Minimum wage increases

[PhreeZone 15]

Billy, that screwed up schedule was for someone that was a grocery store department manager with 10 years experience including 5 as a department manager, not a fresh 16 year old at his first job but instead a 30 year old with an apartment and loan payments. This type of schedule is very rampant in the retail industry. Despite all the hype about going to college or a trade school and scoring a 100k a year job there is still a large portion of the population that is not appropriate for those type of jobs and we still need someone to run the registers, stock the shelves, clean the bathrooms, and do the majority of the retail type positions out there.

Look at the current employment stats:

https://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat18b.htm

151,436,000 total workers in the US with a median age of 42.2

16,577,100 in retail. Median age is 37.9

Retail job salaries:

https://www.job-applications.com/retail-jobs/retail-salaries
https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes412031.htm

Most are not considered entry level since they are not min wage and tend to average around $12-13 an hour. That is over Minimum wage by a fair amount but the schedule tends to be the larger issue in terms of being able to move ahead in the world. Its impossible to go to school unless you have some regularity in your life to be able to afford a roof over your head and the rest of the necessities in the modern world. I know Starbucks was taking a lot of bad press a few years back about this since there was a few news articles written how their staff were getting 40 hours pay and benefits but they actually had to be at the location 2-3 different times a day and most times their day would start at 5 AM to open and not wrap up until 10 pm when they closed but they were only technically on the clock for 8 of those hours.

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[jakee 1,257]

Quote

It would certainly be OK to tell them "I'll pay you the absolute minimum for this job, but an extra 50% if you can get it done by Friday." (which is how the minimum wage for tipped employees work.)

Problem there is that setting the minimum wage based on what makes more money for tipped employees (who in reality are making significantly more than minimum wage) screws over people in minimum wage jobs deemed untipworthy, who are the people that really are only making minimum wage.

So who is the minimum wage for?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[billvon 2,400]

Quote

Problem there is that setting the minimum wage based on what makes more money for tipped employees (who in reality are making significantly more than minimum wage) screws over people in minimum wage jobs deemed untipworthy, who are the people that really are only making minimum wage.

That's why there are two minimum wages - one for people who make tips and one for people who don't.

[jakee 1,257]

I did not realise that. Carry on

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[rushmc 18]

billvon

>How about we just let the market take care of it?

We tried that. Didn't work. Fortunately, we learned from our mistakes.

First off bill, I agreed with the majority of the original post of this threat. That said, the government of this country has no business sticking its nose in to the wages paid by the private sector. For you to say that it didn't work or doesn't work it's just plain an opinion on your part because there's too much evidence to the contrary. It is what it is Sir

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 2,400]

> That said, the government of this country has no business sticking its nose in to
> the wages paid by the private sector.

That is indeed its business, as the Supreme Court has upheld. Preventing abuses by employers has a long history here in the US. Not because the government has spent decades dreaming up ways to crush hardworking employers, but because there was egregious abuse by said employer. The people demanded action to stop such abuse, and they got it.

[correeceo 0]

billvon

I am not, in general, a fan of high minimum wages.

Me neither. In too many instances, I think $15 might be a bit too high. However, I think $10/hr is fair. If you can't afford to conduct business in a manner that allows you to pay $10/hr, then perhaps you shouldn't be in business. There are plenty of other (less important, government imposed) qualifiers that may limit one from conducting business, so why shouldn't paying a decent wage be one of them?

My bigger problem however is with new unemployment reform laws that indirectly give businesses a financial incentive to limit an employee's hours.

For example, after the automotive bankruptcies, thousands of people in Michigan were receiving ridiculous unemployment payments for years. Reform was needed, but unfortunately the new law says that you have to make a certain amount of money in each quarter to qualify, if not you're SOL.

So now, instead of giving 1 employee 40 hours that would qualify for unemployment, they just give 2 employees only 20 hours so that those employees will NEVER qualify for unemployment, and thus, the employer won't have to pay into unemployment. (on a side note, this might help explain the lower unemployment numbers - it's just more people working less hours)

Now you may say, "well, they just need to get a second job - problem solved." True, however, minimum wage schedules have "coincidentally" become exceedingly sporadic so that it's almost impossible to coordinate schedules with another employer.

For example, you may work 3 hours from 12-3 on Monday, then work 8 hours from 4pm-12am on Wednesday, and then have to come in from 6am-10am on Thursday and then 11am-4pm on Friday.

Ya, no kidding. It's ridiculous.

[correeceo 0]

rushmc

How about we just let the market take care of it?
And keep the government nose out of our business.

That might be reasonable assuming that the U.S was an autonomous society with a level playing field, but it's not.

The fact is, is that production and profits have continued to soar throughout our history while wages became stagnant since the 70s. This is in large part due to globalization.

U.S companies can reap the benefits of doing cheap business in other countries, but those benefits aren't necessarily passed on to the U.S worker/consumer. Businesses get to play by different rules and there is really no practical recourse for U.S workers/consumers. The money is not reinvested in the U.S. It's just sucked up.

There's also another issue. I went to the super market the other day and found a pint of blueberries for $9 (they are typically $2 elsewhere)

I said, "really. $9 dollars?" They said ya, people are buying them.

Part of me thinks it's just because there was a sign that said 2 for 5, but let's give them the benefit of a doubt.

Let's say people really are (knowingly) buying blueberries for $9 a pint. It got me thinking.

There are a lot more people making big money in the U.S, primarily because of the internet, stocks, whatever. This allows businesses to capitalize on that, while screwing low to middle-class folks, right?

I live in a small town. It's divided. There are a lot more rich people living here today that built big houses on Lake Huron, while the same low income people live more inland. This now allows companies to charge higher prices while skrewing the low income locals that have always been here. If they charged those prices in the past, they would've gone out of business, but now there are enough rich people here to sustain these excessively greedy business. Now the middle class is skrewed.

This is just a small scale example of what's essentially happening to the U.S.

[irishrigger 31]

The Billionaires in business over the world, is telling the millionaires in Politics that the rest of us are being Greedy!!!

[tkhayes 126]

Quote

How about we just let the market take care of it?
And keep the government nose out of our business.

because the 'market' would advocate for slave labor, dangerous chemicals in the environment, no airbags in cars or even seatbelts....

The 'market' already exists and it is the responsibility of govt to protect the people. yes that is a gray area, but not every decision can be boiled down to 'what does it cost?'

If that were the case, we should and would never have bothered with putting a man on the moon or launching a Hubble telescope, or bothered to fund disease prevention and cures..

twisted ideology that assumes that markets will solve all problems. free markets, truly free markets will exploit and destroy everything in sight eventually. regulation forces the market to behave in accordance with at least some minimum of societal standards.

But of course you already know that and would rather argue for the sake of arguing.

[gowlerk 1,914]

The "free market" is a myth. There are no true free markets. Except maybe in a place like Somalia. Free market is anarchy. We all follow rules, we are just arguing about what those rules should be.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[tkhayes 126]

agreed, even the free market demands regulations, especially ones that work in their favor.... and that is called lobbying.

[BIGUN 1,055]

I see a minimum wage increase as a zero-sum gain. All businesses will raise their pricing to pass those increased wages on to the consumer. Those consumers who just received the minimum wage increase will be paying more for goods and services and keep them right at the same amount of disposable income they had prior to the wage increase.

Need a new tire - instead of $149.00; it's now $169.00

Want a cheeseburger? It goes from $7.00 to $9.00 Did you want fries with that - now an additional $.50.

And, so on.

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[quade 3]

BIGUN

Want a cheeseburger? It goes from $7.00 to $9.00 Did you want fries with that - now an additional $.50.

Except in the case of a hamburger stand it's almost assuredly much lower depending on the volume and margins of the business.

In-And-Out pays it's employees far more than McDonalds. Sure, the burgers cost more, but they're also made with different and fresher ingredients. AND, locally at least, I've never seen a line for any McDonalds at any time of day they length of the ones at In-And-Out at any time of the day.

In general, the minimum wage increase hits companies who -depended- on the ridiculously low wages to make their low margins work.

I dunno. If the only way you can make your business work is to screw people over, then maybe your business isn't really all that viable.

WalMart is another great example, they screw over the employees with hour restrictions to not give them medical benefits. The upshot is the employees end up on government subsidized healthcare we all pay for. To my way of thinking, that's fucked up.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[JerryBaumchen 1,048]

Hi Paul,

Quote

they're also made with different and fresher ingredients

Just take a look at the average fast-food customer. Does anyone think that they actually care about what is in that food? Heck, most of them could not read & understand an ingredient listing if it was in 14 point fonts.

Jerry Baumchen

PS) I never eat at any fast-food place.

[BIGUN 1,055]

Quote

WalMart is another great example, they screw over the employees with hour restrictions to not give them medical benefits. The upshot is the employees end up on government subsidized healthcare we all pay for. To my way of thinking, that's fucked up.

I know many veterans of this war who went to work at Wal*Mart for the health benefits. Not sure where you got that from.

Quote

Walmart has a long history of providing health care and benefits to our associates, and we are proud of the quality plans we offer, which are among the best in the retail industry.

Did you know?
Our most popular health care plan starts at only $23.20 per pay period – and includes an up-front contribution of $250 to $1,000 to help pay for medical expenses.

All of our eligible associates – both full and part-time -- have affordable options that include no lifetime maximum, eligible preventive care covered at 100% and an up-front contribution to help pay for medical expenses. Walmart continues to pay on average, over 75% of the premium cost and 60% of total health care costs for associates covered under our medical plans.

Our comprehensive benefits plans also offer to eligible associates:

Medical plans starting at $23.20 per pay period
Dental plan
Vision plan
Coverage for domestic partners
Centers of Excellence Program – covers select spine and heart procedures, knee and hip replacement surgeries and breast, lung and colorectal cancers – all at no cost to associates
Free access to nurse care managers and health care advisors
We provide $500 to $1,000 through Health Reimbursement Plans and up to a $600 match in our Health Savings Account plan to help pay for eligible network or non-network medical expenses
Resources for Living, a free confidential counseling and health information service
Company-paid life insurance
Accidental death & dismemberment insurance
Critical illness insurance
Short- and long-term disability insurance
Business travel accident insurance

http://corporate.walmart.com/our-story/working-at-walmart

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[quade 3]

Emphasis on "eligible associates."

I think you'll find there is a curious amount of wiggle room in that phrase.

This is easily googlable.

https://www.forbes.com/forbes/welcome/?toURL=https://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoconnor/2014/04/15/report-walmart-workers-cost-taxpayers-6-2-billion-in-public-assistance/&refURL=https://duckduckgo.com/&referrer=https://duckduckgo.com/

http://www.businessinsider.com/wal-mart-relies-on-taxpayers-to-subsidize-low-wages-2013-6

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[PhreeZone 15]

To be an eligible employee you have to have been employed for at least one year and had to average at least 30 hours a week. For the first year of hire you are not eligible to enroll in the company benefit plan.


Right from their handbook:

If you are a part-time hourly or temporary associate, your initial
eligibility for medical benefits is determined by a review of
your average hours worked per week over the 52 consecutive
weeks beginning on your hire date. This review applies to all
part-time hourly and temporary associates, with the exception
of part-time hourly pharmacists hired before February 1, 2012,
and part-time truck drivers.
If you average at least 30 hours a week (24 hours a week for
part-time hourly pharmacists hired on or after February 1, 2012,
and part-time field Logistics) over the 52-week review period
without a break in employment greater than 13 weeks, you will
become eligible for medical benefits. Specifically, your eligibility
will begin on the first day of the calendar month that falls not
less than one month and not more than two months after the
end of the 52-week review period (i.e., on the first day of the
second calendar month following the day before your one-year
anniversary date). For example, if you are hired on April 15, 2016,
the company will average the hours you work beginning April
15, 2016, through April 14, 2017. If you work an average of at least
30 hours a week over the review period, your coverage (if you
enroll in a timely manner) would begin June 1, 2017.
Initial medical coverage for associates who work an average of
at least 30 hours a week over the 52-week review period will
continue through the end of the second calendar year following
date of hire. In the example above, your coverage (if you enroll in
a timely manner) would continue through the end of 2018.




In this case if you get hired on April 12th you actually have almost 13.5 months before you are eligible to enroll. April - April is the 52 weeks and then you become enrolled on June 1st.

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[quade 3]

And to be sure, in quite a few cases cases there will be a scheduling snafu of some sort which will, for some strange reason, have dropped your average work week in the qualifying period below the minimum required.

For instance, you're scheduled to work 4 days a week. Sounds great, you'll make that 30 hours a week in no time; right? Nope. All you have to do is miss a couple of days for any reason and you're screwed.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[BIGUN 1,055]

PhreeZone

To be an eligible employee you have to have been employed for at least one year and had to average at least 30 hours a week. For the first year of hire you are not eligible to enroll in the company benefit plan.


Right from their handbook:

If you are a part-time hourly or temporary associate, your initial
eligibility for medical benefits is determined by a review of
your average hours worked per week over the 52 consecutive
weeks beginning on your hire date. This review applies to all
part-time hourly and temporary associates, with the exception
of part-time hourly pharmacists hired before February 1, 2012,
and part-time truck drivers.
If you average at least 30 hours a week (24 hours a week for
part-time hourly pharmacists hired on or after February 1, 2012,
and part-time field Logistics) over the 52-week review period
without a break in employment greater than 13 weeks, you will
become eligible for medical benefits. Specifically, your eligibility
will begin on the first day of the calendar month that falls not
less than one month and not more than two months after the
end of the 52-week review period (i.e., on the first day of the
second calendar month following the day before your one-year
anniversary date). For example, if you are hired on April 15, 2016,
the company will average the hours you work beginning April
15, 2016, through April 14, 2017. If you work an average of at least
30 hours a week over the review period, your coverage (if you
enroll in a timely manner) would begin June 1, 2017.
Initial medical coverage for associates who work an average of
at least 30 hours a week over the 52-week review period will
continue through the end of the second calendar year following
date of hire. In the example above, your coverage (if you enroll in
a timely manner) would continue through the end of 2018.

In this case if you get hired on April 12th you actually have almost 13.5 months before you are eligible to enroll. April - April is the 52 weeks and then you become enrolled on June 1st.

That is for part-time/temporary associates.
Full-time associates benefits kick in after the 89th Day.
The normal probationary period for most organizations.

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[kallend 1,625]

The Waltons didn't become the world's wealthiest family by compensating their employees well.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[BIGUN 1,055]

Here's a beautiful thing.

You don't like your job?; you don't feel as though you're getting paid enough?; not enough benefits? - quit.

Simple.

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[correeceo 0]

kallend

The Waltons didn't become the world's wealthiest family by compensating their employees well.

They make $14 billion from food stamps alone. I wonder how much of that is coming from their own employees.

[SkyDekker 1,123]

BIGUN

Here's a beautiful thing.

You don't like your job?; you don't feel as though you're getting paid enough?; not enough benefits? - quit.

Simple.

And then what?

Unskilled labour isn't easily transferable and is readily available.

[correeceo 0]

BIGUN

Here's a beautiful thing.

You don't like your job?; you don't feel as though you're getting paid enough?; not enough benefits? - quit.

Simple.

Ya, much easier for everyone else to just foot the bill for their food and shelter. I mean, why should an employer pay enough to cover such necessities? It's not like that's the entire purpose for having a job in the first place.