Wages are guaranteed money. This is good for employees, if no one comes in you still get paid. Sure you might get less tips but at least you know you'll get a steady paycheck.
Usually you want the long side to go against the longest wall, this is to minimize cuts. But it's really a matter of personal preference, there is no "wrong way" as long as you leave expansion room on the edges and have a way to cover any rough edges around the doors and transitions. Also from experience make the offsets between rows somewhat random, even a three row pattern can be seen.
I'd start on the left side then work my way to the right. Slowly but surely placing each floor in parallel to the last. I'd apply the grout ever so lovingling, caressing the seem between floors. I'd fill the gaps with a mortar and pastel slowly working the tool into the floor until it is satisfied. I would say to the floor "there is no other way" as I get it wet with my mop, spraying every inch of it with thick sprays of soap. The floor would know it was wrong but love it too much to care. The floor and I would lay in a heap our bodies intertwined and pulsing in post flooring bliss.
You can't go lower than minimum wage. Those making minimum wage would benefit the most.
Companies still have to keep competitive salaries to maintain a workforce. If they lower their salaries they risk losing employees who can choose to go somewhere that doesn't lower salaries.
It won't cost employers anything to keep the same salary. This money would presumably be coming from reallocations of taxes that are currently being collected. For the employer it's like getting a free raise for their employees.
"We don't actually like to use the term 'shareholders' because they aren't the only ones who benefit from our companies success. Instead we like to use the more inclusive 'stakeholders' because this includes the employees, customers, and everyone who has a stake in the company." -Cooperate hr bullshit 101.
It just means that employers will have to pay employees for the work they perform. I dont think there will be major changes. It will just require companies to better define the hours their employees are expected to be working.
I had no idea there even was an air Wisconsin. It looks like they operate locally in the Midwest, and provide services for American airlines in the area. Their website seems to be loud and proud about the new wages, I’ve heard that there is a pilot shortage so that certainly makes their union much stronger.
Something something free market something something lack of competition something something monopoly corporate greed exploitation of the consumer after putting competition out of business.
I’m not sure what the American education system is and what that has to do with this? You seem very condescending towards people who are confused by this clearly confusing sentence. “Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo.” Is a grammatically correct sentence but good luck understanding what it means without looking on Wikipedia.
The original post is just a bad sentence. I’m about 12.4% sure it’s a run on sentence. Good school or not the structure is all wrong. I’m still confused as to if the 12.4% raise was offered before or after the union threatened to strike. The sentence does a terrible job describing the cause and effect of the situation. Wouldn’t it make more sense to bring up the union threat before the raise? And as others have pointed out 12.4% isn’t even correct.
It’s always something about “improving performance” or “lowering overhead”. The real reason is money. If the company looks like it’s improving the stock value will go up and the right people will make money. An easy way to do that is fire a bunch of underperforming employees before a shareholder meeting. It doesn’t hurt production too much if they’re underperforming compared to the average employee and it doesn’t require a large capital spending plan to improve things.