wage as a laborer. 2 days later I got a raise and promotion to crew foreman. Six months later I was one of the highest paid. One year later I was the number 3 person in the company and with the exception of the owner had the second highest salary . I just kept improving my skills making myself more valuable to the company . The keys to me advancing so fast was 1. I kept improving my skills and advancing my knowledge and 2. I didn't see any job I was asked to do as 'beneath' me.
                    If the owner needed me to design a landscape, I'd do it. If he needed me to pull weeds I'd do it.
                    Same with me Thom.
                    Many years ago I did a job many people wouldn't.
                    I worked for a garbage company.
                    I started off at minimum wage,which was $2.75 an hour.
                    My job? Scrape the crap off of the dumpsters at fast food places,wash them down then paint them.
                    Nastiest job I have ever had.
                    But I did it.

                    Of course I couldn't do it during the winter months so they brought me inside to handle the phones.

                    By the time warm weather rolled around they wanted me inside doing that job and hired someone else to do the painting.

                    Not going step by step ,but I was at the company 6 years until I went and bought a business of my own. (which failed miserably).

                    When I left I was the office manager for a million dollar company and making over $500 a week. Not bad in 1970 dollars.
                    Signature

                    Read A Post.
                    Subscribe to a Newsletter
                    KimWinfrey.Com

                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8025238].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author ThomM
                      Originally Posted by KimW View Post

                      Same with me Thom.
                      Many years ago I did a job many people wouldn't.
                      I worked for a garbage company.
                      I started off at minimum wage,which was $2.75 an hour.
                      My job? Scrape the crap off of the dumpsters at fast food places,wash them down then paint them.
                      Nastiest job I have ever had.
                      But I did it.

                      Of course I couldn't do it during the winter months so they brought me inside to handle the phones.

                      By the time warm weather rolled around they wanted me inside doing that job and hired someone else to do the painting.

                      Not going step by step ,but I was at the company 6 years until I went and bought a business of my own. (which failed miserably).

                      When I left I was the office manager for a million dollar company and making over $500 a week. Not bad in 1970 dollars.
                      I've never cared what my starting pay was at any job I've had. I either worked hard and made myself more valuable to the company or quit and got a different job.
                      Signature

                      Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
                      Getting old ain't for sissy's
                      As you are I was, as I am you will be
                      You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8025472].message }}
                      • Profile picture of the author KimW
                        Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

                        I've never cared what my starting pay was at any job I've had. I either worked hard and made myself more valuable to the company or quit and got a different job.
                        That was basically my point.
                        Signature

                        Read A Post.
                        Subscribe to a Newsletter
                        KimWinfrey.Com

                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8025599].message }}
                        • Profile picture of the author ThomM
                          Originally Posted by KimW View Post

                          That was basically my point.
                          I know, I'm just feeling chatty tonight
                          Signature

                          Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
                          Getting old ain't for sissy's
                          As you are I was, as I am you will be
                          You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

                          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8026365].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author fin
                  Originally Posted by Kay King View Post


                  No - people need to be paid what they are WORTH...not what they think they deserve. If they think they deserve more - they can get a better job (experience, education) or work to get promoted.

                  Your ability to negotiate better terms from your employer is directly proportional to your worth to that company. If you can be easily replaced by some guy off the street - you don't have a lot of bargaining power. That's a big problem for these workers.
                  I agree with you on everything except the first sentence. People are worth as much as they are willing to work for.

                  You've just finished my next sentence for me with your second sentence, because if they think they're worth too much they will need to find a better job.

                  I still don't think it matters where the money comes from. It doesn't change the fact they can either accept what they're offered or quit.

                  If the company can afford to pay them it might, or it might not. If it can't they will have to be let go.

                  I think Ron and I are on the same wavelength now. I also agree with him that an employer shouldn't be forced to do anything. At the end of the day, the employee has a choice whether or not to work for the maximum an employer offers them.
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8024241].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author HeySal
      Originally Posted by ronrule View Post

      If you feel so strongly about it, tip them. Tip them more than you normally would. Put your own money where your mouth is and stop trying to spend mine.
      Making the public pay for your employees is a disgusting route to go. In some states waitresses only make a few bucks an hour and the public is expected to support their wages. That business owner didn't know it costs to have employees when they opened up? It would be a cold day in hell that I took a job that paid 3 bucks an hour even if you do get tips. The gov taxes tips now - your server is taxed 8% on all food sales. Even a good waitress gets stiffed on tips. There are people that just don't believe in giving tips. So that waitress is supposed to PAY to serve them?

      Also - there are few positions that offer much over minimum wage any more. To get them you have to show the company your willingness to OWN you - squat and pee. That is a policy now that holds for lower wage workers - but never to the management class. Protectionism is completely gone in some states. You can be fired even if you are a very dedicated worker - for anything they want to fire you for, so once you get enough raises, you can be exed out just so they can get someone to start at lower wages. I've seen that happen to a LOT of people. 15 years of a great work record.....oops, that last raise took them over the top so lets put them out the door and train a new person, it's cheaper. Then you have companies that fire workers now for being sick. I know one company that worked a guy 15 hours a day until he dropped from a heart attack (they were working employees 12 hour days then found they could up that legally) and the doctor had just told the employee he had to stay out of stressful situations when the company called him right in the hospital and fired him.

      These kinds of things are the kind of things that, as human beings, employees should not have to put up with. If it creates a slave class instead of a working class, we should not allow it to go on. There is no justice in firing a dedicated employee that is putting up with crap from the company for almost no kind of livable wage for being sick.

      Companies need to have some form of responsibility to the people that work for them -- because they are the reason the company is in business in the first place. You find a business that can run without its employees. Yet they have so much power now that employees are treated like dirt or worse. Example - Amazon has wasted millions on lawsuits for killing their employees. Nice eh? They can't afford decent wages or to be even remotely responsible for a decent workplace - but they can afford millions on lawsuits for treating humans like cattle. WTF is wrong with this picture.

      We need gov to get the hell out of business and let companies run without them. We need workers to be responsible and brave enough to risk being unemployed and walk out on companies that treat them like their very existence on the planet is no big deal. "If we kill him/her, it's not a problem because a lot of people need jobs" is an attitude that does not belong in this country. It's a third world slavery concept that just shouldn't be entertained in a free country. If the only people that can make a livable wage at a company are those few at the top, that company doesn't need loyal employees.

      And that's where we are going - companies expect 100% loyalty from an employee and give ZERO or worse are a detriment. Yet when someone isn't earning enough to pay bills, they don't always have the time or money to look for better work. It's a complete trap for most people or they would be getting out of it on their own. People who DO make enough to support themselves do not always understand the catch 22 people who don't are actually in. I've been there and it's enraging.

      A company is not supposed to OWN their employees. They are supposed to be paying xx amount per hour of service offered by the employee. Too many are now making policies that put them in a position of ownership. That's not right - not by a long shot. Company owners often whine about "can't afford" when actually what they are talking about is "don't want to afford -will cut my own profit margin. To a point that is crucial - after a point it is greed.

      Get the gov out of business and put the market back to being a free market and business will flourish and everyone can benefit = and when the workers can't benefit, there will be plenty of other companies to work for so they aren't trapped working for slave holders. It's the gov that is the crink in the armor, not the employees. Act accordingly.
      Signature

      Sal
      When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
      Beyond the Path

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8025340].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author seasoned
        Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

        Making the public pay for your employees is a disgusting route to go. In some states waitresses only make a few bucks an hour and the public is expected to support their wages. That business owner didn't know it costs to have employees when they opened up? It would be a cold day in hell that I took a job that paid 3 bucks an hour even if you do get tips. The gov taxes tips now - your server is taxed 8% on all food sales. Even a good waitress gets stiffed on tips. There are people that just don't believe in giving tips. So that waitress is supposed to PAY to serve them?
        ACTUALLY, it takes maybe 10 minutes to serve a person at a table. That is 1/6th of an hour. That is less than $2! SO, if they server 5 people an hour, and get no tips, they break even. The average waitress probably spends OVER 10 minutes an hour doing NOTHING, even in a busy restaurant. And they may appear busy BECAUSE they are doing nothing. I swear, sometimes I order my check WITH the meal. I should do that more often because I HATE having to rush because they are gossiping. HOW do I know? Sometimes I can even HEAR them, and I often see them.

        Also - there are few positions that offer much over minimum wage any more. To get them you have to show the company your willingness to OWN you - squat and pee. That is a policy now that holds for lower wage workers - but never to the management class. Protectionism is completely gone in some states.
        YEP! Costs went so sky high in some cases, and there were GOVERNMENT subsidies, etc... so manufacturing moved abroad. So people have to work harder just to understand the third of fourth level interpretation of what someone ELSE wanted. It once took me about 3 DAYS to realize that the word "casket"(SENSELESS) should have been CASCADE(more then started making sense). I couldn't ask the person because they simply took notes, and the person speaking may have ALSO been wrong! As I watch a CANADIAN program now, they speak of how 3/4 of the CANADIAN jobs are being filled by temporary foreign workers! And unemployment is supposed to be SO high here? There are TONS of jobs! Granted, far less than 5+ years ago, but TONS! TOO BAD that people have been IMPORTED to fill them for like 30 years! You mark my words! in another 30 years, nearly every job will be filled from abroad or the descendants of those people that likewise benefited. Anyway, they often take the higher paid jobs.

        You can be fired even if you are a very dedicated worker - for anything they want to fire you for, so once you get enough raises, you can be exed out just so they can get someone to start at lower wages. I've seen that happen to a LOT of people. 15 years of a great work record.....oops, that last raise took them over the top so lets put them out the door and train a new person, it's cheaper. Then you have companies that fire workers now for being sick. I know one company that worked a guy 15 hours a day until he dropped from a heart attack (they were working employees 12 hour days then found they could up that legally) and the doctor had just told the employee he had to stay out of stressful situations when the company called him right in the hospital and fired him.
        YEP! I got off a contract and used my cell phone(though against the rules) to make the last call I would make for about 4 weeks. I told my boss that I was going in for open heart surgery and they should get someone else to fill my new contract, that started 3 days later. Some people here have SEEN my dedication to a project, and I left here for WEEKS, so you know I am not making that up. HECK, my current doctor called me only a couple days ago to say I should look for yet ANOTHER doctor! They always hate that I travel all over.

        This ALWAYS could happen unless there were arbitrary quotas, etc.... Even THEN, that meant restricting hires!

        These kinds of things are the kind of things that, as human beings, employees should not have to put up with. If it creates a slave class instead of a working class, we should not allow it to go on. There is no justice in firing a dedicated employee that is putting up with crap from the company for almost no kind of livable wage for being sick.
        Well, again, it happens. HEY, I heard of an odd company a long time ago and was told it would be a good investment. It was called the american family life assurance company. YOU likely know it by its initials, AFLAC. But the fact is that that worry has always been there. IRONICALLY, that is why "Social Security" started, and it has just failed MISERABLY and exacerbates the problem.

        Companies need to have some form of responsibility to the people that work for them -- because they are the reason the company is in business in the first place. You find a business that can run without its employees. Yet they have so much power now that employees are treated like dirt or worse. Example - Amazon has wasted millions on lawsuits for killing their employees. Nice eh? They can't afford decent wages or to be even remotely responsible for a decent workplace - but they can afford millions on lawsuits for treating humans like cattle. WTF is wrong with this picture.
        I don't know about that, but it is ASTOUNDING how much corporations WASTE! With all the complaints of funds going to CEOs? HA!!!!!!!! Probably CHICKENFEED! I wish I got a PENNY for every $1000 I have PERSONALLY seen them waste. I would, SERIOUSLY, NO EXAGGERATION, be a MILLIONAIRE! To pay like $600K for something you know they will likely NEVER use? That is $6K right THERE! ONE example! All I have to say is that I once valued a program at $400.00! It sold outright for up to $80K, and customization and support was extra. I stand by my earlier estimate though.

        We need gov to get the hell out of business and let companies run without them. We need workers to be responsible and brave enough to risk being unemployed and walk out on companies that treat them like their very existence on the planet is no big deal. "If we kill him/her, it's not a problem because a lot of people need jobs" is an attitude that does not belong in this country. It's a third world slavery concept that just shouldn't be entertained in a free country. If the only people that can make a livable wage at a company are those few at the top, that company doesn't need loyal employees.
        WOW, WE AGREE!!!!! And lets get RID of the duty free treatment, and foreign workers.

        And that's where we are going - companies expect 100% loyalty from an employee and give ZERO or worse are a detriment. Yet when someone isn't earning enough to pay bills, they don't always have the time or money to look for better work. It's a complete trap for most people or they would be getting out of it on their own. People who DO make enough to support themselves do not always understand the catch 22 people who don't are actually in. I've been there and it's enraging.
        Well, my business RUNS on credit, so I understand much of this first hand. I walk a tight rope. I have often REFUSED to take from my retirement. I STILL refuse to stop autoinvestment. But I have to date had to transfer about $12000 OUT just to keep things going. WHY? Well, companies want to waste money and use ME as a buffer. So I take the risk, and THEY benefit from the float.

        A company is not supposed to OWN their employees. They are supposed to be paying xx amount per hour of service offered by the employee. Too many are now making policies that put them in a position of ownership. That's not right - not by a long shot. Company owners often whine about "can't afford" when actually what they are talking about is "don't want to afford -will cut my own profit margin. To a point that is crucial - after a point it is greed.
        EXACTLY! There WAS a time when some employees could be proud and loyal WITHOUT UNIONS! Of course, even THEN it inspired songs like 16 tons. It is almost always upbeat. This one seems more proper than ernie fords one. Listen carefully though! It echos what you say here. and believe me, I UNDERSTAND IT!


        and they say Americans won't do such jobs!

        Get the gov out of business and put the market back to being a free market and business will flourish and everyone can benefit = and when the workers can't benefit, there will be plenty of other companies to work for so they aren't trapped working for slave holders. It's the gov that is the crink in the armor, not the employees. Act accordingly.
        HECK YEAH!

        Steve
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8025879].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author rondo
    Minimum wage here in Australia is now more than $15 per hour. Oddly, the cost of fast food at major chains like Mcdonalds, Subway etc costs the about same here as it does in the US. Actually Mcdonalds is probably cheaper here overall (and arguably better quality too).
    However most other retail goods are more expensive here.


    Andrew
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8019896].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author ronrule
      Originally Posted by rondo View Post

      Minimum wage here in Australia is now more than $15 per hour. Oddly, the cost of fast food at major chains like Mcdonalds, Subway etc costs the about same here as it does in the US. Actually Mcdonalds is probably cheaper here overall (and arguably better quality too).
      However most other retail goods are more expensive here.


      Andrew
      Kangaroo meat doesn't count, dude.
      Signature

      -
      Ron Rule
      http://ronrule.com

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8019941].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author rondo
        Originally Posted by ronrule View Post

        Kangaroo meat doesn't count, dude.
        You should try a wombat burger!
        Signature
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8019949].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author whateverpedia
        Originally Posted by ronrule View Post

        Kangaroo meat doesn't count, dude.
        Kangaroo meat is a lot healthier for you than beef, and definitely healthier than the chemical laden crap that passes for food at the golden arches.

        PS I realise you were joking.
        Signature
        Why do garden gnomes smell so bad?
        So that blind people can hate them as well.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8019956].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Kurt
          Originally Posted by whateverpedia View Post

          Kangaroo meat is a lot healthier for you than beef, and definitely healthier than the chemical laden crap that passes for food at the golden arches.

          PS I realise you were joking.
          They should use kangaroo meat for the burgers at IHOP.
          Signature
          Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
          Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8019996].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Kay King
          The talk about corporate salaries doesn't apply in this fast food argument - most of the restaurants are franchises owned by small business people. They operate on slim profit margins.

          My guess is that in most cities if fast food workers decide to walk off the job - they'll be fired and quickly replaced. This 100% salary increase is being pushed by community organizers and unions looking for new members - people buy into it at their own risk.
          Signature
          Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog
          ***
          One secret to happiness is to let every situation be
          what it is instead of what you think it should be.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8020020].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author seasoned
            Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

            The talk about corporate salaries doesn't apply in this fast food argument - most of the restaurants are franchises owned by small business people. They operate on slim profit margins.

            My guess is that in most cities if fast food workers decide to walk off the job - they'll be fired and quickly replaced. This 100% salary increase is being pushed by community organizers and unions looking for new members - people buy into it at their own risk.
            Yeah, franchise owners are STRUGGLING just to pay the fees. And the franchisers are getting STRICT!!!!!!!!

            I went to the closest shop near me that delivers, and I was literally 1/2 block outside of their zone! ************SERIOUSLY**********! The closest street to me marked the end of their territory. They REFUSED to deliver! WHY? I know the owner, and spoke with her. She said the franchise AUDITS and they want to get another franchise. If the audit finds they go outside of their area, they will be BANNED from getting another franchise. Anyway, she seemed to indicate that they are doing OK, but are FAR from raking it in. She and her husband work there, and they have maybe 6 employees. The startup costs and preparation are HIGH. There IS a risk!

            Steve
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8020157].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author HeySal
            Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

            The talk about corporate salaries doesn't apply in this fast food argument - most of the restaurants are franchises owned by small business people. They operate on slim profit margins.

            My guess is that in most cities if fast food workers decide to walk off the job - they'll be fired and quickly replaced. This 100% salary increase is being pushed by community organizers and unions looking for new members - people buy into it at their own risk.
            That's about what will happen now. Back in the day if you picketed a business nobody would cross your picket line. They let employees deal and negotiate without interfering. With so little concern for the long run anymore - or for anything but the wants and needs of the moment, a lot of people will take a job from a corporation even if the picketers are still right at the front door.

            People don't "get" what the procedures are we need to follow to keep our freedoms, and they don't care a rat's patoot about anything but what they want right NOW.
            Signature

            Sal
            When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
            Beyond the Path

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8020303].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author rickwill71
          it's about time, it's 2013 not the 70s!
          Signature

          Please do not use affiliate links in signatures

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8021201].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author seasoned
            Originally Posted by rickwill71 View Post

            it's about time, it's 2013 not the 70s!
            In the 70s, the US was a powerhouse in every sense of the word, center of much, and primarily MANUFACTURING and all associated with it! GRANTED, the 70s were the death knell, and the start of decline. The economy stagnated, and we had inflation, but.....

            TODAY, the US is a powerhouse in virtually ****NOTHING****, and primarily in service. It is the start of ANOTHER decline. The economy is stagnant, and we have inflation. We have nearly EVERY problem they had in the 70s, and almost no benefit. The ONE difference? we have SOME lower rates on loans. Even THERE, some are at rates so high that they were ILLEGAL in the 70s! And investments are LOWER than the 70s!

            So WHAT is your point? The economy was better in the 70s than it is now!

            Steve
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8021323].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Enfusia
          In my mind the real question is why are we eating fast food?
          That stuff is nothing more than toxic garbage.

          Patrick
          Signature
          Free eBook =>
          The Secret To Success In Any Business
          Yes, Any Business!
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8030211].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author ronrule
    Your 10 year old article, which refers to a handful of specific ceo's,doesn't really support the argument you were referring to. Many CEO's take a salary reduction wven things aren't on the up and up. Even Zuckerberg just set his salary at $1.00 and eliminated all bonuses.

    Pointing out a couple of bad CEO's from a decade ago doesnt have anything to do with a general compensation argument.

    I think everyone should be allowed to make as much money as they are able. If the government decided to cap internet marketing income based on some imaginary scale they invented calculated based on how much people with no internet marketing skills are able to make, you guys would have a huge problem with it. This is no different.
    Signature

    -
    Ron Rule
    http://ronrule.com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8021184].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    Absolutely a lot of misinformation about unions in this thread,but everyone has a right to believe what they want to believe.

    Kay, I disagree with your statement "most of the restaurants are franchises owned by small business people. They operate on slim profit margins. "

    If the profits were slim then people wouldn't be buying into them.
    And have you priced a McDonald's franchise "opportunity".
    I haven't lately but last I heard you had to be a millionaire to even think about it.

    Should fast food workers get 100% increase? Not in my opinion.
    But then, neither the government or organizations like unions should be involved.

    I own a business.I give you a job paying X. You don't like it,think you can demand Y.
    I say Z you later.I hire someone that is happy to have a job.
    If they don't like it they can look for another job while they are working.
    It is easier to get a job when you have a job.

    And as a business owner you try to force me to do something the first thing I am going to do is lighten the load of anyone causing malcontent in my business.
    Common Sense.
    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8021968].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
      Originally Posted by KimW View Post

      Absolutely a lot of misinformation about unions in this thread,but everyone has a right to believe what they want to believe.

      Kay, I disagree with your statement "most of the restaurants are franchises owned by small business people. They operate on slim profit margins. "

      If the profits were slim then people wouldn't be buying into them.
      A $100K profit margin for an owner is THIN, but many would be HAPPY about that. People pay a lot for a relative little a LOT. FEW cooks, for example, get RICH, but apparently MANY pay a LOT to learn to cook, etc....

      And have you priced a McDonald's franchise "opportunity".
      I haven't lately but last I heard you had to be a millionaire to even think about it.
      Last time I priced it maybe nt a millionaire. And WHAT is a millionaire? Usually you could take it from your 401K.

      Should fast food workers get 100% increase? Not in my opinion.
      But then, neither the government or organizations like unions should be involved.

      I own a business.I give you a job paying X. You don't like it,think you can demand Y.
      I say Z you later.I hire someone that is happy to have a job.
      If they don't like it they can look for another job while they are working.
      It is easier to get a job when you have a job.

      And as a business owner you try to force me to do something the first thing I am going to do is lighten the load of anyone causing malcontent in my business.
      Common Sense.
      OK, now THAT makes sense! BESIDES, there are LOTS of places for non skilled workers to go. SERIOUSLY, a LOT of this stuff can be replaced by computers and robots!

      Steve
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8022082].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Kay King
      The profit can be good - the profit MARGINS are slim. From what I've read, the profit margin for a McDonald's restaurant is about 15%.

      Labor is one of the biggest expenses - so what happens to a 15% margin if labor costs double?

      I think it's a great idea for people to be paid more - but the reality is that cost will be made up by hiring less employees, shortening store hours to eliminate low traffic times, and by increasing the price of the food sold.

      This "more" movement has been going on for a couple years but has only gotten traction in a few places like NY and Chicago. There's always a lot of exposure about a "planned strike" but little can be found on the results or strike numbers after the fact. Probably because few workers participate?
      Signature
      Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog
      ***
      One secret to happiness is to let every situation be
      what it is instead of what you think it should be.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8022229].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Joe Mobley
        Why don't we pause now for a reality check???

        If you are pissed now, and many of you are at the wrong people for the wrong reasons, wait until a large number of companies cut back the hours of a large number of employees because of Government Mandated Health Care. (Holy run-on sentence Batman.)

        Many of you will blame the companies and their decision makers for slashing hours and pay. Again, the reality is that Government Mandated burdens to the companies have created this situation.

        Company executives will be forced to make decisions on whether to spend millions of additional dollars or cut hours. Most will cut hours, just like you would if you were in that situation.

        And no, adding "Would you like fries with that?" to your vocabulary does not entitle you to $15.00 per hour in Chicago.

        Joe Mobley
        Signature

        .

        Follow Me on Twitter: @daVinciJoe
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8022365].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author MissTerraK
          Originally Posted by Joe Mobley View Post


          If you are pissed now, and many of you are at the wrong people for the wrong reasons, wait until a large number of companies cut back the hours of a large number of employees because of Government Mandated Health Care. (Holy run-on sentence Batman.)



          Joe Mobley
          Hahaha Joe! That made me laugh!

          Terra
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8022444].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author KimW
        Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

        The profit can be good - the profit MARGINS are slim. From what I've read, the profit margin for a McDonald's restaurant is about 15%.

        Labor is one of the biggest expenses - so what happens to a 15% margin if labor costs double?

        I think it's a great idea for people to be paid more - but the reality is that cost will be made up by hiring less employees, shortening store hours to eliminate low traffic times, and by increasing the price of the food sold.

        This "more" movement has been going on for a couple years but has only gotten traction in a few places like NY and Chicago. There's always a lot of exposure about a "planned strike" but little can be found on the results or strike numbers after the fact. Probably because few workers participate?
        Kay,
        I stand corrected.

        But while a high profit margin is desirable, a business can have a loww profit margin and yet make literally millions of profit.
        Signature

        Read A Post.
        Subscribe to a Newsletter
        KimWinfrey.Com

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8022580].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author seasoned
          Originally Posted by KimW View Post

          Kay,
          I stand corrected.

          But while a high profit margin is desirable, a business can have a loww profit margin and yet make literally millions of profit.
          YEP, but the lower the margin, the greater the likelyhood that a general raise will raise its price. ALSO, if the item is a low cost product, like food, the increase will cause a loss in business that could hurt things a LOT. THAT is what happened with hostess and also with GM, etc...

          Steve
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8022765].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Kay King
            Everything I have read about Hostess says in the months leading up to the closing, there were big bonuses and salaries paid to the top execs.

            If they were planning to take salaries of $1 - I think they padded their accounts pretty well beforehand. Sometimes strikes are warranted but there's a risk, too, that it won't end well for workers.
            Signature
            Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog
            ***
            One secret to happiness is to let every situation be
            what it is instead of what you think it should be.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8022905].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    Steve, I agree $100K is thin in the short term,but in the long term it becomes a nice return of investment.

    I may be wrong about a million,but not far off:
    Acquiring a Franchise :: AboutMcDonalds.com

    Many fast food joints have replaced peopl with machines and the quality of everything has declined.

    I can't think of one item I can get frsh made at McDonalds now. (of course I rarely eat there any way).
    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8022190].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author ronrule
    Ask the former Hostess employees how the strike worked out for them.
    Signature

    -
    Ron Rule
    http://ronrule.com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8022554].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author KimW
      Originally Posted by ronrule View Post

      Ask the former Hostess employees how the strike worked out for them.
      Do some research and find out who benefited from it.
      Hint: it wasn't Hostess employees. :rolleyes:
      Signature

      Read A Post.
      Subscribe to a Newsletter
      KimWinfrey.Com

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8022579].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author ronrule
        Originally Posted by KimW View Post

        Do some research and find out who benefited from it.
        Hint: it wasn't Hostess employees. :rolleyes:
        Exactly...
        Signature

        -
        Ron Rule
        http://ronrule.com

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8022588].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    I think you are missing the point.
    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8022597].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author ronrule
      Originally Posted by KimW View Post

      I think you are missing the point.
      Yes, you do. And that is your error.
      Signature

      -
      Ron Rule
      http://ronrule.com

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8022613].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author KimW
        Originally Posted by ronrule View Post

        Yes, you do. And that is your error.
        Sadly no, Do as I said and spend 5 minutes researching.

        Kay's posts tells more of the story,something we all knew would happen.

        http://americablog.com/2012/11/hoste...eo-salary.html

        http://www.forbes.com/sites/helaineo...-and-twinkies/

        http://www.forbes.com/sites/susanada...yre-demanding/

        Even Snopes says it is true:
        http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/hostess.asp
        Signature

        Read A Post.
        Subscribe to a Newsletter
        KimWinfrey.Com

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8022632].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author ronrule
          Originally Posted by KimW View Post

          Sadly no, Do as I said and spend 5 minutes researching.

          Kay's posts tells more of the story,something we all knew would happen.
          I am well aware of the news - you completely misread my post. The unions failed the hostess employees. Their threats of striking backfired. That was my point.
          Signature

          -
          Ron Rule
          http://ronrule.com

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8022637].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author KimW
            Originally Posted by ronrule View Post

            I am well aware of the news - you completely misread my post. The unions failed the hostess employees. Their threats of striking backfired. That was my point.
            No, I did not misread your post, and no the union did not fail.

            Management offered a contract that they knew was unacceptable while giving themselves huge salary increases and bonuses.

            You are welcome to your beliefs though.
            Signature

            Read A Post.
            Subscribe to a Newsletter
            KimWinfrey.Com

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8022657].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author ronrule
              Originally Posted by KimW View Post

              No, I did not misread your post, and no the union did not fail.

              Management offered a contract that they knew was unacceptable while giving themselves huge salary increases and bonuses.

              You are welcome to your beliefs though.
              Dude... the workers lost their jobs. The company folded, reorganized, and is now coming back without the unions in the way. The union not only failed to get their members a better deal, they failed them COMPLETELY and caused them all to lose their jobs. If those employees want to come back to work now - IF the company will have them - they'll be doing it at whatever pay the company offers, and without union representation. How you could see that as anything but a complete failure of the strike, and a complete failure on the part of the union is beyond comprehension...
              Signature

              -
              Ron Rule
              http://ronrule.com

              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8022662].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author KimW
                Originally Posted by ronrule View Post

                Dude... the workers lost their jobs. The company folded, reorganized, and is now coming back without the unions in the way. The union not only failed to get their members a better deal, they failed them COMPLETELY and caused them all to lose their jobs. If those employees want to come back to work now - IF the company will have them - they'll be doing it at whatever pay the company offers, and without union representation. How you could see that as anything but a complete failure of the strike, and a complete failure on the part of the union is beyond comprehension...
                Dude,
                lets make it short and sweet.

                It is called union busting combined with Corporate greed and theft.

                Maybe I can see it because I understand the union,something you don't.


                I am not defending the union, I am pointing out reality,what really happened.
                I am sorry you can't see that.
                Signature

                Read A Post.
                Subscribe to a Newsletter
                KimWinfrey.Com

                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8022678].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author ronrule
                  Originally Posted by KimW View Post

                  Dude,
                  lets make it short and sweet.

                  It is called union busting combined with Corporate greed and theft.

                  Maybe I can see it because I understand the union,something you don't.
                  I can tell the "lets blame it on the union" mentality in your posts.

                  I am not defending the union, I am pointing out reality,what really happened.
                  I am sorry you can't see that.
                  You aren't pointing out what "really happened" unless you're acknowledging that the union failed their members, and all of the non-member employees.

                  Executive compensation may have been a moral issue, but it wasn't the financial one. Even if the CEO worked for free, when you divide his salary over 18,000 employees it only works out to about $138 per employee per year. Executive compensation wasn't the problem ... a crushing payroll was.

                  Of the two unions, the one who actually looked at the numbers conceded to the terms the company put forth because they knew it would save 18,000 jobs. The other one continued to make the moral argument instead of the financial one, and as a result it all fell apart.

                  And guess what the new deal is? The same deal the company offered the first time - only this time, the unions won't be in the way to mess it up.
                  Signature

                  -
                  Ron Rule
                  http://ronrule.com

                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8022690].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Kay King
          Not sure what the argument is - one sector of Hostess union workers continued to strike after the company had stated the company could not stay in business if the strike continued.

          The employees lost due to one group of employees. They had been asked to take pay and benefit cuts - not good. However, a job that pays less than it did could be argued as better than "no job".

          What I wonder is how many former, experienced Hostess workers will dump the union to get their job back....
          Signature
          Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog
          ***
          One secret to happiness is to let every situation be
          what it is instead of what you think it should be.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8022641].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author KimW
            Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

            Not sure what the argument is - one sector of Hostess union workers continued to strike after the company had stated the company could not stay in business if the strike continued.

            The employees lost due to one group of employees. They had been asked to take pay and benefit cuts - not good. However, a job that pays less than it did could be argued as better than "no job".

            What I wonder is how many former, experienced Hostess workers will dump the union to get their job back....
            Let's see, we have to go bankrupt unless you take less money and let us cut your benefits. Oh,and while we are at it let us triple our already outrageous salaries....:rolleyes:

            Sorry, the union did not put Hostess out of anything.
            As some of the sources I posted already say, this is not the first time Hostess has been bought and sold,and it won't be the last.

            Kay, I doubt that many former employees, union or not would be able to get their job back.
            Signature

            Read A Post.
            Subscribe to a Newsletter
            KimWinfrey.Com

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8022670].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Kay King
      The latest news on Hostess is from last week.

      The company was bought out - and is being re-opened. There will be 1500 jobs available - and they will be NON-union jobs. The number of jobs varies according to reporter - from 250 to 1500 so who knows?

      Twinkies return by midsummer? Hostess factories reopening soon. (+video) - CSMonitor.com

      http://abcnews.go.com/Business/twink...4#.UX3MG1I4F61
      Signature
      Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog
      ***
      One secret to happiness is to let every situation be
      what it is instead of what you think it should be.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8022625].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    Whatever you say.
    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8022705].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author ronrule
      Originally Posted by KimW View Post

      Whatever you say.
      I know. You also seem to have forgotten that the compensation reduction offered by the company also applied to executives - they were all going on $1.00 annual salaries for one year. Make no mistake, it was the union clinging to a moral argument instead of the financial one that caused it to come apart. If they had accepted the terms, all of those people would still be employed and all of the "evil greedy executives" would have been cashing 8 cent per month paychecks. But hey, screw the 18,000 people, fighting it was the "right thing to do", right?

      But we've gotten off topic. The real point is that the strike didn't work for hostess workers, and it won't work for Chicago's fast food workers. There are plenty of unemployed people in Chicago right now who will line up to take those jobs, at their current pay rates, if the existing workers go on strike.
      Signature

      -
      Ron Rule
      http://ronrule.com

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8022711].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author KimW
        Originally Posted by ronrule View Post

        I know. You also seem to have forgotten that the compensation reduction offered by the company also applied to executives - they were all going on $1.00 annual salaries for one year. Make no mistake, it was the union clinging to a moral argument instead of the financial one that caused it to come apart. If they had accepted the terms, all of those people would still be employed and all of the "evil greedy executives" would have been cashing 8 cent per month paychecks. But hey, screw the 18,000 people, fighting it was the "right thing to do", right?

        But we've gotten off topic. The real point is that the strike didn't work for hostess workers, and it won't work for Chicago's fast food workers. There are plenty of unemployed people in Chicago right now who will line up to take those jobs, at their current pay rates, if the existing workers go on strike.
        I haven't forgotten anything. I just know that your mind is closed to the truth and there is no point in continuing the discussion.
        Have a great day. :rolleyes:
        Signature

        Read A Post.
        Subscribe to a Newsletter
        KimWinfrey.Com

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8022720].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author ronrule
    Sal... no one is forced to accept a job. If you don't like the terms of employment, you don't have to work there. I have employees ranging from $8 per hour to $120k a year and each are paid a fair amount for their work. Your pay is relative to your abilities and skill level, not to your "need". The day the government says I have to pay low level workers a high-level salary is the day those jobs start getting outsourced.
    Signature

    -
    Ron Rule
    http://ronrule.com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8025463].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author HeySal
      Originally Posted by ronrule View Post

      Sal... no one is forced to accept a job. If you don't like the terms of employment, you don't have to work there. I have employees ranging from $8 per hour to $120k a year and each are paid a fair amount for their work. Your pay is relative to your abilities and skill level, not to your "need". The day the government says I have to pay low level workers a high-level salary is the day those jobs start getting outsourced.
      No = having to pay everyone big bucks is not what I was saying. I agree with Thom and have always pretty much ignored start pay unless it's completely laughable. I've been to interviews where the company wants advanced skills for almost no pay. It's a simple fix. I thank them for their time and leave.

      We need gov to get out of business. We need people at the top of the businesses that aren't sociopathic greedy, that don't treat employees like their whole lives are expendable. If gov wasn't giving corps so much leeway and coming down so hard on small employers we could have sustainable jobs for everyone and large corps would have to become more fair to their workers. If small companies were allowed to flourish again, corporations would have to both pay what a job is worth and treat workers like humans again. You can't expect people to act with dignity when everyone at the top treats them like dirt at every turn and that is where corporations are going now.

      Not everyone can afford to get the training and education for better jobs. Not everyone has the IQ to handle it. When people are working 2 and 3 jobs just to eat or have a roof, they don't have time for it. Unfortunately, getting an education and training is not a guarantee of finding a job now either.

      People aren't in jobs because they are bored and need to have fun. They work to support themselves. Unfortunately - companies feel no responsibility to giving even their best a living anymore, yet still expect excellence and loyalty from the workers. It's a bad system and it's going to tank all the way around. I think an unskilled worker is a little nuts for asking 15 bucks an hour. There are educated people in jobs that take actual education and skill making that kind of money and less now. You can't keep pay the same in a country that has continual inflation - but part-time and minimum wage aren't going to engender employee enthusiasm or loyalty either.

      I won't even pretend to have the answer. I just know that when 80% of a company's workers need to get food stamps to survive while the guy at the top is making 8 figure salaries and bonuses, there's a real problem and it needs to be handled even if the government and the small percent at the top need to take a hit to do it.

      There has to be a balance. What the gov is doing now doesn't create balance. It creates corporations that hire overseas and small businesses that can't survive the red tape. It's time for corporations to step up to the plate and help try to fix things instead of just devouring everything and everyone in their paths so the top dogs can drive bmw's. And it's time for them to take the handcuffs off of small innovative businesses that could flourish and bring us back around to being a world leader again. Until all the corruption in higher echelons is weeded out, it's not going to happen. All we will get is a less and less motivated work force and richer and richer corporate psychotics at the top.
      Signature

      Sal
      When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
      Beyond the Path

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8028967].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author seasoned
        Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

        I won't even pretend to have the answer. I just know that when 80% of a company's workers need to get food stamps to survive while the guy at the top is making 8 figure salaries and bonuses, there's a real problem and it needs to be handled even if the government and the small percent at the top need to take a hit to do it.
        POVERTY level is $11,170
        Current minimum wage $7.25/hour
        Minimum yearly minimum yearly? $14819

        BYE BYE idea of "NEEDING" food stamps as far as the government is supposed to be concerned. That is over 30% above the pverty level!

        OK, let's say those people wanted $30,000, and the ceo wanted double what they had, but he had $10,000,000(low eight figures). He could pay the full wages of 331 people. OOPS! He has to pay for benefits, space, taxes, etc... so maybe 110 people. If those people are REALLY always bringing in over $100,000 a piece, WHY would they stay?

        Steve
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8029535].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author MissTerraK
          Steve, I believe they factor in family size. So a single person making that $14,819, fine above poverty level.

          But when you factor in a spouse and kids for the same $14,819 for the household income, not so much.

          Terra
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8029767].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author seasoned
            Originally Posted by MissTerraK View Post

            Steve, I believe they factor in family size. So a single person making that $14,819, fine above poverty level.

            But when you factor in a spouse and kids for the same $14,819 for the household income, not so much.

            Terra
            Yeah, but bigger families are BIGGER. More people that can work.

            Steve
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8030262].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Kay King
              But when you factor in a spouse and kids for the same $14,819 for the household income, not so much.
              That's why we have two income families.
              Signature
              Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog
              ***
              One secret to happiness is to let every situation be
              what it is instead of what you think it should be.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8030286].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author SteveJohnson
    Even though governments and do-gooders (and do-badders, from the other side) try to influence it through policy and regulation, jobs are subject to supply and demand just like any other commodity: businesses will only pay what they have to in order to get done what they require to be done.

    The qualified worker pool is what determines the wage rate. If I need a skilled painter, and all the skilled painters already have jobs, I'm going to have to pay more to entice them to come to work for me. If there are a lot of skilled painters without jobs, then I'm going to pay only what I have to in order to find someone with the skills I need.

    Minimum wage laws force prices up, mostly in the industries where prices are most important to lower income earners - basic foods, transportation. It ends up being a vicious circle.

    As for CEO pay, it should be no one's - except the shareholders of the company - business what a CEO makes. There are supply and demand forces at work at the CEO level just as at any other level. If a company needs a person with a certain skillset to run it, they go out and find someone willing to do what is needed at the price they can afford. If that's $20M a year, that's what they pay. If I am CEO material and I can't find a company willing to pay what I'm asking, then I don't work. If I don't perform at the level the company needs, I am replaced.

    Where it all gets REALLY complicated is where government gets involved with excessive regulation - some of it driven by someone's concept of 'fairness', other times with 'worker safety' - adversely affecting production. Individual prerogative is removed from any part of the equation, with the end result of pushing costs upward. The ability of the individual to manage their own risk is subjugated to a pencil-pusher who thinks they have a good idea.
    Signature

    The 2nd Amendment, 1789 - The Original Homeland Security.

    Gun control means never having to say, "I missed you."

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8028282].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author ThomM
      Minimum wage laws force prices up, mostly in the industries where prices are most important to lower income earners - basic foods, transportation. It ends up being a vicious circle.
      They also raise taxes on those getting the min wage increase in effect leaving them where they where before the increase. Especially since they do it in increments.
      People who think the govt. controls min. wages to benefit the people are clueless. It's all about increasing tax revenue. When they know x amount of people are earning min. wage, they know what their tax revenue is from that. They also know to increase that revenue all they need to do is increase the min. wage. In the end the employee looses because they are paying more in income and s.s. tax, the employer looses as their payroll increases do more to the increase in taxes like their share of s.s. then the actual pay rate increase, and the govt. wins as they reap the benefits of the increased income and s.s. taxes.
      Signature

      Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
      Getting old ain't for sissy's
      As you are I was, as I am you will be
      You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8028610].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author ronrule
    You mentioned foodstamps - this brings up an interesting point because it illustrates once again how government, not "corporate greed", is at the root of the problem.

    There aren't any companies with a board of directors sitting in a room saying "Half of our workforce is on welfare, this is AWESOME, now we don't have to pay as much!"

    But it's working out that way. Think about it. The market sets the price for labor ... if I wanted to hire a Sr. Developer and only offered $30,000 a year, guess what, I won't have a Sr. Developer on my staff. I will have to offer more money to get someone, and if I want someone really good I'll have to offer above the market average. If I throw out $90k-$120k, I'll have my pick of them.

    Back when qualifying for federal aid was actually difficult, companies had to offer a competitive wage, even for unskilled labor. But today, because the Federal government is so willing to supplement incomes, people are willing to take low-wage jobs that they wouldn't be able to take if the Federal aid wasn't there.

    Case in point, when I was in high school if I walked into any McDonalds I would have seen kids my age and slightly older (college age) doing everything from running the register to managing the store. Fast food work was never meant to be a "living wage", it was always an undesirable summer job that you did to save up for a car or pay your own way through school while you worked toward whatever your "real" career was going to be. Today, a good portion of the crowd seems a little older than I remember... I regularly see people in their late 20's and early 30's working there. They aren't leaving those jobs like they used to when I was a kid. And I have to ask myself, knowing what the wages are, how can they even afford an apartment? Well... when the government is paying for your food and/or giving you a check, suddenly the $1,600 a month paycheck on top of your free government cheese can net out to about $2,400 a month. Still a VERY low income, sure, but you can get by.

    What do you think would happen if that safety net were removed?

    I can tell you what would happen ... those people couldn't afford to continue to work there. The employer would be forced to increase their wages if they wanted to keep them, just like they did 30 years ago, and just like every employer has to right now when they're hiring SKILLED labor.

    Everyone wants to get the best deal, whether it's on labor or on goods. If I could hire a developer for $30k that was just as good as the guy who wants $90k, I would. Just like when you want to buy a car you will haggle with the salesman, fully knowing that every dollar you save is going to cut into his commission. Have you ever said "Well, I know you could get me a better deal on this car, but I want you to have an extra $1,000 in your paycheck so I'll pay this price anyway."? Never happened. But when you reach that point where the dealer says "Nah, I can't sell you the car for that" and walks away from the table, that's when you have to decide how badly you want it. Either pony up, or walk away empty handed.

    If the government stepped in the middle of that transaction and said "Hold on, here's $1,000, go ahead and buy that car", then you got your car at the price you wanted, AND the salesman made the money he wanted, neither of you had any reason to bend. You didn't have to pay more, and he didn't have to charge less.

    Hiring employees works the same way. Get the government out of the way and we eliminate this system of dependence - companies will HAVE TO give employees a fair deal, or the employees won't be able to afford to WORK THERE.

    Unfortunately, not only will the American left ever see reality for what it is, they're also about to make it worse with talks of an amnesty bill. What do you think is going to happen to wages when we add 11 million people who are WILLING to come over and take low paying jobs? Nothing. The wages will stay exactly where they are.

    If we want to get America back on track, we have to tighten up the safety net, but it seems our politicians are more interested in short term goals - like using it to buy votes - than actually solving problems. The safety net itself is a self-fulfilling prophecy... the safety net perpetuates the low-wage job market, and the existence of the low-wage job market perpetuates the need for the safety net.

    Thus the problem isn't the employer-employee relationship - it's the hand of government interfering with basic free market principles. Get that out of the way and both employer and employee have to come together in the middle. If they don't, the employee loses their job and the employer has no one available to do the work and goes out of business. Which neither want. But as long as the government is in the middle supplementing bad deals, there will still be bad deals to supplement.
    Signature

    -
    Ron Rule
    http://ronrule.com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8029202].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author HeySal
      Originally Posted by ronrule View Post

      You mentioned foodstamps - this brings up an interesting point because it illustrates once again how government, not "corporate greed", is at the root of the problem.

      There aren't any companies with a board of directors sitting in a room saying "Half of our workforce is on welfare, this is AWESOME, now we don't have to pay as much!"

      But it's working out that way. Think about it. The market sets the price for labor ... if I wanted to hire a Sr. Developer and only offered $30,000 a year, guess what, I won't have a Sr. Developer on my staff. I will have to offer more money to get someone, and if I want someone really good I'll have to offer above the market average. If I throw out $90k-$120k, I'll have my pick of them.

      Back when qualifying for federal aid was actually difficult, companies had to offer a competitive wage, even for unskilled labor. But today, because the Federal government is so willing to supplement incomes, people are willing to take low-wage jobs that they wouldn't be able to take if the Federal aid wasn't there.

      Case in point, when I was in high school if I walked into any McDonalds I would have seen kids my age and slightly older (college age) doing everything from running the register to managing the store. Fast food work was never meant to be a "living wage", it was always an undesirable summer job that you did to save up for a car or pay your own way through school while you worked toward whatever your "real" career was going to be. Today, a good portion of the crowd seems a little older than I remember... I regularly see people in their late 20's and early 30's working there. They aren't leaving those jobs like they used to when I was a kid. And I have to ask myself, knowing what the wages are, how can they even afford an apartment? Well... when the government is paying for your food and/or giving you a check, suddenly the $1,600 a month paycheck on top of your free government cheese can net out to about $2,400 a month. Still a VERY low income, sure, but you can get by.

      What do you think would happen if that safety net were removed?

      I can tell you what would happen ... those people couldn't afford to continue to work there. The employer would be forced to increase their wages if they wanted to keep them, just like they did 30 years ago, and just like every employer has to right now when they're hiring SKILLED labor.

      Everyone wants to get the best deal, whether it's on labor or on goods. If I could hire a developer for $30k that was just as good as the guy who wants $90k, I would. Just like when you want to buy a car you will haggle with the salesman, fully knowing that every dollar you save is going to cut into his commission. Have you ever said "Well, I know you could get me a better deal on this car, but I want you to have an extra $1,000 in your paycheck so I'll pay this price anyway."? Never happened. But when you reach that point where the dealer says "Nah, I can't sell you the car for that" and walks away from the table, that's when you have to decide how badly you want it. Either pony up, or walk away empty handed.

      If the government stepped in the middle of that transaction and said "Hold on, here's $1,000, go ahead and buy that car", then you got your car at the price you wanted, AND the salesman made the money he wanted, neither of you had any reason to bend. You didn't have to pay more, and he didn't have to charge less.

      Hiring employees works the same way. Get the government out of the way and we eliminate this system of dependence - companies will HAVE TO give employees a fair deal, or the employees won't be able to afford to WORK THERE.

      Unfortunately, not only will the American left ever see reality for what it is, they're also about to make it worse with talks of an amnesty bill. What do you think is going to happen to wages when we add 11 million people who are WILLING to come over and take low paying jobs? Nothing. The wages will stay exactly where they are.

      If we want to get America back on track, we have to tighten up the safety net, but it seems our politicians are more interested in short term goals - like using it to buy votes - than actually solving problems. The safety net itself is a self-fulfilling prophecy... the safety net perpetuates the low-wage job market, and the existence of the low-wage job market perpetuates the need for the safety net.

      Thus the problem isn't the employer-employee relationship - it's the hand of government interfering with basic free market principles. Get that out of the way and both employer and employee have to come together in the middle. If they don't, the employee loses their job and the employer has no one available to do the work and goes out of business. Which neither want. But as long as the government is in the middle supplementing bad deals, there will still be bad deals to supplement.
      You said everything I was trying to but said it in plain English.

      Gov is a severe problem - but so are the attitudes of workers now. Jobs are so scarce that people will work for anyone that will hire them - no matter how abusive. I was surprised to see in NV that for the first time ever, Amazon had to advertise on TV and offer hire on bonuses to get workers for Christmas season. Half the population was screaming at unemployed workers that "there are jobs there you lazy scum" -- but that company is so abusive I wouldn't let my dog walk in their door. They cheat employees out of ever minute of pay they can and they run them so hard that they keep an ambulance parked in their lot for when they fall. They were sued and got slammed by OSHA in PA for sending workers to the hospital and even killing them - and sued in NV (maybe AZ? don't remember) for cheating on pay.............yet people who refused to work there if not employed were called names by the general population.

      It makes it a lot harder to stand up for your own good and the good of the nation (and it is good for the nation if people refuse to work for abusive companies) when people are calling them lazy mooching scum. We have to stop that. It might not be right to go on strike for more wage than your value - but it is very wrong to insist that people take any job available just because they are not as smart, educated, or secure as the people doing the name calling. We have to be supportive of people refusing to work for abusers.
      Signature

      Sal
      When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
      Beyond the Path

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8033155].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    The government poverty level standard is very unrealistic in these times.
    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8029966].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    As long as they labor pool is greater than the available jobs, corporations will be able to hire at low wages.

    If you wanted to hire a Sr Developer and only wanted to pay 30K and you have one job and 100 developers wanting that job, you WILL have a Sr developer.

    As far as this:
    "There aren't any companies with a board of directors sitting in a room saying "Half of our workforce is on welfare, this is AWESOME, now we don't have to pay as much!"

    Have you checked out Wal Mart stats for employee/welfare ratio?

    As far as your McDonald's example, the first part is right, it did use to be a part time and/or step up job,and now it isn't. I don't know where you are from, but in my area the jobs are being taken over by either immigrants,legal or illegal I don't know,and the senior citizens,who need the income to survive because Social Security doesn't pay squat,and instead of being able to enjoy their golden years they are working at a low paying menial job.

    I think any anmesty bill needs to be shut down. But they aren't willing to come and take the jobs,they already are here and have.
    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8029998].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author ronrule
    Wait, is someone actually making the argument that family size should be a factor in the value of one's labor? Seriously?

    Your pay is based on what you bring to the table at work, not what you bring to the table at home. "Sorry, young single dude who shows up for work on time every day, I'm going to pay you $10 an hour for the exact same job as Nancy Negative over here who's making $25. Because she has 5 kids from 5 different fathers and none of them pay child support and her current squeeze is just a floating head in a jar. Her poor lifestyle choices magically make her contributions to the company worth more than yours."

    Yeah, that makes sense.
    Signature

    -
    Ron Rule
    http://ronrule.com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8031615].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
      Nope. Haven't seen that mentioned unless I skipped over it.
      Originally Posted by ronrule View Post

      Wait, is someone actually making the argument that family size should be a factor in the value of one's labor? Seriously?
      Signature
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8031894].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author KimW
        Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

        Nope. Haven't seen that mentioned unless I skipped over it.
        Thank you Tim. I was going to say the same thing.
        Signature

        Read A Post.
        Subscribe to a Newsletter
        KimWinfrey.Com

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8032145].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author ronrule
    If that argument isn't being made ... then why would anyone mention how a wage isn't enough "if you have kids?" I see this subtly injected into conversations like this pretty regularly.
    Signature

    -
    Ron Rule
    http://ronrule.com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8032180].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
      Don't see that either. Maybe you are referring to Terra's comment about the official poverty level?

      I don't hear people say that they should be paid as much or more than someone because of their family situations, but do hear people say it's harder and harder to find jobs where one person, or even two, can support a family, whereas in the past it was more possible.

      Originally Posted by ronrule View Post

      If that argument isn't being made ... then why would anyone mention how a wage isn't enough "if you have kids?" I see this subtly injected into conversations like this pretty regularly.
      Signature
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8032439].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Kay King
        it's harder and harder to find jobs where one person, or even two, can support a family, whereas in the past it was more possible
        For many reasons - one of which was a lower cost of living and a simpler lifestyle. When I was growing up more than 2/3 of the women I knew were "supported" by a spouse. The lifestyles, though, were much simpler. Families had one car - one phone line in the home - the stay at home moms almost always grew food in gardens and "put it up" to save money (and have better food). They cooked meals at home and seldom ate out - kid activities were school sponsored and community sponsored sports and clubs that charged little or nothing.

        We wanted "more stuff" and were willing to work two jobs to get it. Sometimes I think we outsmarted ourselves.
        Signature
        Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog
        ***
        One secret to happiness is to let every situation be
        what it is instead of what you think it should be.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8033051].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author ronrule
          Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

          For many reasons - one of which was a lower cost of living and a simpler lifestyle. When I was growing up more than 2/3 of the women I knew were "supported" by a spouse. The lifestyles, though, were much simpler. Families had one car - one phone line in the home - the stay at home moms almost always grew food in gardens and "put it up" to save money (and have better food). They cooked meals at home and seldom ate out - kid activities were school sponsored and community sponsored sports and clubs that charged little or nothing.

          We wanted "more stuff" and were willing to work two jobs to get it. Sometimes I think we outsmarted ourselves.
          No cell phones, no satellite television, no broadband Internet, no monthly subscriptions to anything but the local paper, electricity consumption was low due to a lack of electric devices. And, still the biggest one, no government supplementing individual incomes allowing wages to stay down.
          Signature

          -
          Ron Rule
          http://ronrule.com

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8033113].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    I have never heard that about Amazon, and actually know 2 people that work for them that absolutely love them.

    Of course, Wal Mart is another story.
    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8033529].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Kay King
      I know two women who've work for WM for years and love it. Talked to one woman a while back who loved her job at Amazon and quit only due to her husband's military transfer.

      I have a friend who works 2 days a week in a second job as a cashier at Sam's Club. She loves the job and earns over $17/hr.
      Signature
      Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog
      ***
      One secret to happiness is to let every situation be
      what it is instead of what you think it should be.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8033637].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author KimW
        Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

        I know two women who've work for WM for years and love it. Talked to one woman a while back who loved her job at Amazon and quit only due to her husband's military transfer.

        I have a friend who works 2 days a week in a second job as a cashier at Sam's Club. She loves the job and earns over $17/hr.
        I don't doubt it Kay.

        Sam's club is Wal Mart passing as a Costco.

        And like I said, and you have a similar experience,I have 2 friends who work for the Amazon distribution center near me that love it. Of course,one is a Master Electrician for them, so he probably is treated better than the regular worker. But the other IS a regular worker and he has never had any complaints so far either.

        As far as Wal Mart, I refuse to shop there because of how they treat their employees. It is a personal choice. Just as I am sure you can find people that love working at McDonalds, I have no doubt that you can find people that love working at Wal mart. God bless them.
        I sincerely think Sam Walton would be rolling in his grave if he saw what his company had become.
        Signature

        Read A Post.
        Subscribe to a Newsletter
        KimWinfrey.Com

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8033978].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Kay King
          I think we generalize too much when we talk about jobs.

          The high level management of a company may be bad - but what counts for an employee is his direct supervisor and the people he works with.

          If he feels his supervisor means well and has his back - the overall attitude of the company doesn't matter that much in his daily life. If his co-workers are helpful and positive - it can be a good job at WM or anywhere for that person.
          Signature
          Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog
          ***
          One secret to happiness is to let every situation be
          what it is instead of what you think it should be.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8034065].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    Someone can be happy with any job.
    The only reason i referenced Wal Mart was due to a comment someone made.
    The fact remains that one of the country's biggest employers has a large portion of employees receiving government assistance.

    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...ees-medicaid-/

    Daily Kos: Walmart: America's real 'Welfare Queen'

    Hidden Taxpayer Costs | Good Jobs First

    New Study Finds Wal-Mart’s Miserly Wages Cost Taxpayers | Institute for Local Self-Reliance


    I could go on and on.

    I'm sorry,I do not want to subsidize Wal Mart or its employees.
    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8034102].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author ronrule
    But Kim, don't you realize that the government programs are what enables this to happen? If the government wasn't supplementing incomes, people wouldn't be able to take low-wage jobs. Employers would have to up the pay to attract the workers.

    If you need $2600 a month to live, you won't take a job that only pays $2,000 ... but if the government gives you $600 toward your food bill, you can now willingly take that $2k job. Get the government out of the way and companies will be forced to increase their wages to compensate for the labor shortage. Companies aren't going to voluntarily pay more for unskilled labor - it's just not going to happen. Just like you won't pay more for a car because you want the salesman to get a better commission.
    Signature

    -
    Ron Rule
    http://ronrule.com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8035183].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Kay King
      the government programs are what enables this to happen
      I agree - and it isn't the same as assistance that people must have to survive - or that a family might need short term.

      There is another level of 'assistance' today that for me muddies the water for social programs. I think of helping out those who can't provide necessities such as food and shelter, heat and light.

      What I see are people with food stamps and disability checks - and iphones and ipads and loads of jewelry and designer purses. Seriously, more than once I've seen women on a blackjack table lay their foodstamp card (and before that, the coupons) on the table while they dig for a couple more $100 bills. I was shocked the first time I saw it years ago - today it's a common sight.

      It's changed my perception. I used to be in favor of helping the less fortunate - now I want to make sure they ARE less fortunate before they get govt help. I see a thick layer of people who know how to play the system - not to help them survive but to have "more".

      I've heard people at work say "so what if they get govt help - they have a right to have fun in a casino like everyone else"....really? We have a "right" to gambling money? We have a "right" to 'fun'? The rest of us have an obligation to PAY for that?

      kay
      Signature
      Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog
      ***
      One secret to happiness is to let every situation be
      what it is instead of what you think it should be.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8035660].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author ronrule
    I think the debit card made the problem worse too ... there used to be a bit of "shame" in federal assistance that in itself was incentive to get off the program. Nobody wanted the embarrassment of whipping out the food stamps in the grocery store, but now you're just swiping a debit card and no one is the wiser.
    Signature

    -
    Ron Rule
    http://ronrule.com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8035702].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author KimW
      Originally Posted by ronrule View Post

      But Kim, don't you realize that the government programs are what enables this to happen? If the government wasn't supplementing incomes, people wouldn't be able to take low-wage jobs. Employers would have to up the pay to attract the workers.

      Ron, yes I agree that government programs allow this to happen.


      If you need $2600 a month to live, you won't take a job that only pays $2,000 ... but if the government gives you $600 toward your food bill, you can now willingly take that $2k job. Get the government out of the way and companies will be forced to increase their wages to compensate for the labor shortage. Companies aren't going to voluntarily pay more for unskilled labor - it's just not going to happen. Just like you won't pay more for a car because you want the salesman to get a better commission.
      Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

      I agree - and it isn't the same as assistance that people must have to survive - or that a family might need short term.

      There is another level of 'assistance' today that for me muddies the water for social programs. I think of helping out those who can't provide necessities such as food and shelter, heat and light.

      What I see are people with food stamps and disability checks - and iphones and ipads and loads of jewelry and designer purses. Seriously, more than once I've seen women on a blackjack table lay their foodstamp card (and before that, the coupons) on the table while they dig for a couple more $100 bills. I was shocked the first time I saw it years ago - today it's a common sight.

      It's changed my perception. I used to be in favor of helping the less fortunate - now I want to make sure they ARE less fortunate before they get govt help. I see a thick layer of people who know how to play the system - not to help them survive but to have "more".

      I've heard people at work say "so what if they get govt help - they have a right to have fun in a casino like everyone else"....really? We have a "right" to gambling money? We have a "right" to 'fun'? The rest of us have an obligation to PAY for that?

      kay
      Kay, agree with you 100%.
      And yes, I see the system abused all the time. Food stampsbnare allowed to be used for things they have no business using it for, and Ron addressed another situation I think is outrageous, the giving of a debit card to the recipients. :rolleyes:

      Originally Posted by ronrule View Post

      I think the debit card made the problem worse too ... there used to be a bit of "shame" in federal assistance that in itself was incentive to get off the program. Nobody wanted the embarrassment of whipping out the food stamps in the grocery store, but now you're just swiping a debit card and no one is the wiser.
      Agreed Ron. I see people whip out there food stamp card and then get into their SUV that is only a year or two old. I don't knbow if the cards are uniform in all states, but I can recognize ones that are issued in Virginia.

      The government has made it extremely easy for someone to game the system and live off of the rest of us.
      Signature

      Read A Post.
      Subscribe to a Newsletter
      KimWinfrey.Com

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8036347].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author bizgrower
    A friend of mine works at a Wal-Mart service desk and she gets furious about who uses those food cards, and how, and for how long they are still on the programs.

    Of course there are no easy answers to restoring the middle class without much inflation, restoring work ethics (ethics in general), and getting rid of terrible corporate and political leaders.

    I've called or emailed employers - just to say you get what you pay for - who state a low wage in their employment ads for the job description they have. $10 an hour for a key customer service/marketing position in a ski resort town? $10 an hour, plus some negligible bonus for webmaster/SEO work? (I know this business owner clears 10k/mo to herself and hires new people about every six to eight months). I think many small business owners don't think through their pay and operational plans.

    I understand rewarding skill and responsibility, and realize that a lot of people who earn more than they can spend are responsible for reinvesting that capital back into the economy, or do charity stuff. However, small and large businesses do have to think about owner/executive compensation and how they show it. It does not stay private and does have an effect on morale and productivity (profitability).

    I worked at a large Colorado beer producer shortly after they moved from family business to corporate and their was huge article in the paper about the CEO. It was supposed to be positive publicity, I guess. They stated his compensation and showed pictures of his main and vacation homes. Amongst the many "old timers" who had just been moved from skilled labor positions to "whatever is available or leave" positions and benefit cuts, it did not go over well at all. There's a lot of friends and family in that community too.

    Nor does it go over well when employees know - or think they know - how much a business owner makes, see him buy the latest new loaded 4WD pick up, and then say he can't pay more or provide benefits, or say he has to cut back, or not invest more back into the business for such things a decent tires for his delivery vehicles and making those vehicles safer...

    A lot of people in my neck of the woods work at Wal-Mart because they have to in this economy. They've been through two or three downsizes, or they had to shut the doors to their own business...

    While starting my business, I've worked at places like Wal-Mart because they now welcome and are used to turnover, and I did not want to tell a boss that I'd work there for years if it was not going to be true.

    So, I guess I'm just giving my take on today's world. It sure ain't the same as when you had guys like Hewlett, Packard, Watson (IBM), and Sam Walton... trying to do something for the long term good of the country, community, employees, and their businesses.

    Dan
    Signature

    "If you think you're the smartest person in the room, then you're probably in the wrong room."

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8038087].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author ronrule
      Dan,

      The mentality you have is a common one, but let me offer a different spin here... do you think the supervisor or employees with seniority should make more money than a new or less experienced worker? I'm going to guess yes - that's pretty normal and expected, right?

      It's easy to be the guy on the bottom and then look at the guy on the top and say "That guy has too much", but you're forgetting everyone in the middle. A large corporation has varying levels of pay from bottom to top. Percentage-wise, the CEO doesn't make that much more than the other board members and top executives. And those guys don't make that much more than the VP's and middle management. And those guys don't make that much more than the directors, who don't make much more than the managers, who don't make much more than the supervisors, who don't make that much more than the entry level employees. It scales. In a normal business, a VP making $140k a year, with an EVP above him who makes $250k a year, and a COO who makes $330k a year, isn't complaining that a CEO who takes home $500k a year "makes too much". But the guy on the bottom making $10 an hour can't rationalize how the CEO's bi-weekly paycheck is about the same as what he makes in a year. If they looked at an org chart and how the pay scales throughout their organization, seeing all of the positions in between the bottom and the top, it might make more sense to them.

      I've more or less run my own businesses since I was about 19 years old. A few years ago one of my clients offered me a VP position in the company, with the nice six figure salary, stock options, performance bonuses, and more. I thought long and hard about it before accepting the position, turning the keys over to my COO and resigning from my own company.

      The job I took was actually LESS pay than I would make in a good year, but it was virtually stress free. I didn't have to worry about payroll, corporate filings, personnel issues, balancing the checkbook, etc. None of that was my responsibility anymore. I showed up, did what I was hired to do, and took my paycheck. At first it was a huge relief - I had a budget for my department and I didn't have to worry about where that budget came from. I left the office at the end of the day and never took work home with me. I had more time with my wife and kids, and no more job stress. It seemed like I had made a good decision.

      As "ideal" as that job sounded, there were two problems: One, I was bored... I'm the type of person who quickly identifies problems and comes up with solutions, so most days I ended up leaving the office at 3:00 or so. That was noticed by some of the other VP's and I was asked to stop doing that, so every day for the last couple of hours after I had finished everything I needed to do I would watch videos on YouTube from my office. The second problem I had was that my salary was basically capped. I'm an expert at one thing, "pretty good" at some other things, and knew nothing about the operational procedures of some of the other departments - nor did I care to learn. So advancement wasn't an option and I was doomed to stay exactly where I was. Not because it wasn't enough, or because of "greed", but because I just don't like artificial limits. With my own businesses, if I had a particularly great idea I got to reap the rewards. But while working for someone else, no matter how good I was at my job my paycheck was the same give or take a few extra bucks for performance bonuses. I ended up leaving within two years to go back to doing my own thing.

      My point is that it's a trade-off. EVERYONE has a choice in life - you can go into business for yourself, doing whatever you know how to do, and make as much money as your abilities allow you to make. Or you can trade your time to help someone else do that, in exchange for the security of a steady paycheck - but when you make that choice, it's important you realize that it was YOUR choice. You chose to apply there. You chose to accept the pay. You chose to trade your time for that pay, regardless of what people higher up the ladder than you chose to trade their time for.

      It still comes down to your own decisions, every single time. And I think if more people would realize that, instead of whining about the spoils of people who made better choices, everyone would be a lot happier.
      Signature

      -
      Ron Rule
      http://ronrule.com

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8038970].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author bizgrower
        Originally Posted by ronrule View Post

        Dan,

        The mentality you have is a common one, but let me offer a different spin here... do you think the supervisor or employees with seniority should make more money than a new or less experienced worker? I'm going to guess yes - that's pretty normal and expected, right?

        It's easy to be the guy on the bottom and then look at the guy on the top and say "That guy has too much", but you're forgetting everyone in the middle. A large corporation has varying levels of pay from bottom to top. Percentage-wise, the CEO doesn't make that much more than the other board members and top executives. And those guys don't make that much more than the VP's and middle management. And those guys don't make that much more than the directors, who don't make much more than the managers, who don't make much more than the supervisors, who don't make that much more than the entry level employees. It scales. In a normal business, a VP making $140k a year, with an EVP above him who makes $250k a year, and a COO who makes $330k a year, isn't complaining that a CEO who takes home $500k a year "makes too much". But the guy on the bottom making $10 an hour can't rationalize how the CEO's bi-weekly paycheck is about the same as what he makes in a year. If they looked at an org chart and how the pay scales throughout their organization, seeing all of the positions in between the bottom and the top, it might make more sense to them.

        I've more or less run my own businesses since I was about 19 years old. A few years ago one of my clients offered me a VP position in the company, with the nice six figure salary, stock options, performance bonuses, and more. I thought long and hard about it before accepting the position, turning the keys over to my COO and resigning from my own company.

        The job I took was actually LESS pay than I would make in a good year, but it was virtually stress free. I didn't have to worry about payroll, corporate filings, personnel issues, balancing the checkbook, etc. None of that was my responsibility anymore. I showed up, did what I was hired to do, and took my paycheck. At first it was a huge relief - I had a budget for my department and I didn't have to worry about where that budget came from. I left the office at the end of the day and never took work home with me. I had more time with my wife and kids, and no more job stress. It seemed like I had made a good decision.

        As "ideal" as that job sounded, there were two problems: One, I was bored... I'm the type of person who quickly identifies problems and comes up with solutions, so most days I ended up leaving the office at 3:00 or so. That was noticed by some of the other VP's and I was asked to stop doing that, so every day for the last couple of hours after I had finished everything I needed to do I would watch videos on YouTube from my office. The second problem I had was that my salary was basically capped. I'm an expert at one thing, "pretty good" at some other things, and knew nothing about the operational procedures of some of the other departments - nor did I care to learn. So advancement wasn't an option and I was doomed to stay exactly where I was. Not because it wasn't enough, or because of "greed", but because I just don't like artificial limits. With my own businesses, if I had a particularly great idea I got to reap the rewards. But while working for someone else, no matter how good I was at my job my paycheck was the same give or take a few extra bucks for performance bonuses. I ended up leaving within two years to go back to doing my own thing.

        My point is that it's a trade-off. EVERYONE has a choice in life - you can go into business for yourself, doing whatever you know how to do, and make as much money as your abilities allow you to make. Or you can trade your time to help someone else do that, in exchange for the security of a steady paycheck - but when you make that choice, it's important you realize that it was YOUR choice. You chose to apply there. You chose to accept the pay. You chose to trade your time for that pay, regardless of what people higher up the ladder than you chose to trade their time for.

        It still comes down to your own decisions, every single time. And I think if more people would realize that, instead of whining about the spoils of people who made better choices, everyone would be a lot happier.
        Ron,

        It's not really my "mentality", the examples were from dozens of conversations
        and experiences I've had throughout my life's adventures.

        It would be nice if people did not whine or get jealous, but they do. Speaking of pay alone,
        people do get upset about CEO or owner compensation, and some get upset when their peers make the same or more than they make.

        It would also be nice if everyone could start their own business, but the majority of
        people do not have the financial, physical or intellectual ability to do so. (And there is nothing wrong with that.) Or the drive. And many just want to be darn good employees and go home at their scheduled time. Many have had thriving businesses fail due to their mistakes, OR forces beyond their control such as health, a car accident, changes in the business environment... and it' really difficult to start over at age 45 or 55 or whatever age with mouths to feed... You should be very grateful for what you do have.

        As for your way to rationalize CEO pay, I read theories like that in business books about 25 years ago. I'd say not many companies are that progressive, and due to human nature, a lot of companies have policies to keep personnel issues personal and confidential.

        Sabotage has been around for centuries and sadly something almost every owner/manager has to contend with, even in small ways:

        Sabotage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

        Etymology

        Claimed explanations include:
        That it derives from the Netherlands in the 15th century when workers would throw their sabots (wooden shoes) into the wooden gears of the textile looms to break the cogs, fearing the automated machines would render the human workers obsolete.[1]
        That it derives from the French sabot (a wooden shoe or clog) via its derivative saboter (to knock with the foot, or work carelessly).[2]
        That it derives from the late 19th-century French slang use of the word sabot to describe an unskilled worker, so called due to their wooden clogs or sabots; sabotage was used to describe the poor quality work which such workers turned out.[3]

        Luddites and radical labor unions such as the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) have advocated sabotage as a means of self-defense and direct action against unfair working conditions.


        -------------------------------------------------------

        Anyway, years ago I started a consulting business where I tried to get in involved
        in corporate goal setting. It was called Common Vision. Before I started it, I was working
        in the arbitration field and people would ask if I was pro union or pro management. I was neither and can't get stuck in that mentality. I was pro good company surviving and providing decent jobs and felt it could be done without unions. (So in a sense that makes me anti-union - I guess- at least in the theoretical sense of unions, not how some actually operate. Which is a whole other discussion. Ditto for how some companies operate.)

        To clarify my positions for this thread:

        *the workers in the article Kay posted should not automatically be paid $15, or double,
        not deserved and likely not feasible for the businesses

        *people should be paid based upon the knowledge, skills, and abilities they bring to the table

        *employers should pay competent employees as much as they can afford to pay at market, or maybe slightly above market rates, and still make good profit so they can stay in business because it starts an upward cycle - happy productive, employees lead to better delivery of the product or service and more business, less sabotage and better efficiencies...

        *in my previous post where I gave examples of $10 an hour jobs I felt should be paid more, I was thinking that probably $12 per hour was more inline with the jobs and market. Personal expenses to a large extent do get inextricably intertwined with job performance and $2 x 40 x 4.33 weeks = $346.40 per month minus taxes is a car payment or a health insurance premium and might be the tipping point for that employee to give their all and stay. Something my acquaintance whose business pays her 10K/mo could likely afford - even though I don't know her company's revenues.

        I'm just talking about one position at a small business and guessing that the employer could afford that, and it would behoove him or her to do so to keep that upward cycle flowing in their business. Turnover does cost time, energy, and money and lost opportunity cost when an owner or employee manager has to train the new employee instead of focus on things which will make more money. Not to mention downtime/covering two job duties while hiring the new person.

        Dan
        Signature

        "If you think you're the smartest person in the room, then you're probably in the wrong room."

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8046726].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author ronrule
          Originally Posted by bizgrower View Post

          *in my previous post where I gave examples of $10 an hour jobs I felt should be paid more, I was thinking that probably $12 per hour was more inline with the jobs and market. Personal expenses to a large extent do get inextricably intertwined with job performance and $2 x 40 x 4.33 weeks = $346.40 per month minus taxes is a car payment or a health insurance premium and might be the tipping point for that employee to give their all and stay. Something my acquaintance whose business pays her 10K/mo could likely afford - even though I don't know her company's revenues.
          I bolded a few points in this part. More than 60% of small businesses pay $0 in taxes. They're able to do this because they've structured their businesses in such a way that the company never actually turns a profit - anything "left over" gets allocated through payroll to founder pay, or is used to pay off debt, because the corporate tax rate is higher than the personal income tax rate.

          It wouldn't make sense for a business with a ton of extra cash in the bank to be paying taxes on that money and then only pay the founder a $10K monthly salary - If that's all she's making, there's at least a 60% chance that it's all the business can afford to pay her. The more outside capital (be it investment or loans) that was raised to start the business, including ongoing working capital, the less the gross figures on the books actually mean. Many companies today would go out of business in a month if their credit lines were shut off. At a previous company we grossed over $5 million annually, but by the time you factor in the $30,000 per month for the office, $20K per month for the power bill, the overhead of all of the employees, legal and filing fees (it was public company) we were in the red for years. Sure, we had cash reserves from outside capital, but that money was there because we knew we would need it to survive up until we were profitable. You don't really know what a company's cash position is, and who they're beholden to, until you can see the whole picture. Very few businesses are self-funded, and even though someone can say "the average McDonalds makes $2.5 million" and show a couple of charts (provided by the company trying to get you to buy in to their franchise, by the way...), what they aren't factoring in is what it cost YOU to get the money to start one. If I started a McDonalds using my own money and met those numbers, yeah, maybe I would be banking some serious cash. But if I went to a bank and got a loan to pay the franchise fee, secure the space, buy equipment, and had an open credit line for working capital, etc. it could be a decade before I actually realize a profit.

          It's stuff like this why so many businesses end up failing - they just don't properly account for those costs, and all of the unexpected costs. What would happen if my fry cooker bit the dust? Even if it was only down for ONE DAY, all of those people on the clock still need to get paid, but how many customers will stay in the drivethru line once we said we didn't have fries? Plus, how much did it cost me to repair or replace it, while my customers are going to the McDonalds up the road. It's a complex ecosystem.

          I'm just talking about one position at a small business and guessing that the employer could afford that, and it would behoove him or her to do so to keep that upward cycle flowing in their business. Turnover does cost time, energy, and money and lost opportunity cost when an owner or employee manager has to train the new employee instead of focus on things which will make more money. Not to mention downtime/covering two job duties while hiring the new person.

          Dan
          That's true - but it's also likely that turnover was factored in initially. In the past when I had a call center it was all calculated. We knew out of 100 employees that 10% of the workforce at any given time would only last two months, so we were always hiring and training new people. But I can tell you this it was cheaper to hire one person to constantly screen, hire, and train, than it was to pay 100 people more money to try and reduce a 10% turnover rate. That might not be the case for every business, but that's up to the business owner to figure out. The point is that just because you think someone "should" be able to afford to take on a payroll increase doesn't mean it's always the case.
          Signature

          -
          Ron Rule
          http://ronrule.com

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8048367].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Kay King
            Some of the opinions about this make me wonder when we made a sea change in how we view "work" and "salary".

            Traditionally, you lived according to the salary you earned. If you were minimum wage, you lived with family or shared rent with roommates. As you moved up the food chain of salary, you moved up in lifestyle, too.

            If you choose to have multiple children (and it is a choice these days) - that's not your employer's problem. It's your responsibility to up your skills to earn enough to support your kids.

            I think fast food and retail workers are being led down a path by a union trying to gain leverage and power. People like to scream about "right to work states" - but they are "right to work" because they don't force you to pay union dues. When unions are a choice....they begin to lose power. When unions are a choice - they survive only when they do the job they were meant to do.

            I'm not saying unions are bad but many have moved away from their basic principles. Today it's about union power and union money - and they are losing the battle due to those priorities.
            Signature
            Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog
            ***
            One secret to happiness is to let every situation be
            what it is instead of what you think it should be.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8051344].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
      Originally Posted by bizgrower View Post

      A friend of mine works at a Wal-Mart service desk and she gets furious about who uses those food cards, and how, and for how long they are still on the programs.

      Of course there are no easy answers to restoring the middle class without much inflation, restoring work ethics (ethics in general), and getting rid of terrible corporate and political leaders.
      It would be EASY to bring the iddle class back without inflation. INFLATION is the main reason it is disappearing!

      I've called or emailed employers - just to say you get what you pay for - who state a low wage in their employment ads for the job description they have. $10 an hour for a key customer service/marketing position in a ski resort town? $10 an hour, plus some negligible bonus for webmaster/SEO work? (I know this business owner clears 10k/mo to herself and hires new people about every six to eight months). I think many small business owners don't think through their pay and operational plans.
      WELL, a lot of times that IS unskilled labor! so she clears 10K, SO WHAT!?!? How much risk is she taking? How much money and time? and $10K is only $120,000 a year. If all was as YOU probably want, and she had NO risk(which is NOT true), and there were NO regulations or taxes(which is NOT the case), and the employees were 100% self provided for(which is NOT the case), and they all took $40K, she could afford 2 more employees which THEN would be as good as her bosses. If the economy got bad, SHE would feel the brunt of it.

      You see how silly it is? They typically say that an employee costs about twice the wages. So a $40K employee costs about $80K. So she really couldn't even afford ONE employee!

      I understand rewarding skill and responsibility, and realize that a lot of people who earn more than they can spend are responsible for reinvesting that capital back into the economy, or do charity stuff. However, small and large businesses do have to think about owner/executive compensation and how they show it. It does not stay private and does have an effect on morale and productivity (profitability).
      YEP, but one making the low 6 figures is NOT one you should be making an example of.

      I worked at a large Colorado beer producer shortly after they moved from family business to corporate and their was huge article in the paper about the CEO. It was supposed to be positive publicity, I guess. They stated his compensation and showed pictures of his main and vacation homes. Amongst the many "old timers" who had just been moved from skilled labor positions to "whatever is available or leave" positions and benefit cuts, it did not go over well at all. There's a lot of friends and family in that community too.
      WHO KNOWS!? My family had a nice resort, etc.... In fact, it seems like all the family I have in that area never worried about a home, since many got one free and clear. Of course, the resort is now little more than a memory as far as my family owning it. They sold it off piece by piece. I could imagine some person thinking.... You live THERE? You have a home THERE? That is YOUR boat? You ski, fish, etc... on THAT lake? Meanwhile, they aren't rich with money to burn, etc... Appearances can be deceiving.

      Nor does it go over well when employees know - or think they know - how much a business owner makes, see him buy the latest new loaded 4WD pick up, and then say he can't pay more or provide benefits, or say he has to cut back, or not invest more back into the business for such things a decent tires for his delivery vehicles and making those vehicles safer...
      I knew a buy once who seemed to be FILTHY RICH! He opened up a large office in agoura hills. Thanks to government garbage, they REFUSED to let him open for business. It was a SERVICE business in a hilly area, with LITTLE chance of a handicapped clientelle, but he had to expand the doorways and bathrooms JUST for handicapped access! He bought a ROLLS ROYCE! One of his follies was that he bought an umbrella stand, for over $900, because his WIFE wanted it.

      So where was he 15 years later, when I met him? NO OFFICE, NO ROLLS ROYCE, and he was living(and I am NOT making this up) in his mothers back yard in an old camper(one of those old silver colored ones). I really wonder if he EVER had money.

      A lot of people in my neck of the woods work at Wal-Mart because they have to in this economy. They've been through two or three downsizes, or they had to shut the doors to their own business...

      While starting my business, I've worked at places like Wal-Mart because they now welcome and are used to turnover, and I did not want to tell a boss that I'd work there for years if it was not going to be true.

      So, I guess I'm just giving my take on today's world. It sure ain't the same as when you had guys like Hewlett, Packard, Watson (IBM), and Sam Walton... trying to do something for the long term good of the country, community, employees, and their businesses.

      Dan
      You have THAT right.

      Steve
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8040693].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author yukon
    Banned
    D@mn, there goes the dollar menu. We had a good run while it lasted.

    Seriously, a lot of fast food places aren't low cost food like they used to be. About 10 years ago you could get 5 Arbys roast beef sandwich for $5 (USD), now your lucky If you can get 1 sandwich for $5.

    Lol, at the girl in the OP article that works at Sears, that place will be going out of business soon enough, she's lucky she even has a job.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8038706].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author KimW
      Originally Posted by yukon View Post

      D@mn, there goes the dollar menu. We had a good run while it lasted.

      Seriously, a lot of fast food places aren't low cost food like they used to be. About 10 years ago you could get 5 Arbys roast beef sandwich for $5 (USD), now your lucky If you can get 1 sandwich for $5.

      Lol, at the girl in the OP article that works at Sears, that place will be going out of business soon enough, she's lucky she even has a job.
      Hell, I don't think it was even 10 years ago.
      But then,Arbys isn't a good example because they have always tried to be above other fast food places. there food might be a little better,but they are neither fast,nor inexpensive.
      A recent trip where I got a salad with grilled chicken on it and a drink and potato cakes and my wife got a shake came to almost $18. :rolleyes:
      My jaw almost dropped to the ground.
      Signature

      Read A Post.
      Subscribe to a Newsletter
      KimWinfrey.Com

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8039086].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Kay King
        About 10 years ago you could get 5 Arbys roast beef sandwich for $5 (USD), now your lucky If you can get 1 sandwich for $5.
        The old 5 for $5 deal....it's still around, sort of.

        Last month the local Arby's here had a "5 for $10" deal all month.
        Signature
        Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog
        ***
        One secret to happiness is to let every situation be
        what it is instead of what you think it should be.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8039575].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author yukon
        Banned
        Originally Posted by KimW View Post

        Hell, I don't think it was even 10 years ago.
        But then,Arbys isn't a good example because they have always tried to be above other fast food places. there food might be a little better,but they are neither fast,nor inexpensive.
        A recent trip where I got a salad with grilled chicken on it and a drink and potato cakes and my wife got a shake came to almost $18. :rolleyes:
        My jaw almost dropped to the ground.
        The same happened last time my wife & I went to Arbys, I spent almost $20 for two meals. What made it even worse was, they put so much cheese on the sandwich I only ate about half the sandwich. I like cheese but I don't all of it.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8043631].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    " lot of people in my neck of the woods work at Wal-Mart because they have to in this economy. They've been through two or three downsizes, or they had to shut the doors to their own business...

    Which happens to a lot of small businesses in almost every area Wal Mart enters.
    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8040763].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
      Originally Posted by KimW View Post

      " lot of people in my neck of the woods work at Wal-Mart because they have to in this economy. They've been through two or three downsizes, or they had to shut the doors to their own business...

      Which happens to a lot of small businesses in almost every area Wal Mart enters.
      One of the sad ironies. "you've got mail" is passed off as a funny love story, but what it REALLY is about is a caring person that ran a family store that had to close its doors because a careless company hired people, that probably couldn't read much at all, to sell books at a discount. As I recall, the family store had to close and she ended up working at the other bookstore.

      Part of THAT is due to inflation! It makes it harder to start a company, and encouraged the idea of loans and share purchasing. That created large companies like IBM, etc.... The way all these things work against you, WOW!

      I almost wish I saw the FULL story of some of them!

      What about a guy that worked as some lower level employee, and ended up getting access to watches that nobody wanted. He decided to buy them and resell at a profit. His name was sears! Or the guy that sold peanuts out of his trunk and now owns one of the largest caterers around.

      Steve
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8040849].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author ronrule
      Originally Posted by KimW View Post

      " lot of people in my neck of the woods work at Wal-Mart because they have to in this economy. They've been through two or three downsizes, or they had to shut the doors to their own business...

      Which happens to a lot of small businesses in almost every area Wal Mart enters.
      Everywhere I see a Wal-Mart I see dozens of small retailers and restaurants that are literally BIDDING on nearby office space trying to be near them and capitalize on their traffic. Wal-Mart brings buyers - buyers who will also buy things that aren't available at Wal-Mart from the retailers right there in the same shopping center.

      While it's true that certain types of businesses will be put out of business by the presence of a brand new Walmart Super Center, there are plenty of other businesses that FLOURISH as a result of the traffic that Walmart brings. But you never hear the anti-walmart crowd pointing that out.

      I used to live in a little rural area north of Tampa. In the 8 years I lived there I watched it grow from a small community with more pasture than people to a "boom town" and a strong local business community.

      What changed? First, Target built a Supercenter, which created jobs in an area where there were few. It brought people to the area. A couple years later, Walmart did the same thing a few miles up the road. And now this once "small town" has its own vibrant economy, with all of the chain restaurants, a medical center, real estate offices, barber shops and salons, etc. There was a waiting list for retail and office space. But it all started because Target decided to build a Supercenter in the middle of nowhere.

      Some businesses didn't survive, sure. The hardware store lost most of their customers to Wal-Mart and so did the grocery store and both eventually closed. But so many other businesses THRIVED by the influx of new buyers, and many other businesses came to the area to capitalize on that traffic.
      Signature

      -
      Ron Rule
      http://ronrule.com

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8042387].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Kay King
        Ron -

        I've seen that here and it took a bit to register the fact. I had bought into the argument that WM always puts small businesses out of business.

        That's not been the case - and we have a superwalmart on the coast about every 10 miles! There's one 10 minutes from my home and two more that are no more than 20 minutes away. You'd think it would be a small business wasteland...but it isn't.

        A small toy store that had been in business for 40 years closed and blamed "walmart" but that store had been losing business because all they sold were super expensive, fancy toys and refused to stock popular new toys in favor of old fashioned designs. It was old and tired.

        But a specialty pet store is going gang busters - and it's a small owner-run business. The little family feed business I frequent for pet food and pet meds, etc is doing better than ever - they adjusted their inventory to provide brands and products you can't find at WM.

        A couple of groceries closed - but they were stores where prices were high and there were problems with the companies to begin with. One pharmacy closed - an old store that had relied on prescription business from nearby retirement communities. High prices and slow service could not compete with WM - but people were better served at the WM pharmacy.

        Two other local groceries have vastly improved since Walmart came to my town. Their produce is top notch - their sales specials are unbeatable. Their general prices are still a bit higher than WM but they balance that by offering greater brand varieties and great service.

        These two stores were in business before WM came - but they were lazy. Not the cleanest, not the best stocked, etc - catering to locals who had been using them for years. WM made them clean up - and compete and for the consumer it's been great. Both of the groceries are doing more business than ever before.

        I just bought a bunch of DiGiorno pizzas at one of those groceries this morning. Usual price there is $5.99 while the product is only $5.47 at Walmart. That's OK - these were on a BOGO sale so my cost was $3 each. Competition among businesses is good for consumers.:p
        Signature
        Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog
        ***
        One secret to happiness is to let every situation be
        what it is instead of what you think it should be.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8042584].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    Funny Ron. There are numerous Wal Marts near me also and I've seen the opposite of what you claim to have seen.
    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8042755].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Kay King
      I wonder if the results are regional or perhaps depends on the density of small businesses present in the area to begin with.

      Maybe that's why studies show one thing - and we see different results where we live.

      When I think about the businesses that closed here - it's not hard to see why it happened. WalMart was the catalyst but only because that store offered more selection and lower prices.

      The only time I visited that expensive little toy store was twice when I HAD to have a kid gift fast and there wasn't anywhere else in town with anything more than cheapie plastic crap. I expect purchases like that were what kept that store in business. You'd pay more just to avoid a half hr drive in traffic each way to find better priced toys.

      WM opened in town with a toy section and name brand toys - at reasonable prices.

      The smelly, grungy Winn Dixie in town almost went under - but they rehabbed the store, got a new manager and started competing. It's my main stop for groceries now - not WM - and the store is always busy.

      Local stores may not be able to compete on price alone - but they can compete on brands and top qualify foods and meat and deli special items. This is even more true now as WM has gone so far in removing some brand names and replacing with generic WM brand products.
      Signature
      Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog
      ***
      One secret to happiness is to let every situation be
      what it is instead of what you think it should be.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8042841].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author ronrule
      Originally Posted by KimW View Post

      Funny Ron. There are numerous Wal Marts near me also and I've seen the opposite of what you claim to have seen.
      Really? So you just have giant Supercenters out in the middle of nowhere with barren landscapes surrounding them? Come on, man ... there are plenty of businesses that are thriving because of the traffic Walmart brings.
      Signature

      -
      Ron Rule
      http://ronrule.com

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8043751].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author KimW
        Originally Posted by ronrule View Post

        Really? So you just have giant Supercenters out in the middle of nowhere with barren landscapes surrounding them? Come on, man ... there are plenty of businesses that are thriving because of the traffic Walmart brings.
        Funny,I never said that.
        How are you coming to that statement?
        Signature

        Read A Post.
        Subscribe to a Newsletter
        KimWinfrey.Com

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8044698].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author seasoned
          Originally Posted by KimW View Post

          Funny,I never said that.
          How are you coming to that statement?
          Kim,

          Walmart isn't stupid. If they move into an established neighborhood, their *****INTENT***** whether they think about it or not, is to take business away from other businesses. They analyze how other businesses are doing! WHY? If 100million people shop in the area, and grocery stores sell to 100million people, that is a BAD sign for walmarts grocery stores. They will FAIL, and there is NO point in even trying, UNLESS.....UNLESS..... they manage to take business AWAY from the other stores. So you can see how their studies prove my point. It is probably RARE that they move into an unestablished neighborhood.

          They will take business away from businesses that have similar enough products, and those businesses will see their profits drop.

          It is hard to determine all the effects, but generally they are bad.

          Steve
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8044727].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author KimW
            Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

            Kim,

            Walmart isn't stupid. If they move into an established neighborhood, their *****INTENT***** whether they think about it or not, is to take business away from other businesses. They analyze how other businesses are doing! WHY? If 100million people shop in the area, and grocery stores sell to 100million people, that is a BAD sign for walmarts grocery stores. They will FAIL, and there is NO point in even trying, UNLESS.....UNLESS..... they manage to take business AWAY from the other stores. So you can see how their studies prove my point. It is probably RARE that they move into an unestablished neighborhood.

            They will take business away from businesses that have similar enough products, and those businesses will see their profits drop.

            It is hard to determine all the effects, but generally they are bad.

            Steve
            Steve,
            I agree 100%
            I am not the one that doesn't seem to understand that concept.
            Signature

            Read A Post.
            Subscribe to a Newsletter
            KimWinfrey.Com

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8044732].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author ronrule
          Originally Posted by KimW View Post

          Funny,I never said that.
          How are you coming to that statement?
          Because you said your experience with Supercenters opening up in your area was the opposite of that.
          Signature

          -
          Ron Rule
          http://ronrule.com

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8046054].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author KimW
            Originally Posted by ronrule View Post

            Because you said your experience with Supercenters opening up in your area was the opposite of that.
            No, that is not what I said at all.
            Signature

            Read A Post.
            Subscribe to a Newsletter
            KimWinfrey.Com

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8046446].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author ronrule
              Originally Posted by KimW View Post

              No, that is not what I said at all.
              Apparently I'm lost then, wasn't this your quote?

              Originally Posted by KimW View Post

              Funny Ron. There are numerous Wal Marts near me also and I've seen the opposite of what you claim to have seen.
              This was said in response to my comment how businesses flock to be near Wal-Mart and capitalize on the traffic.
              Signature

              -
              Ron Rule
              http://ronrule.com

              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8046485].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author KimW
                Originally Posted by ronrule View Post

                Apparently I'm lost then, wasn't this your quote?



                This was said in response to my comment how businesses flock to be near Wal-Mart and capitalize on the traffic.
                The above is true,what you said that isn't true is that I said or even implied this:

                "Really? So you just have giant Supercenters out in the middle of nowhere with barren landscapes surrounding them? Come on, man ... there are plenty of businesses that are thriving because of the traffic Walmart brings."

                But to be clear,that was also about this post Ron made:
                http://www.warriorforum.com/off-topi...ml#post8042387
                Signature

                Read A Post.
                Subscribe to a Newsletter
                KimWinfrey.Com

                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8046510].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author Kay King
                  average increase per hour of $4 for 10 employees
                  But isn't that sort of pulling numbers out thin air? They aren't asking for $4 and that's not an "average" increase for someone earning minimum wage. They are asking for double - so that would double the labor cost. 10 employees? I walked into an MDs today and looked around (and, I admit, got some fries). There were 13 people working that I saw and only two looked older than 18 - this was middle of a Sunday afternoon.

                  Newsflash: Entry-Level Jobs pay Entry-Level Wages | MinimumWage.com

                  Nearly 50 percent of college graduates from the class of 2010 are now working jobs that don't require a bachelor's degree, while 38 percent of these graduates are working jobs that don't even require a high school diploma, according to the Center for College Affordability and Productivity.
                  About 280,000 Americans with bachelor's degrees and 37,000 with advanced degrees were working minimum-wage jobs in 2012, the Labor Department reports. The number of college-educated Americans working such jobs has risen 70 percent in the past 10 years. It is also double the number who worked minimum-wage jobs before the Great Recession.
                  Unintended consequences can be rough. If businesses are forced to pay significantly more for workers - do you think they'll keep hiring those same low-skill workers when the salary will attract applicants with more education and better language and people skills?
                  Signature
                  Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog
                  ***
                  One secret to happiness is to let every situation be
                  what it is instead of what you think it should be.
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8046751].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
    One problem in government and normal business is the MYTH about wholesale and retail! I don't know if there were EVER such things. To the best of my knowledge, it is AGAINST THE LAW to sell at a favorable price to one under the same circumstances. STILL, that is not how it works!

    I once had no less than THREE distributors(basically, they are often REQUIRED to only sell "wholesale"). They ALL sold at different prices, often at very different prices, eventually didn't list prices, etc... Through queries, I found that I could vary my daily cost to one of at least groups through one distributor. I found that even if I committed to a million dollars a month, I couldn't get a price they were supposedly selling to others.

    As I recall, wallmart is the same way, but amazon, at least when they started, DEMANDED a 40%+ discount over "retail". Anyway, some stores can't compete.

    Steve
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8042971].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author yukon
      Banned
      Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

      One problem in government and normal business is the MYTH about wholesale and retail! I don't know if there were EVER such things. To the best of my knowledge, it is AGAINST THE LAW to sell at a favorable price to one under the same circumstances. STILL, that is not how it works!

      I once had no less than THREE distributors(basically, they are often REQUIRED to only sell "wholesale"). They ALL sold at different prices, often at very different prices, eventually didn't list prices, etc... Through queries, I found that I could vary my daily cost to one of at least groups through one distributor. I found that even if I committed to a million dollars a month, I couldn't get a price they were supposedly selling to others.

      As I recall, wallmart is the same way, but amazon, at least when they started, DEMANDED a 40%+ discount over "retail". Anyway, some stores can't compete.

      Steve
      That's what gave Amazon a competitive advantage over most offline retailers, they didn't have to pay for buildings/properties or employees for the offline stores. All the big box stores still have to pay for the warehouses just like Amazon does, which are all low paying/skilled jobs.

      Without the offline stores & employees Amazon can afford to undercut big box store prices.

      My brother lives in NC (USA), & said they have a Walmart that is just as small as a Dollar General store, a few years ago I read about the way Walmart planned to copy Dollar General (smaller stores in more neighborhoods) I just haven't seen one of the smaller Walmarts yet.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8043640].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    I agree with you both Kay and Steve.
    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8043049].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author bizgrower
    "A lot of people in my neck of the woods work at Wal-Mart because they have to in this economy. They've been through two or three downsizes, or they had to shut the doors to their own business... "

    It's kind of funny. When I wrote the above in post #137, I was not even thinking about people who closed their businesses due to Wal-Mart. I had one co-worker who sold some product (I can't remember what now), but he did not go under because of WM. Another co-worker was a drywall contractor in the Denver, CO area and had 10 to 15 houses going at any one time until construction slowed down and he too ended up at WM. I think most people who lost a business due to WM would probably work anywhere except WM.

    As for WM or Target creating traffic and leading to growth, I think it's a chicken/egg thing. Any commercial real estate developers and brokers worth their salt will develop commercial land in a growth path, that the county government has/will be zoned properly, and clears local and federal
    environmental and water issues...


    Dan
    Signature

    "If you think you're the smartest person in the room, then you're probably in the wrong room."

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8046772].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
      Originally Posted by bizgrower View Post

      "A lot of people in my neck of the woods work at Wal-Mart because they have to in this economy. They've been through two or three downsizes, or they had to shut the doors to their own business... "

      It's kind of funny. When I wrote the above in post #137, I was not even thinking about people who closed their businesses due to Wal-Mart. I had one co-worker who sold some product (I can't remember what now), but he did not go under because of WM. Another co-worker was a drywall contractor in the Denver, CO area and had 10 to 15 houses going at any one time until construction slowed down and he too ended up at WM. I think most people who lost a business due to WM would probably work anywhere except WM.

      As for WM or Target creating traffic and leading to growth, I think it's a chicken/egg thing. Any commercial real estate developers and brokers worth their salt will develop commercial land in a growth path, that the county government has/will be zoned properly, and clears local and federal
      environmental and water issues...


      Dan
      Walmart generally looks for areas built for, or that have, traffic. WM going into an area CAN cost a housing contractor jobs, etc...

      Steve
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8047291].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    Kay and I will have to agree to disagree on unions.
    I am neither for nor against,though I did spend most of my life against. I still see a need for then now just as there was a need for them when they were created. The problem is not the unions, it is the same problem the government has, corrupt leaders. Most union members are very hard working God Loving Americans that just want decent working and living conditions.


    As far as how and when we made a change in work and salary,I agree 100% though.
    Unskilled labor and kids fresh out of high school and or college think they are owed a job paying ebough to have their own place and a new car and the gym membership, and the new phone and blah blah blah. The were not taught they actually had to earn these things.
    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8052154].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
    Many of the claimed benefits of unions are not. Many of the things, they claim to have done, they haven't.

    Kay,

    WELL SAID!

    BTW guess what the cheapest computer, that runs a decent O/S costs TODAY.... Do you have any idea? I don't either, but it is less than $50! One could argue that the poor today have it better in some ways than the lower middle class in the 1970s! HECK, when I was a kid, I got an electronic kit that cost like $100. NO computer, NO internet, and a near worthless computer would cost over $300. TODAY, for $100 you could get the computer(and a far better one), electronics, a course, and hook to the internet from day one!
    Intel now has the NUC A bit more expensive, and larger, but....

    GEE, the first laptop I bought cost over $1000.

    You could say the same about many other things.

    Steve
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8053193].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    Steve ,
    You can also say many of the faults of the unions are not. Many of the things they have been blamed for were not. their doing.
    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8053224].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
      Originally Posted by KimW View Post

      Steve ,
      You can also say many of the faults of the unions are not. Many of the things they have been blamed for were not. their doing.
      Not really, but I don't want to get in a war here.

      Steve
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8053229].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    Well,that is what makes America great, we are all entitled to our opinion.
    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8053264].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Midnight Oil
    Originally Posted by TimPhelan


    Well, the average McDonalds:

    * makes about $2.5 million a year is sales.
    * Crew payroll is about 20% at $540,000.
    * Managers make about $108,000.
    * Advertising is about $108,000.
    * Profit after controllable expenses is about $781,400.
    * 1584 customers a day x $4.75 per average customer = $7524 a day
    * Using your average increase per hour of $4 for 10 employees for a franchise open 20 hours a day, that equates to $800 a day. Which in turn equates to 9.4% of sales, which equates to an average increase of about $0.51 a day per customer. This is assuming all increases would be passed on to the customers. Increases to "crew" employees could be made up in other ways besides passing them on to customers.

    I find it hard to believe the increases above would lead to either bankruptcy of lay offs.
    Actually, that $800 extra labor per day puts that McDonald's location out of business.

    $800 x 365 = $292,000

    Store Level Operating Income = $153,900

    Annual loss would be $138,100

    Assuming a $0.51 a day per customer increase to cover that cost just isn't realistic.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8106347].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Kay King
      The efforts to make this seem like a national fast food crisis are falling flat for me.

      Quote below from an article titled "wave of fast food strikes hits..." about a St Louis strike.

      30 restaurants - 100 total strikers over a two day period...3 per fast food joint? More like a trickle than a wave. In D.C. the demand is that "he sign an executive order giving us the same pay/rights as federal contractors get"....really? Is that how we run businesses now - by "executive order"?

      Over the course of Wednesday and Thursday, over 100 employees at approximately 30 different St. Louis-based restaurants walked off the job, demanding the right to form a union and a raise from Missouri's $7.35 hourly minimum wage to $15 per hour. The strike was organized by an alternative workers' group called the St. Louis Organizing Committee as part of a campaign called STL Can't Survive on $7.35.
      The demand is for MORE than doubling the current pay rate. Maybe fast food places need to go back to hiring student workers.
      Signature
      Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog
      ***
      One secret to happiness is to let every situation be
      what it is instead of what you think it should be.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8106567].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author ThomM
        The efforts to make this seem like a national fast food crisis are falling flat for me.
        The real fast food crisis is to many fast food joints and to many people eating the crap as a main stay of their diet
        Signature

        Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
        Getting old ain't for sissy's
        As you are I was, as I am you will be
        You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8106926].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
    Heck, I would probably end up being HAPPY if they got rid of fast food! THINK of it! Companies would have to provide for a more self service type worker, and I would be FORCED to shop! BRING IT ON!

    MANY people think mcdonalds got rich because of food. They DIDN'T! Ray Krock got ONE asset! ONE!!!!! It was basically a little manual and a promise! And with THAT, he built the mcdonalds franchise. It was FRANCHISING that made him rich.

    If the people have to spend SO much, profits will drop, franchises will close, fewer will open, and Fast food workers will have to look ELSEWHERE!

    Steve
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8108283].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author derekwong28
      Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

      Heck, I would probably end up being HAPPY if they got rid of fast food! THINK of it! Companies would have to provide for a more self service type worker, and I would be FORCED to shop! BRING IT ON!
      I think fast food is the most successful American "soft power" export ever. McDonalds & associates. dominate in all major cities around the world, from Paris to Beijing, Rome to Moscow. I once went to a mall in the Philippines and the mall was completely packed with fast food restaurants. I have got a 24 hr McDonald just right downstairs where I live. I have been having a lot of trouble in controlling my urge to get a midnight snack. It is only when my blood pressure and weight started getting out of control lately that I started to make an effort. There used to be Burger King and KFC next door as well but lucky for me, they have closed down. It is probably because the rent got too expensive for them. Also, a recent minimum wage legislation meant that many workers received a pay rise of 30 to 50%.

      Getting back to the topic, it may surprise many that quite often, the actual take home pay here is often linked to the number of members in the worker's family. That is for government employees and also employees of large PLCs and private companies. The actual nominal pay is the same but the benefits depend on the number of family members. For example, private health insurance may cover the whole immediate family. There is sometimes an educational allowance to help pay towards the education of children. Sometimes, rental assistance also depend on the size of the family. Therefore, it is not uncommon here to have one person earning 50% or more than the other in the same institution doing the same job.
      Signature

      Do not get between a wombat and a chocolate biscuit; you will regret it dearly!

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8111848].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author seasoned
        Originally Posted by derekwong28 View Post

        Getting back to the topic, it may surprise many that quite often, the actual take home pay here is often linked to the number of members in the worker's family. That is for government employees and also employees of large PLCs and private companies. The actual nominal pay is the same but the benefits depend on the number of family members. For example, private health insurance may cover the whole immediate family. There is sometimes an educational allowance to help pay towards the education of children. Sometimes, rental assistance also depend on the size of the family. Therefore, it is not uncommon here to have one person earning 50% or more than the other in the same institution doing the same job.
        The same thing may happen HERE! You CAN'T ask the marital status of a person. One reason is that at least SOME businesses used to pay people(lowet to highest):

        1. child
        2. Single woman
        3. Single man
        4. married woman
        5. married man

        I was once told that I made less because I wasn't married. INCREDIBLE!

        And it is no secret that some diligent families that can't make enough sshare with others so the whole family benefits. The US often does that wit the parents.

        Steve
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8112237].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author derekwong28
          Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

          The same thing may happen HERE! You CAN'T ask the marital status of a person. One reason is that at least SOME businesses used to pay people(lowet to highest):

          1. child
          2. Single woman
          3. Single man
          4. married woman
          5. married man

          I was once told that I made less because I wasn't married. INCREDIBLE!

          And it is no secret that some diligent families that can't make enough sshare with others so the whole family benefits. The US often does that wit the parents.

          Steve
          One of the most controversial benefit was "Overseas Education Allowance". That subsidized employees who sent their children to private schools in the UK and also gave each children two return plane tickets a year. Originally, it was intended to attract expatriates who wished to leave their children in the UK for schooling.

          Obviously, private school in the UK were not cheap and parents still come to come up with a fair amount of money despite the subsidy. What happened was that you got women with 4 or 5 children and whose husband had a decent income applying for the lowest paid job e.g. around $1000 a month as a cleaner. Once they started work, they then applied the allowance for all her children so that their net income increases to more than $2500 a month.

          This was one allowance that was quite galling to many and it has now be scrapped for new recruits.
          Signature

          Do not get between a wombat and a chocolate biscuit; you will regret it dearly!

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8114032].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author ThomM
        Originally Posted by derekwong28 View Post

        I think fast food is the most successful American "soft power" export ever. McDonalds & associates. dominate in all major cities around the world, from Paris to Beijing, Rome to Moscow. I once went to a mall in the Philippines and the mall was completely packed with fast food restaurants. I have got a 24 hr McDonald just right downstairs where I live. I have been having a lot of trouble in controlling my urge to get a midnight snack. It is only when my blood pressure and weight started getting out of control lately that I started to make an effort. There used to be Burger King and KFC next door as well but lucky for me, they have closed down. It is probably because the rent got too expensive for them. Also, a recent minimum wage legislation meant that many workers received a pay rise of 30 to 50%.

        Getting back to the topic, it may surprise many that quite often, the actual take home pay here is often linked to the number of members in the worker's family. That is for government employees and also employees of large PLCs and private companies. The actual nominal pay is the same but the benefits depend on the number of family members. For example, private health insurance may cover the whole immediate family. There is sometimes an educational allowance to help pay towards the education of children. Sometimes, rental assistance also depend on the size of the family. Therefore, it is not uncommon here to have one person earning 50% or more than the other in the same institution doing the same job.
        I've worked for a couple of companies here that had benefit packages that favored married workers especially if they had children. I can understand the reasoning for it and actually think it's a good idea.

        Speaking of McD's. I don't know about in other countries but here they have a significant influence on our food supply.
        They are the largest buyer of lettuce, tomatoes, beef, potatoes, and other food items. Because of them the way much of our food is grown has changed, and not in a good way. Millions of acres of land is used just to produce food items for McD's primarily in a mono culture. Over time the soil is destroyed either from chemical applications or over grazing resulting in the need for more chemicals and less nutritional feed that puts weight on an animal quickly but also breeds bacteria and produces a lower quality meat.
        Signature

        Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
        Getting old ain't for sissy's
        As you are I was, as I am you will be
        You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8114144].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author derekwong28
          Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

          I've worked for a couple of companies here that had benefit packages that favored married workers especially if they had children. I can understand the reasoning for it and actually think it's a good idea.

          Speaking of McD's. I don't know about in other countries but here they have a significant influence on our food supply.
          They are the largest buyer of lettuce, tomatoes, beef, potatoes, and other food items. Because of them the way much of our food is grown has changed, and not in a good way. Millions of acres of land is used just to produce food items for McD's primarily in a mono culture. Over time the soil is destroyed either from chemical applications or over grazing resulting in the need for more chemicals and less nutritional feed that puts weight on an animal quickly but also breeds bacteria and produces a lower quality meat.
          Thom, I think the reason why there are extra benefits for married workers is to retain them. I am not sure whether married workers are more ready to jump ship or not though.

          The fact that even Burger King and KFC had to close shop here shows just how difficult it has become to do business here. I think the main reason that keeps McDonalds open is that they offer a 24 hour service. It is notable that restaurants here have started to employ fewer staff after the minimum wage legislation came into effect. Surprisingly, there is very little effect on unemployment.

          By far the main cost for businesses here is the rent. Contracts are normally for a 3 year period and if you don't make all your money back within 3 years, you could be in deep trouble. We have lots of cases recently where landlords more than doubled the rent after the 3 year contract and the business was forced to close. We are getting into the situation that traditional restaurants are forced to close in favor of higher priced Japanese, European and exotic regional Chinese restaurants. Also, other traditional shops are being forced to close in favor of luxury shops for tourists. Things are definitely becoming toxic here. We have got the highest property prices in the world but among the lowest medium wages in the developed world. There are many people who are forced to live in cages or "coffin homes"
          Signature

          Do not get between a wombat and a chocolate biscuit; you will regret it dearly!

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8119582].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author ThomM
            Originally Posted by derekwong28 View Post

            Thom, I think the reason why there are extra benefits for married workers is to retain them. I am not sure whether married workers are more ready to jump ship or not though.

            The fact that even Burger King and KFC had to close shop here shows just how difficult it has become to do business here. I think the main reason that keeps McDonalds open is that they offer a 24 hour service. It is notable that restaurants here have started to employ fewer staff after the minimum wage legislation came into effect. Surprisingly, there is very little effect on unemployment.

            By far the main cost for businesses here is the rent. Contracts are normally for a 3 year period and if you don't make all your money back within 3 years, you could be in deep trouble. We have lots of cases recently where landlords more than doubled the rent after the 3 year contract and the business was forced to close. We are getting into the situation that traditional restaurants are forced to close in favor of higher priced Japanese, European and exotic regional Chinese restaurants. Also, other traditional shops are being forced to close in favor of luxury shops for tourists. Things are definitely becoming toxic here. We have got the highest property prices in the world but among the lowest medium wages in the developed world. There are many people who are forced to live in cages or "coffin homes"
            I think that's pretty much the reasoning here also. A person who has a family to care for will look for jobs that will make that task easier. Once they find a job that has benefits that include their family they are less likely to leave. I know when I was single I'd leave a job when I got bored and find another one. When I was married and raising a family, I didn't have that option anymore.
            The majority of fast food joints here own the land they are on. Of course you have exceptions if they are located in a mall or city building. For those that don't own the land rent is a major expense.
            The problem with a mandatory minimum wage is it's a blanket solution to an individual problem. Yes there are companies who can afford to pay their employees more but won't unless they are forced to. But there are also companies who simply can't afford to and suffer from being forced to raise their employees wage and who's former employees suffer from loosing their jobs.
            It kind of reminds me of a job my oldest step-daughter had once.
            She got a base pay and commission on all sales. When she was hired, as an experiment, the company doubled their base pay but reduced the commissions. The employees started selling less. So the company went back to it's old policy. She quit because as she said she couldn't afford to loose $1,000 a month. She didn't have another job lined up so when I explained to her that she really lost $2,000 a month she went ballistic on me and I had to ask her to leave. Then she got a minimum wage job where she was making about $800 a month but now had to pay rent and buy her own food and pay her own utilities. She still didn't understand that she would of been better off taking the salary cut and simply making more sales.
            Signature

            Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
            Getting old ain't for sissy's
            As you are I was, as I am you will be
            You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8119766].message }}

Trending Topics