[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
And I’ve given this example a couple of times, but if I have a kid pouring coffee for me (and dont’ make the mistake that people making min wage are doing high skilled labor, they aren’t, they are pour coffee FFS.) messes up a single order and I HAVE to hire him at $10+… He is fired. One strike. That is too expensive to have mistakes. [/quote]
I’ve seen you use this example probably 15 times. Wouldn’t you be wasting even more money by firing this employee (for one mistake)? In your example let’s assume you have to have a coffee server and it has to be at a minimum of $10/hour. Well, you have to train anyone you hire (even for a job like this), unless they have experience (which likely means they should/will earn more) and of course this costs money. Every time you hire a person you spend money on advertising the position and training. It seems to me it is more expensive to have a 1 strike you are out policy.
Why wouldn’t you fire a coffee server for one mistake at $7.50/hr, but would at $10?
[/quote]
that kid pouring coffee for you is making $2.13 , I propose making him pay for the right to serve YOU
[/quote]
He’s making the federal minimum wage + tips.
I’m not royalty. I’ll gladly pay for a service I want.
The McDonald’s problem is easily fixed: raise wages but don’t worry about shareholders because you then allow people to use their EBT cards there which will probably more than make up the difference.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
And I’ve given this example a couple of times, but if I have a kid pouring coffee for me (and dont’ make the mistake that people making min wage are doing high skilled labor, they aren’t, they are pour coffee FFS.) messes up a single order and I HAVE to hire him at $10+… He is fired. One strike. That is too expensive to have mistakes. [/quote]
I’ve seen you use this example probably 15 times. Wouldn’t you be wasting even more money by firing this employee (for one mistake)? In your example let’s assume you have to have a coffee server and it has to be at a minimum of $10/hour. Well, you have to train anyone you hire (even for a job like this), unless they have experience (which likely means they should/will earn more) and of course this costs money. Every time you hire a person you spend money on advertising the position and training. It seems to me it is more expensive to have a 1 strike you are out policy.
Why wouldn’t you fire a coffee server for one mistake at $7.50/hr, but would at $10?
[/quote]
that kid pouring coffee for you is making $2.13 , I propose making him pay for the right to serve YOU
[/quote]
Actually, if you are making $4.25/hour as a tip earner, if your tips + wages does not equal federal minimum wage, the employer is required to make up the difference.
And let’s be honest here, tip earners rarely actually report the amount of tips they get. Most of the time, I see people only claiming 8-10% of sales as practice.
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
The McDonald’s problem is easily fixed: raise wages but don’t worry about shareholders because you then allow people to use their EBT cards there which will probably more than make up the difference. [/quote]
I thought the point of raising the minimum was to reduce the # of people using EBT cards?
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
And I’ve given this example a couple of times, but if I have a kid pouring coffee for me (and dont’ make the mistake that people making min wage are doing high skilled labor, they aren’t, they are pour coffee FFS.) messes up a single order and I HAVE to hire him at $10+… He is fired. One strike. That is too expensive to have mistakes. [/quote]
I’ve seen you use this example probably 15 times. Wouldn’t you be wasting even more money by firing this employee (for one mistake)? In your example let’s assume you have to have a coffee server and it has to be at a minimum of $10/hour. Well, you have to train anyone you hire (even for a job like this), unless they have experience (which likely means they should/will earn more) and of course this costs money. Every time you hire a person you spend money on advertising the position and training. It seems to me it is more expensive to have a 1 strike you are out policy.
Why wouldn’t you fire a coffee server for one mistake at $7.50/hr, but would at $10?
[/quote]
At some point, a person is too expensive to make to many mistakes. You expect a certain amount of value based on the wage.
It may end up not being $10/hour but there is a break even somewhere.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
And I’ve given this example a couple of times, but if I have a kid pouring coffee for me (and dont’ make the mistake that people making min wage are doing high skilled labor, they aren’t, they are pour coffee FFS.) messes up a single order and I HAVE to hire him at $10+… He is fired. One strike. That is too expensive to have mistakes. [/quote]
I’ve seen you use this example probably 15 times. Wouldn’t you be wasting even more money by firing this employee (for one mistake)? In your example let’s assume you have to have a coffee server and it has to be at a minimum of $10/hour. Well, you have to train anyone you hire (even for a job like this), unless they have experience (which likely means they should/will earn more) and of course this costs money. Every time you hire a person you spend money on advertising the position and training. It seems to me it is more expensive to have a 1 strike you are out policy.
Why wouldn’t you fire a coffee server for one mistake at $7.50/hr, but would at $10?
[/quote]
Because at a $2.50 difference, I can wait on a kid to get his head out his ass. At $10 an hour I have better candidates out there that want the job. At $7.50 I have a year or two until they are working at a $10 value, when I start at $10, I need people on that value level right away.
I’m hiring this kid for two reasons:
- I need another person to pour coffee at certain times, as I’m busy then.
- With the hopes the kid is “a diamond in the rough” and grows with the time into a store manager, who ends up in the front office helping run all my stores. (Who 9 times out of 10 is going to move on anyway, so I need a farm system full of prospects, because very few stay on in the industry to work to the top.)
Yurnover is expensive. But not as expensive in low skilled labor as higher skilled. If we are talking writing code, or professional services it is different than pour coffee and banging keys on a register. But keep in mind, with higher wages comes more competent people looking for the position.
I’d be looking to bring in older people looking to make a little extra spending cash a couple nights a week… As that is what I would pay those over teens anyway.
[quote]ZJStrope wrote:
Actually, if you are making $4.25/hour as a tip earner, if your tips + wages does not equal federal minimum wage, the employer is required to make up the difference.
And let’s be honest here, tip earners rarely actually report the amount of tips they get. Most of the time, I see people only claiming 8-10% of sales as practice.
[/quote]
Not to mention the people at Dunkin Donoughts and Tim Horton’s etc aren’t making food service mins, they are making regular mins. His point is… rather pointless.
[quote]ZJStrope wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
And I’ve given this example a couple of times, but if I have a kid pouring coffee for me (and dont’ make the mistake that people making min wage are doing high skilled labor, they aren’t, they are pour coffee FFS.) messes up a single order and I HAVE to hire him at $10+… He is fired. One strike. That is too expensive to have mistakes. [/quote]
I’ve seen you use this example probably 15 times. Wouldn’t you be wasting even more money by firing this employee (for one mistake)? In your example let’s assume you have to have a coffee server and it has to be at a minimum of $10/hour. Well, you have to train anyone you hire (even for a job like this), unless they have experience (which likely means they should/will earn more) and of course this costs money. Every time you hire a person you spend money on advertising the position and training. It seems to me it is more expensive to have a 1 strike you are out policy.
Why wouldn’t you fire a coffee server for one mistake at $7.50/hr, but would at $10?
[/quote]
At some point, a person is too expensive to make to many mistakes. You expect a certain amount of value based on the wage.
It may end up not being $10/hour but there is a break even somewhere.[/quote]
Absolutely. I can’t imagine 1 mistake is the break even though.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]ZJStrope wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
And I’ve given this example a couple of times, but if I have a kid pouring coffee for me (and dont’ make the mistake that people making min wage are doing high skilled labor, they aren’t, they are pour coffee FFS.) messes up a single order and I HAVE to hire him at $10+… He is fired. One strike. That is too expensive to have mistakes. [/quote]
I’ve seen you use this example probably 15 times. Wouldn’t you be wasting even more money by firing this employee (for one mistake)? In your example let’s assume you have to have a coffee server and it has to be at a minimum of $10/hour. Well, you have to train anyone you hire (even for a job like this), unless they have experience (which likely means they should/will earn more) and of course this costs money. Every time you hire a person you spend money on advertising the position and training. It seems to me it is more expensive to have a 1 strike you are out policy.
Why wouldn’t you fire a coffee server for one mistake at $7.50/hr, but would at $10?
[/quote]
At some point, a person is too expensive to make to many mistakes. You expect a certain amount of value based on the wage.
It may end up not being $10/hour but there is a break even somewhere.[/quote]
Absolutely. I can’t imagine 1 mistake is the break even though. [/quote]
As Beans said, for $10/hour, you’ve now increased the pool of well qualified candidates. If I have a stack of applications and half of them are people who have held a job for 10 years, I can train those people in a couple of days. Happy customers = return customers and word of mouth advertising = more money.
1 dissatisfied customer is the equivalent of losing a lot more than 1 customer.
[quote]ZJStrope wrote:
1 dissatisfied customer is the equivalent of losing a lot more than 1 customer.[/quote]
Particularly in the industry this effects, fast food we shouldn’t be eating anyway.
If I go to a dunkin, and they fuck up a simple coffee, I go to a different one. There is one on every corner. This doesn’t hurt the owners as much, because they own 10-120 stores. It hurts the employees at the store who employs fuckups though.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Turnover is expensive. But not as expensive in low skilled labor as higher skilled. If we are talking writing code, or professional services it is different than pour coffee and banging keys on a register. But keep in mind, with higher wages comes more competent people looking for the position.
[/quote]
I’m not sure that’s necessarily turn though. We aren’t’ talking about a higher wage because the skill required is higher. The wage is artificially higher via government mandate. So you are still going to be hiring the same people at $10 you would of hired at $7.50 (for the most part).
I agree with most everything else. I’m just not sure you are suddenly going to have college grads fighting for a job pouring coffee because it’s $2.50 more/hr.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]ZJStrope wrote:
1 dissatisfied customer is the equivalent of losing a lot more than 1 customer.[/quote]
Particularly in the industry this effects, fast food we shouldn’t be eating anyway.
If I go to a dunkin, and they fuck up a simple coffee, I go to a different one. There is one on every corner. This doesn’t hurt the owners as much, because they own 10-120 stores. It hurts the employees at the store who employs fuckups though. [/quote]
Not to nitpick, but this isn’t true everywhere. There’s one Dunkin in my town (which is the largest in the County). They mess up orders pretty frequently, but I’m not going to the Starbucks across the street. I think that’s normal for a large percentage of Americans. Now let me drive 30 miles to Baltimore and things change.
[quote]ZJStrope wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]ZJStrope wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
And I’ve given this example a couple of times, but if I have a kid pouring coffee for me (and dont’ make the mistake that people making min wage are doing high skilled labor, they aren’t, they are pour coffee FFS.) messes up a single order and I HAVE to hire him at $10+… He is fired. One strike. That is too expensive to have mistakes. [/quote]
I’ve seen you use this example probably 15 times. Wouldn’t you be wasting even more money by firing this employee (for one mistake)? In your example let’s assume you have to have a coffee server and it has to be at a minimum of $10/hour. Well, you have to train anyone you hire (even for a job like this), unless they have experience (which likely means they should/will earn more) and of course this costs money. Every time you hire a person you spend money on advertising the position and training. It seems to me it is more expensive to have a 1 strike you are out policy.
Why wouldn’t you fire a coffee server for one mistake at $7.50/hr, but would at $10?
[/quote]
At some point, a person is too expensive to make to many mistakes. You expect a certain amount of value based on the wage.
It may end up not being $10/hour but there is a break even somewhere.[/quote]
Absolutely. I can’t imagine 1 mistake is the break even though. [/quote]
As Beans said, for $10/hour, you’ve now increased the pool of well qualified candidates. If I have a stack of applications and half of them are people who have held a job for 10 years, I can train those people in a couple of days. Happy customers = return customers and word of mouth advertising = more money.
1 dissatisfied customer is the equivalent of losing a lot more than 1 customer.[/quote]
You probably know better than me, but I just don’t see the pool growing that much for what amounts to $10 extra dollars a day (or so).
[quote]ZJStrope wrote:
Actually, if you are making $4.25/hour as a tip earner, if your tips + wages does not equal federal minimum wage, the employer is required to make up the difference.
And let’s be honest here, tip earners rarely actually report the amount of tips they get. Most of the time, I see people only claiming 8-10% of sales as practice.
[/quote]
Unless they have been very recent changes that I’m unaware of…
Where I live the base rate for wait-staff is $2.30hr. If the combination of hourly rate and tips does not equal the federal minimum the resturant is not required to make up the difference; however they are required to collect federal taxes as if the employee had earned the minimum wage. In an age when most payments are card transactions; the oppurtunity to ‘hide’ tips has all but been elliminated.
FTR…I oppose increasing the minimum wage.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Turnover is expensive. But not as expensive in low skilled labor as higher skilled. If we are talking writing code, or professional services it is different than pour coffee and banging keys on a register. But keep in mind, with higher wages comes more competent people looking for the position.
[/quote]
I’m not sure that’s necessarily turn though. We aren’t’ talking about a higher wage because the skill required is higher. The wage is artificially higher via government mandate. So you are still going to be hiring the same people at $10 you would of hired at $7.50 (for the most part).
I agree with most everything else. I’m just not sure you are suddenly going to have college grads fighting for a job pouring coffee because it’s $2.50 more/hr. [/quote]
You thinking too extreme.
I have a father of three who works in the local plant for the last 15 years, and is looking to pick up a couple shifts a week to be able to take his wife out more often and maybe go on a slightly better vacation.
v
A 16 year old who might just be a massive shit head, like I was. Smoking weed before his shift etc.
At $10+ an hour, who do you want to hire?
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]ZJStrope wrote:
1 dissatisfied customer is the equivalent of losing a lot more than 1 customer.[/quote]
Particularly in the industry this effects, fast food we shouldn’t be eating anyway.
If I go to a dunkin, and they fuck up a simple coffee, I go to a different one. There is one on every corner. This doesn’t hurt the owners as much, because they own 10-120 stores. It hurts the employees at the store who employs fuckups though. [/quote]
Not to nitpick, but this isn’t true everywhere. There’s one Dunkin in my town (which is the largest in the County). They mess up orders pretty frequently, but I’m not going to the Starbucks across the street. I think that’s normal for a large percentage of Americans. Now let me drive 30 miles to Baltimore and things change. [/quote]
HOw many McD’s, Burger Kings, Wendy’s, Home Depots, Lowes, Dicks’s, etc you have near you?
Dunkin is just an example.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
The McDonald’s problem is easily fixed: raise wages but don’t worry about shareholders because you then allow people to use their EBT cards there which will probably more than make up the difference. [/quote]
I thought the point of raising the minimum was to reduce the # of people using EBT cards?[/quote]
It’s about keeping those people on welfare and foodstamps while giving them a little bit more pocket money to spend on a “better” cell phone or tablet or at McDonald’s (you don’t have to stick to the dollar menu) so that the working poor think you actually care about them but stay working poor. Sometimes things have to change in order to keep them the same.
I know you were joking with your post but seriously, it’s all a ruse to avoid asking the real question, a question which has already been asked here and I’m sure in a lot of different places, and that question is how did we get to the point that entry level jobs or jobs that were considered part-time work for kids/students or people with a regular job but wanted to make a little extra cash or mothers (OK, fathers too) who stayed home with the kids but now the kids are in school so they work a few hours during the school day are now considered careers?
I get that people working some of these jobs work hard and believe they deserve something to show for it and they are right in the sense that based on effort and commitment they should be earning more. It’s just that rather than seek to get more from where they currently work (and what is a dollar or two more anyway) they should look for another job that will pay them more for the same amount of effort. I know that it isn’t that simple to do and there are reasons why adults can find themselves in certain circumstances, I won’t judge them, but if I were in that position I would rather hear Obama say he is going to do something that will help me get out of my present situation and into a better one, provided I am willing to take advantage of the opportunity. If you are working poor then the raise in min wage won’t change that.
But having said that, the biggest problem is that people have been conditioned to be complacent and accept whatever circumstances they find themselves in as normal, as destiny. Raising min wage is like paying them some hush money. They will have more money to spend on crap, which makes those who sell crap happy, and they will continue with their illusion of being happy and satisfied because they believe that that crap is what life is all about. I saw a commercial for a cell phone family plan that was “only” 160 dollars a month. If you make min wage that bill could be half a weekly paycheck, or more. Too many people see these jobs as a final destination and not a starting point to something better. The truth is that if you envision yourself working flipping burgers for 30 years or more then you should accept that you will not have certain things and live accordingly.
BTW, it’s much cheaper to make your own coffee you damn aristocrats.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Turnover is expensive. But not as expensive in low skilled labor as higher skilled. If we are talking writing code, or professional services it is different than pour coffee and banging keys on a register. But keep in mind, with higher wages comes more competent people looking for the position.
[/quote]
I’m not sure that’s necessarily turn though. We aren’t’ talking about a higher wage because the skill required is higher. The wage is artificially higher via government mandate. So you are still going to be hiring the same people at $10 you would of hired at $7.50 (for the most part).
I agree with most everything else. I’m just not sure you are suddenly going to have college grads fighting for a job pouring coffee because it’s $2.50 more/hr. [/quote]
You thinking too extreme.
I have a father of three who works in the local plant for the last 15 years, and is looking to pick up a couple shifts a week to be able to take his wife out more often and maybe go on a slightly better vacation.
v
A 16 year old who might just be a massive shit head, like I was. Smoking weed before his shift etc.
At $10+ an hour, who do you want to hire?[/quote]
I would hire the father of three. All I’m saying, and this could very well just be based on where I am (location), I don’t see many father’s of three who work 40+ hours lining up to pour coffee three nights a week. And if they did I imagine they’re going to be worth more than $10/hr.
That’s all I’m saying.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]ZJStrope wrote:
1 dissatisfied customer is the equivalent of losing a lot more than 1 customer.[/quote]
Particularly in the industry this effects, fast food we shouldn’t be eating anyway.
If I go to a dunkin, and they fuck up a simple coffee, I go to a different one. There is one on every corner. This doesn’t hurt the owners as much, because they own 10-120 stores. It hurts the employees at the store who employs fuckups though. [/quote]
Not to nitpick, but this isn’t true everywhere. There’s one Dunkin in my town (which is the largest in the County). They mess up orders pretty frequently, but I’m not going to the Starbucks across the street. I think that’s normal for a large percentage of Americans. Now let me drive 30 miles to Baltimore and things change. [/quote]
HOw many McD’s, Burger Kings, Wendy’s, Home Depots, Lowes, Dicks’s, etc you have near you?
Dunkin is just an example. [/quote]
There’s one of each and that’s my point really. There’s only 1 sporting goods store (Dicks) in my area so if they mess up I can accept it and still go there or drive 30 miles to the next closest one.
I like DK coffee, I hate Starbucks. The two aren’t interchangeable to me. So it’s either don’t buy it or accept the mistakes when they happen. That’s my situation anyway.