$15/hr Min Wage - We told you so

[Teallaura]

Nobody claimed that.



When was the last time a McDonald's employee was suddenly called to move to another country to put his/her life in danger to defend the McDonald's empire? And IF the McDonald's empire collapsed, we still have Burger King, Wendys, Arbys....



If you ever operated a small business, you'd know that one of the greatest challenges is getting employees to actually show up for work - and it's a BONUS if you can get them to provide good customer service. I'm not going to "respect" a person merely because he/she 'works at a fast food restaurant'.

I have an aunt who started out baptizing french fries at McDonalds's back in the 60's. Today she owns 7 McDonald's restaurants in Columbus, Ohio, and is quite wealthy. She decided that baptizing french fries was an "entry level" position, but provided her a path to management. She volunteered to be the "on call" person for several other McDonald's restaurants in the area when she wasn't working her first job.

She saw McDonald's not as a "part time job", but as a path to financial independence. She didn't sit around complaining about her wages, working conditions, hours --- she determined that she would eventually sign the fronts of paychecks instead of just the backs. Hard work and determination.

a) I never said military didnt have a harder job - or that they shouldn't be better compensated.

b) According to Cath, she's just another burger flipper - she doesn't matter.

c) Good employees deserve reasonable compensation - not to be treated like their crap just because 'burger flipping' is the best job they can find right now.

[Teallaura]

Then get yourself some experience and skills that will make you attractive to them.

I got both - and no available jobs.

I have engineer friends who can't find work in their fields - and going back to school four years is no guarantee that there will be anything in whatever other field you get.

So, what does that have to do with unfair labor compensation? Right, nothing - because it presumes that everyone has the same ability to walk - which is flat out false. You are offering a long term solution to a short term problem - and leaving people with no way to make ends meet in the meantime.

But hey, their just burger flippers - they deserve it, right?

They are entry level jobs. Just because some people never rise above that level, again something that is up to them to do, doesn't mean they're not entry level.

In the words of Thomas Sowell: "If their work is really worth more than what their employer is paying them, all they have to do is quit and go work for some other employer, who will pay them what their work is really worth. If they can't find any other employer who will pay them more, then what makes them think their work is worth more?"

Essential positions - like cashier for a retail outlet - aren't truly 'entry level' - for one thing, they rarely lead to better positions in a company and for another there's no end game - an entry should eventually get in. They are just low skill/low pay jobs.

Now, you have rent, a car payment and kids to feed - and a job. If you can't find a better one in the market, how do you pick up and move to another? Or are you actually stupid enough to quit and hope to find something else?

Eventually, you keep throwing out resumes, you will find something else - in the meantime, you're on public assistance to feed you kids. Which means your employer is directly benefiting from that public assistance, otherwise you wouldn't be able to shop there either, even with the employee discount.

[Teallaura]

It doesn't make sense to base the value of an employee off of their salary since their value in excess of what they're being paid is turned into company profit/employer salary.

Eh, to be fair, he means the salary, not the actual worth. But yes, you're correct - otherwise there would be no point hiring.

[Cow Poke]

b) According to Cath, she's just another burger flipper - she doesn't matter.

I have no idea what that's about.

c) Good employees deserve reasonable compensation - not to be treated like their crap just because 'burger flipping' is the best job they can find right now.

"Good employees". I don't know any business owner who treats "good employees" "like crap".

Look, nobody in the US conscripts people into their employ.
The employer (often) posts a "help wanted" ad.
A prospective employee fills out a job application.
It is NOT A SECRET what the pay arrangement is.

By accepting the job, the employee accepts the terms of payment.

So, what's the problem?

[Teallaura]

I have no idea what that's about.

Read the thread next time - that IS my biggest problem with this thing. You included, y'all assume I'm defending poor employees or that low skill deserves no respect.

My Daddy taught me that anyone who does their best deserves respect - even if what they are best at is digging ditches.

"Good employees". I don't know any business owner who treats "good employees" "like crap".

Look, nobody in the US conscripts people into their employ.
The employer (often) posts a "help wanted" ad.
A prospective employee fills out a job application.
It is NOT A SECRET what the pay arrangement is.

By accepting the job, the employee accepts the terms of payment.

So, what's the problem?

You don't? You don't get out much because I DO.

My points are: 1) it is NOT okay to denigrate people because they have low paying jobs, regardless of why 2) the current minimum wage system is broken - but removing it altogether is not an option - poor employers will take unfair advantage in a heartbeat. We need something else - I'm not sure what - but something that brokers fair wages for fair work. Something fair to both employee and employer.

[Cow Poke]

Read the thread next time - that IS my biggest problem with this thing. You included, y'all assume I'm defending poor employees or that low skill deserves no respect.

No, that's NOT what I assume.

My Daddy taught me that anyone who does their best deserves respect - even if what they are best at is digging ditches.

That's not the problem -- the problem to me is low-wage people who think they deserve "more money" just for showing up occasionally --- I admire the person who has a good work ethic, who shows up on time, is faithful to the job, and works to improve their situation. I do NOT have to respect a person "just because they're a low wage earner".

There's a drastic difference.

You don't? You don't get out much because I DO.

wow

My points are: 1) it is NOT okay to denigrate people because they have low paying jobs, regardless of why

I'm not doing that -- at all.

2) the current minimum wage system is broken - but removing it altogether is not an option - poor employers will take unfair advantage in a heartbeat. We need something else - I'm not sure what - but something that brokers fair wages for fair work. Something fair to both employee and employer.

So, should Chick-Fil-A fall under the same rules as McDonald's? Should we punish the businesses that actually seem to be working?

If I take the risk, pay the franchise fee, work MY butt off 60-70 hours a day, who do you (or anybody else) think you are to tell me how much of MY money I should give to somebody who's simply "wanting a job"?

[Cow Poke]

c) Good employees deserve reasonable compensation - not to be treated like their crap just because 'burger flipping' is the best job they can find right now.

I think this is the biggest issue --- what constitutes a "good employee"?
In the fast food industry, and other low wage employers as well, one of the BIGGEST problems is finding loyal employees.
So, what's a "good" employee?

As I mentioned above, a GOOD employee actually shows up for work on time, doesn't miss days "just because", always notifies their supervisor if they're going to be late, or can't come to work, has a GOOD attitude, works to improve their situation...
A GOOD employee won't want to stay at the entry level position, but will be working hard to advance - whether earning the right to be a shift manager, or just proving their worth that they aren't just an "average employee".

To an employer, a "good employee" is one who is willing to prove their worth -- not just demand higher wages just for being there.

IF there were a $15 minimum wage, it doesn't leave an employer much room to reward the worker who actually proves his worth. All that's happening is another entitlement.

[KingsGambit]

A prospective employee fills out a job application.
It is NOT A SECRET what the pay arrangement is.

By accepting the job, the employee accepts the terms of payment.

So, what's the problem?

The issue is the two sides are operating on unequal playing fields. When the only jobs available (even to those with degrees) are ones that barely or don't pay the bills, the prospective employee still has to catch on somewhere because unemployment isn't an option to most (like when I had to resort to stocking Walmart shelves overnight with a college degree because I simply couldn't find any other job). Just because somebody has to accept such a job begrudgingly, in my view, doesn't mean that they shouldn't have a problem because "they agreed to the job".

Though with more minimum wage laws Walmart would probably just speed the process of automating as many jobs out of existence as possible (while I was there, they tried to switch the overnight employees to half overnight positions, obviously to avoid paying pay differential; I refused to go along).

[Teallaura]

No, that's NOT what I assume.

Then why did you jump in to defend it? Because I've been very clear the whole time about what I was saying.

That's not the problem -- the problem to me is low-wage people who think they deserve "more money" just for showing up occasionally --- I admire the person who has a good work ethic, who shows up on time, is faithful to the job, and works to improve their situation. I do NOT have to respect a person "just because they're a low wage earner".

Yes, it IS the problem - and assuming that all low wage earners are likely to be bad employees is unfair.

It's also dumb - there are bad employers and bad employees.

Are you listening to yourself? Is it really okay with you to not respect a person merely because they are low wage earners? Or shouldn't we give everyone basic respect - until they give cause not to?

There's a drastic difference.

So what? Not arguing that employers should have to keep or grant raises for bad employees - but that they do not get to underpay otherwise acceptable employees.

wow

Sad truth but there are bad employers - and they help create some of the bad employees you've been complaining about.

I'm not doing that -- at all.

Aren't you? You started in on me with the premise that the employees I was speaking about must necessarily be bad ones - how isn't that every bit as much denigration as Cath's 'burger flipper' crack?

So, should Chick-Fil-A fall under the same rules as McDonald's? Should we punish the businesses that actually seem to be working?

Chick-Fil-A Already falls under the same rules - and yes, they should. For rules to be fair, they have to be applied fairly.

The hard part is finding a solution that is fair to both employee and employer but doesn't keep either one from going an extra mile if they choose.

If I take the risk, pay the franchise fee, work MY butt off 60-70 hours a day, who do you (or anybody else) think you are to tell me how much of MY money I should give to somebody who's simply "wanting a job"?

If you are idiot enough to hire on that basis, those 60 -70 hours a day are wasted - and you know it.

And being a small business owner doesn't grant you the right to underpay anyone - regardless of the law.

The law protects employees and employers from the unscrupulous of both. You don't have a right to mistreat; they don't have the right to mistreat. The law has an obligation to keep the playing field as level as possible. So, until we have a perfect world where employers never cheat employees and employees never cheat employers, we're stuck with the imperfect legal system to keep the carnage to a minimum.

Myself, I think we need to fix the broken system we have. $15/ hour is a dumb way to try to do that. Arguing that there should be no minimum is equally dumb.

[Teallaura]

I think this is the biggest issue --- what constitutes a "good employee"?
In the fast food industry, and other low wage employers as well, one of the BIGGEST problems is finding loyal employees.
So, what's a "good" employee?

As I mentioned above, a GOOD employee actually shows up for work on time, doesn't miss days "just because", always notifies their supervisor if they're going to be late, or can't come to work, has a GOOD attitude, works to improve their situation...
A GOOD employee won't want to stay at the entry level position, but will be working hard to advance - whether earning the right to be a shift manager, or just proving their worth that they aren't just an "average employee".

To an employer, a "good employee" is one who is willing to prove their worth -- not just demand higher wages just for being there.

IF there were a $15 minimum wage, it doesn't leave an employer much room to reward the worker who actually proves his worth. All that's happening is another entitlement.

Loyal? You really didn't read this thread, did you?

What the heck - why should they be LOYAL to someone that does not pay enough for them to live on and EXPECTS them to 'move on' to other jobs? Loyal? That's just ridiculous.

Especially when you turn around and say that to be good employees they WON'T stay in an entry level position.

Otherwise, I agree with everything but the $15/minimum - it's still dumb, quit assuming I'm defending it when I've said multiple times now that I'm not.

[Teallaura]

The issue is the two sides are operating on unequal playing fields. When the only jobs available (even to those with degrees) are ones that barely or don't pay the bills, the prospective employee still has to catch on somewhere because unemployment isn't an option to most (like when I had to resort to stocking Walmart shelves overnight with a college degree because I simply couldn't find any other job). Just because somebody has to accept such a job begrudgingly, in my view, doesn't mean that they shouldn't have a problem because "they agreed to the job".

Though with more minimum wage laws Walmart would probably just speed the process of automating as many jobs out of existence as possible (while I was there, they tried to switch the overnight employees to half overnight positions, obviously to avoid paying pay differential; I refused to go along).

What he said!

[KingsGambit]

"Good employees". I don't know any business owner who treats "good employees" "like crap".

I do. I've experienced it from multiple employers, even in the private sector.

I don't want this to come across rude in any way, but as a longtime business owner, I'm not sure you've seen it from the other end of things for awhile.

[Teallaura]

I do. I've experienced it from multiple employers, even in the private sector.

I don't want this to come across rude in any way, but as a longtime business owner, I'm not sure you've seen it from the other end of things for awhile.

He's also saying it better - and more politely - than me.

[Cow Poke]

The issue is the two sides are operating on unequal playing fields. When the only jobs available....

This is what I don't get... "the only jobs available". I've been "between jobs" many times, but never ever "out of work". I operated my own chimney sweep business (Holy Smoke Chimney Sweeps ), shoveled sand out of box cars, worked a combination of part time jobs through Manpower, trained horses, mucked horse barns, mopped the floor at the local mall from midnight to 5 AM, drove a newspaper motor route, mowed lawns, ran my own computer consulting business, assembled farm implements.... most of the temporary positions I worked weren't even advertised - I walked in and offered to do things I saw needed done....

Ultimately, I ended up working in a company where I was responsible for 800 employees.

This notion that "the only jobs available" are ones that somebody else hires you for really gets me. While I was in seminary, I worked a full time job AND the "mop the mall at night" job while carrying 17 hours of classes.

[Cow Poke]

If you are idiot enough to hire on that basis, those 60 -70 hours a day are wasted - and you know it.

Wow... I think this explains a lot.

And being a small business owner doesn't grant you the right to underpay anyone - regardless of the law.

What you can't seem to comprehend is that, when you operate a small business, it is not at all unusual to be unable to pay YOUR OWN self a decent salary for the first few years. But you would have the hammer of justice fall on me to force me to pay money I earn to people, favoring THEIR need over my own?

The law protects employees and employers from the unscrupulous of both. You don't have a right to mistreat; they don't have the right to mistreat.

If I'm trying to build a business, the PURPOSE of which is to improve MY financial situation, I'd be a fool to "mistreat" my employees. It is not "mistreating" them to pay them the wages for which they agreed to work.

The law has an obligation to keep the playing field as level as possible.

So, again, I take all the risks, pay the franchise taxes, put MY butt on the line, realizing I may not make ANY money the first couple years.... and somehow it's "a level playing field" to force me to pay workers MORE than they agreed to accept?

So, until we have a perfect world where employers never cheat employees and employees never cheat employers, we're stuck with the imperfect legal system to keep the carnage to a minimum.

Myself, I think we need to fix the broken system we have. $15/ hour is a dumb way to try to do that. Arguing that there should be no minimum is equally dumb.

I have not argued there should be no minimum wage. Not once. Not even hinted at that.