Translated, you want more for less. Big surprise. Just imagine how much more profitable you would be if they never abolished slavery......which they never actually did, they just offshored it.
Why we need a minimum wage hike......
- Thread starter Snobike Mike
- Start date
If I remember correctly you own and operate a subway sandwich franchise (might be wrong on the brand)... as long as you're getting traffic and customers those things have a very good return on investment... enough so that when I worked at one for a while the owners were willing to have me work overtime to fill in for staffing shortages. the subway model is touted as one of the best franchises out there... if you can't make it with your staff at minimum wage now maybe there's something wrong with the equation...
And then they can start saving toward becoming a GTAM site supporter. Not everybody's a freeloader.
I want to be able to get the most for what my budget allows. I wanted to hire 4 more people this year and add on 4 shifts, but that seems less likely until prices go up.
Edit: I am not against an increase. I am against large increases right away. It should be gradual annually or semi annually, but not all at once.
Last edited:
And I hope if they do, that they're heavily prosecuted for it. All that does, is further break the economy. It's the sort of thing that got the U.S. in very deep crap, even before the economic downturn.
They are. We had a ministry of Labour audit and the person told me they hand out huge fines for those things.
Failing to pay employees or with holding pay is just as bad. $14k fine.
I'm not sure what it is for cash employees.
What reason does an employee have to work for less than minimum wage? Any time I've worked a cash job has been at a rate higher than minimum wage.
Under the table, with no income reporting, means that they take it all home. If it's a second job that would bump up their tax bracket, then it's even more attractive.
Exactly. I get people asking me to pay them cash all the time. I automatically don't hire them because I know they will cause problems. If they are stealing from government they will steal from me.
There are a lot of international students who can't work until they get a work permit and even then it only allows them to work 20 hrs a week.
They agree agree to work for less because they have no choice. It's pretty disgusting when you hear stories of how people get exploited and abused.
Question, if you're going to lay off people over 75 cents, is this considered abuse? They lose the ability to buy sandwiches and now revenue across the board is down for all businesses. What about the remaining sandwich slaves forced to work 80 hour shifts to make up the shortfall in staff availability as their cruel baguette master snaps the whip else immigration comes?
Uhh I haven't hired them so I can't lay them off. I don't own a sandwich or subway shop. I would not mention the brand on a public board because whatever someone says the next person will take it out of context and it ccould negatively affect the brand
Edit: I know I'm a horrible human being. I'll remember it next time I consider donating again to charities (inlcuding GTAM ones). The people I wanted to hire was to cover majority of the work I do. I wanted to cut back this year on how much time I spend in the store and concentrate on other parts of the business. I guess speculating human abuse is easier than know the real facts?
Last edited:
hiring more people for less than a living wage is not doing the worker any favours.
try to live off what you want to pay your employees... rent, transportation, clothing, groceries, telecommunications, entertainment.
How am I living off others? If the minimum wage was lower I would be hiring more people because it enabled me to do so as per what my budget allows which is usually a % of gross sales.
I would pay whatever I am legally obligated to.
never said you were living off others, i'm saying try to live off what you would want to pay your employees
There are those who do that. They will take advantage of the fact that people will do more for less.
I saw it all the time in the banks. People would get paid for 37.5 hrs work week but would work 40hrs+ contributing their own time so to show they are a hard worker and it's the only way the work will get done. CIBC or BMO (I forgot which bank) was sued for this because it was expected that their employees work extra to make sure they are keeping up with the work. Most corporations overload employees with work trying to maximize efficiency, but in turn they are sacrificing work force since people leave all the time etc...
More like 50 hours a week, in some cases, because administrative staff can't possibly get everything done for a given shift in the minimal amount of prep time allotted, nor close up shop in the small amount of time scheduled.
50? They are lucky. Used to be 60 in the banks. A lot of people that didn't stay were automatically looked over for promotion. Those people had been there for years in the same position.
It was CIBC that was sued.
Last edited:
