That's a good start. If you want to really teach them a lesson, then they need to pay 200% of the profits they made from the wrongful act, and not just 100%.
I'm guessing they only ever employ the minimum number of people they need to run things. And changing the minimum wage doesn't change how many people you need.
Its not like they're going to say "well with this wage increase we'll need to get rid of all the excess staff we kept around for no reason"
Worked in retail for awhile. Got promoted to lower rung management. Saw the writing on the wall and positioned myself repeatedly in front of my team and simultaneously out of the way of blame when shit hit. Lost three front end leads in four months, each the most experienced. Didn't get asked a single question.
Course I was the one who reassured them that they could do better, asked them why they were still working there when they were clearly unhappy, gave them extra breaks when they felt overwhelmed, and reported dumb shit from corporate when it affected them, even if Upper didn't want to say anything. Like the hour cuts and hiring freeze, typical of retail.
My team was the most efficient and well organized. I taught each of them how to handle and de-escalate situations, and what to actually look out for with respect to fraud and scams. They knew they could call me for any issue and tried like hell to handle it themselves. Other team leads came to me rather than go to another manager. This isn't me being amazing, tbh I felt it was because I followed through on things, not because I was any better than anyone. If you say you'll do something, keep that word.
If there is even a single person in a position of leadership reading this I hope you take note. A business cannot run without a strong and enabled team. It might walk, it will not run. We ALL know you can pay more and treat people better, so fucking do it.
That you are completely and utterly unable to see a predator in your midst, or worse; you're OK with a predator in your midst, because you know you are the bigger predator.
I've always said this. Even if you're paying your employees $2 an hour why would you have more employees than you need? That doesn't make business sense.
+1. A lot of pushback I've seen is along the lines of "but all these business owners will have to close their businesses!". What short sighted BS. We are talking about decades and decades of wage stagnation and business models that are not teneble with living wages. We are talking about a history of having the public subsidize the profits of these businesses through social programs for their workers, while the money stolen from labor goes right into the pockets of the owner.
Will some, or even many, businesses need to close? Yes. Should they have to? Yes. We collectively need to get out of this mindset that MBA-think is the way. It is not.
They can survive by paying living wages. They just don't want to. How would they rake in all that money if they had to spend a little bit extra? Preposterous!
The businesses don't care about employee's lives in the slightest so why should the employees care about the business?
My employer promised a raise after 3 months. It took them over a year and a half for them to finally give me a small raise and it's still below a living wage. They think I'm actually gonna care about my job and do it right when they fucked me over like that? I mean sure it's my fault for sticking around at a shitty company but this situation shouldn't be allowed to happen in the first place. They cost me thousands of dollars that I should have been making. I don't care if I cost them thousands as well.
Also my coworker who gets paid way more than I do does less than a 1/5th of the work that I do but they won't get rid of him.
Oh, I know they won't close. That's just their threat. They keep saying "oh woe is us, if we have to pay living wages then we won't be able to keep the staff hours or we'll go out of business and look at all the employees that would lose their jobs."
But it's a thinly veiled threat and always has been. What they are saying is "if you do this, I'll hurt all these people in response."
If your business closes because you can't manage your costs, then another business will fill the void that can. Isn't that how they always describe capitalism and the "free" market? They have money to pay for all this media and "reporters" to repeat their propaganda. They'd rather pay that then spend the same on their employees.
Doesn't matter, as with all lies fox news gets their bullshit message to yell and Republicans will eat it up fighting wage increases even harder now that they have "proof"
Concur. Where I live it’s between $45-60/hr. The problem I see is that recognizing this requires recognizing that you’re not wealthy either. The bourgeoisie have nothing if not their illusions.
Now the question is if they actually pay that or if they interview and say "Well, depending on experience so we'll start you off at $10 and see how it goes." Lol
They try but it’s hard when target is paying 15 for stockers. My work tries to pay state minimum of $12 in several departments and the average tenure is measured in one or two pay periods at most, most don’t even stay til sign on bonus payout because they find something paying $4+ more per hour. HR argues that target, McDonald’s, and Starbucks can’t possibly hire everyone so we’ll take what’s left of the crop for our staff
From skimming TFA, it's not that the numbers are fake per se, it's that they're wildly misinterpreted.
Job cuts coincided with minimum wage laws, however, they also coincided with seasonal reduction in workforce. So it's entirely expected that that would happen.
Adjusting for seasonal expectations --- which you absolutely must do for a proper comparison --- gives you the opposite conclusion, and emphatically does not point to the minimum wage having a negative causal link to fast-food employment numbers.
*California’s minimum wage is $16 per hour. Starting April 1, most fast-food restaurants must pay their workers at least $20 an hour under new legislation that Newsom signed last year, **but it does not apply to restaurants that have on-site bakeries and sell bread as a stand-alone menu item, *The Associated Press reported.
Panera doesn’t make jet engines, either. WTF does that have to do with wages?
still a tricky debacle because there’s no guarantee McDonald’s will hire a former Panera employee, if McDonald’s is not hiring because other positions are already full, including all customer orders taken from a robot kiosk.
McDonald’s and Carl’s Jr have been trying to replace employees with robots for orders for a very long time. They’ve never had much success because old people suck at using these kiosks and don’t even bother trying
It’ll be interesting to see how this plays out if Panera workers aren’t even making as much as McDonald’s workers… I suspect they’ll either pay it in spite of the exemption or be forever understaffed
I wonder how much they paid to keep from having to pay their workers a living wage… And then likely wind up having to anyway if they want to have enough staff to operate…
Subway already bakes cookies. Starbucks bakes a bunch of stuff. I’m sure McDonald’s would be happy to put a single tiny oven to bake their apple pies in each location.
Baking a loaf once a day isn’t all that hard especially if you just bought a bread maker. This could easily be like the era before internet porn where porn stores would have some regular books in the window.
"Sir, I ran the numbers. We can expand the restaurant to add ovens for the bakery to sell fresh bread. It’ll cost us $2,000,000 for the expansion and we’re projecting to lose half a million a year in operating costs. Or we can just pay our dozen employees an extra $2 an hour, making our employees happier, increasing retention rates, reducing training costs, and all in all just being the right thing to do "
“Good work, Johnson. I want those ovens up and running by Monday.”
yahoo.com
Active