Tim Hortons franchise owners tell workers to blame gov for cuts, don't vote liberal

[Krastyn]

a study June 26, 2017


vs stats a year after

study vs actual.

Study about the people the changes ACTUALLY affected vs stats on an overall population.

Trump is president and the economy is going good, so you believe Trump is the cause of the good economy?

- - - Updated - - -

Also the study for some reason excluded large companies. Seems like a glaring exclusion.
The study is now 7 months old and still no economic changes in the area from last year.

There is actually good reason to exclude large companies. It's a lot easier for them to absorb that impact. Your mom & pop burger shop will have a lot harder time absorbing the change than McDonald's will. So I guess the mom & pop shop goes under, and McDonald's hires the same number of people to you that is perfectly ok.

Also not to mention the change had less of an effect on large corporations than it did on small.

[serendipity11]

Private companies being dicks to their workers because they don't want to pay a living wage. Nothing new here. Capitalism at it's finest.
And yet people are dumbfounded at how many millennials are socialists.

[Uoyredrum]

Liberals aren't any better about it. Both left and right try to restrict speech because it's not the 'correct' speech that they want.

I agree, but that doesn't really have anything to do with what I said. All I'm saying is that many conservatives have basically had a victim complex forced into them where they feel that their free speech/religion is getting oppressed by liberals, even when it's just them being idiots and doing things that nobody with common sense would do (like not marrying gays when you're a public servant and it's your job).

[Torto]

Bullshit. You probably weren't going to respond at all because you and facts don't agree.

He also never claimed it was the sole factor in an improved economy. He was arguing against people like you saying it would ruin the economy. Has it?

lol I was wondering when you would turn up to espouse your communist economic virtues. It's a never ending source of amusement to see someone who enjoys the fruits of a capitalist society jump into a forum and argue vehemently against it. And you never fail me.

Have you got around to packing your bags for your immigration to Cuba yet?

[Torto]

Right, because there is only capitalism and communism. There's no in between at all or anything. That's impossible.

Stop being willfully ignorant and go get a fucking education.

Yeah right, as if anyone as far left as you would have any shades of grey. But please, do tell us what you believe the minimum wage should be. I already know that you believe the wealthy should be taxed to death, but what do you believe those at the other end of the scale should be paid?

[Deleted]

Im not making excuses for greedy people but thats just how it works.

Well, maybe it shouldn't then.

[callipygoustp]

This thread makes me hungry for donuts.

[Ettan]

Minimum wage introduced or raised is higher production costs for that company.
To make this go around something has to give.

Either increased product price; the consumers ends up paying for it.
But this will not always be possible, due to competition (outside competiton; that doesnt have the same labour costs increases) and the possiblity that the consumers will simply switch to other alternative gods that fulfills the same purpose as your product.

Then you are left with the other option; reduce the cost of production. Here a cut in perks is preferable to fiering people which again is preferable to doing nothing and having the company go under.

[Dastreus]

Buuuuullllshit, Tim Hortons. You can afford to pay those employees. Maybe you'll have to cut your CEO's bonus pay. He makes over 700k a year with 1.5M bonus. He's got plenty.

- - - Updated - - -

Minimum wage introduced or raised is higher production costs for that company.
To make this go around something has to give.

Either increased product price; the consumers ends up paying for it.
But this will not always be possible, due to competition (outside competiton; that doesnt have the same labour costs increases) and the possiblity that the consumers will simply switch to other alternative gods that fulfills the same purpose as your product.

Then you are left with the other option; reduce the cost of production. Here a cut in perks is preferable to fiering people which again is preferable to doing nothing and having the company go under.

Why not reducing the overblown pay of rich fat cats?

[Ettan]

Buuuuullllshit, Tim Hortons. You can afford to pay those employees. Maybe you'll have to cut your CEO's bonus pay. He makes over 700k a year with 1.5M bonus. He's got plenty.

- - - Updated - - -



Why not reducing the overblown pay of rich fat cats?

Because "overblown pay of rich fat cats" will not even come close to pay for it.

[Xarkan]

Ideally, the corporate headquarters should allow for those businesses to raise prices. I disagree with the minimum wage increase (or the existence of one at all), but the company is not handling this very well. they are letting their franchises pull this shit, and it's going to lead to an impact to profits for the entire company.

I think by now Denmark is just about the only country where not having a law mandated minimum wage actually worked [disclaimer: There are corners where it did not work but mostly worked]

Edit: I realize i may have forgotten some proponents of what some label the Swedish Model

[Omega10]

Minimum wage introduced or raised is higher production costs for that company.
To make this go around something has to give.

Either increased product price; the consumers ends up paying for it.
But this will not always be possible, due to competition (outside competiton; that doesnt have the same labour costs increases) and the possiblity that the consumers will simply switch to other alternative gods that fulfills the same purpose as your product.

Then you are left with the other option; reduce the cost of production. Here a cut in perks is preferable to fiering people which again is preferable to doing nothing and having the company go under.

This is the perfect argument for slave labor. Should companies REALLY HAVE TO SPEND THEIR HARD EARNED PROFITS ON EMPLOYEE WAGES???

How low do you want employee wages to be? A buck an hour? Less?

The employees have to LIVE off of the wages they are paid.

[Torto]

Buuuuullllshit, Tim Hortons. You can afford to pay those employees. Maybe you'll have to cut your CEO's bonus pay. He makes over 700k a year with 1.5M bonus. He's got plenty.

Why not reducing the overblown pay of rich fat cats?

Yeah you tell em comrade, down with the rich fat cats living off the sweat of the workers! Let's round up all the wealthy bastards and burn em!!! You grab a hammer and I'll fetch a sickle.

God help us.

[Omega10]

Yeah you tell em comrade, down with the rich fat cats living off the sweat of the workers! Let's round up all the wealthy bastards and burn em!!! You grab a hammer and I'll fetch a sickle.

God help us.

If you win enough battles, you'll get your wish of violence directed at all the wealthy bastards.

[Krastyn]

They didn't include any "large" business with locations outside of the city. So every corporate run location or small business owner with multiple locations was exempt. Of course that's going to sway it heavily. You're looking at businesses that are both incredibly small, probably very niche and also most likely, not quite successful as businesses in the first place. It's a skewed study.

It's funny that you immediately jump to the bolded part. One of the arguments that routinely comes up is that the sector that is going to be hit the hardest is the small businesses. It's a lot harder for a small shop with a few employees to absorb this than a multi-chain corporation. I guess if you are ok with losing diversity in business as you consider it for the greater good, then it is a win? And just like WalMart's tactics during their expansion, it is a lot easier for a multi-chain store across Washington to just take the short term hit in Seattle until their small business competition goes out of business, then raise your prices and have free run of the market. Most small businesses are niche because they HAVE to be. You can't compete with a large corporation on price or variety.

Also, they started hiring skilled labor instead, which is beneficial for a lot of reasons and instead states plainely that the economy of Seattle is booming further down.

Can you quote the source that the raising of minimum wage caused businesses to hire skilled labour, and not the result of the US economy doing well in general? Or that the the booming economy is a direct result of the wage increase? Right now your throwing out a lot of correlation, with nothing to show causation.

So small firms aren't hiring multiple minimum wage workers to complete a job a single person of higher skill, experience and education can do while larger companies are expanding and hiring those lower skilled workers as explained in the study and article.

Or those small firms are going out of business, and being replaced by larger corporations. Small business are definitely not hiring multiple people to do one persons job, either before the change, or after. No idea where you are getting that from. There is a lot of "coulds" and speculation. As I said to the other guy, Trump became president and the US is booming. I guess it's all because of Trump.

I'm not arguing that it is not going to be an overall benefit. But there are going to be a bunch of losers in the process, both individuals and small businesses.

[Torto]

This is the perfect argument for slave labor. Should companies REALLY HAVE TO SPEND THEIR HARD EARNED PROFITS ON EMPLOYEE WAGES???

How low do you want employee wages to be? A buck an hour? Less?

The employees have to LIVE off of the wages they are paid.

And the people running the stores have to make a profit so they can live to. And the people who buy the coffee have bills to pay as well so they have to budget their purchases. You can't screw one group without screwing the other two.

[Masark]

Ahhh yes because Tim Horton did not make 3 billion in Revenue in 2016

with an Increased net income in 2016. I'm sure they can't spare anymore money.

But what about the mere millionaires that own the franchises? They're really struggling.

[Captain N]

But what about the mere millionaires that own the franchises?

You don't mean those ones who require 1.5 million in total assets and at least $500,000 in liquid assets just to be able to open a franchise do you?

https://www.timhortons.com/us/en/cor...-questions.php

[Lynarii]

On the flip side, one of Tim Horton's competitors (JJ Bean) decided to raise it's wages in Vancouver to match the Ontario minimum wage increases, because they didn't feel it would be fair for workers in one part of the country to be paid more than those doing the same job in another.

Even the parent company, RBI (Tim Horton's, Burger King, and Popeye's Chicken) has come out to say that this isn't okay.

[Omega10]

And the people running the stores have to make a profit so they can live to. And the people who buy the coffee have bills to pay as well so they have to budget their purchases. You can't screw one group without screwing the other two.

Yes. Well I think you meant "You can't HELP one group without screwing the other two."


Where we disagree is: you think that the company (Horton's in this case) is the side that is getting screwed over by the current agreement, while I think it is the employees where are getting screwed over. The phrase "screwed over" may be overstated - I am using your words.

To put it in my own words: changes to the current system need to put more money in the hands of the employees.