Jump to content

149 posts in this topic

Posted

And if I am? What does my age have to do with it?

 

Well, I was going to type up a response about rising college costs vs. income in the past 30 years, but SierraSonic beat me to it.

 

When I went to college back in the 90's, tuition rates were starting their yearly creep upwards, while Pell Grants held steady and part time jobs barely covered the difference. Rates are now completely out of control, part time jobs pay less and Pell is lucky to handle your book costs (which are also completely out of control).

 

So unless you've developed a way to send students back to 1985, they're going to need a loan.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I missed the link, apologies. :)

 

I just don't understand how customers are tipping to the point where he claims that waiters are taking home $20-35 an hour yet those same customers won't accept a small increase in the price of items on the menu to cover the increase in the minimum wage. Regardless, he used the fee to make a political statement and people have, understandably, reacted negatively. Tips should be on top of the minimum wage and the restaurant should price its items appropriately to cover that - adding fees like this is not the appropriate way to do business, as the owner has found out.

 

 

It's a good starting place. Sure it's not the answer to the world's socioeconomic problems but people shouldn't be paid less than it.

My guess is that most do accept the charge and it is a few that always need to make a big deal out of something.  The same people that are mad at the owner for his political stance are OK with voicing their political views by boycotting the owner.  It is pot and kettle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Well, I was going to type up a response about rising college costs vs. income in the past 30 years, but SierraSonic beat me to it.

 

When I went to college back in the 90's, tuition rates were starting their yearly creep upwards, while Pell Grants held steady and part time jobs barely covered the difference. Rates are now completely out of control, part time jobs pay less and Pell is lucky to handle your book costs (which are also completely out of control).

 

So unless you've developed a way to send students back to 1985, they're going to need a loan.

 

Well, I guess you both need to re-evaluate because I am 32 and graduated Dec. 2005. So, if I can do it without student loans... it's more than possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Timing has a lot to do with it, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/15/cost-of-college-degree-increase-12-fold-1120-percent-bloomberg_n_1783700.html Just a thought as to why your age may matter.

 

First, home life truly matters, as those around you influence your goals and ambitions. They can either encourage you, or hold you back, they can support you, or make it more difficult for you to do well.

 

Second, ambition can only get one so far, and you have to be accepted to receive those grants, not everyone will receive them even if they qualify. From the sound of it, you had nothing that held you back, even though you also had nothing to help you either, if only many others were so lucky.

 

Third, a job is a job, for any full time work people should be at minimum be able to support themselves. If the work is more than just very simple labor, then you should be earning more than minimum.

 

Fourth, People take loans to get their diplomas, and they cant pay back those loans because... they can't find jobs, and the jobs that are available, and ever growing, aren't paying enough to be livable. So now you have college grads working two jobs at the same poverty level as those without degrees.

 

Saving up for my 100k+ loan would have taken me til I'm 35 (I'm 27 now) at most of the jobs available to me, thanks in part to a weak minimum wage and ever increasing college prices. And I would have burned my self out trying to work a full time job and going to full time classes, which is the most affordable way to take classes. Otherwise I could have gone to college and worked both part time, and taken 6+ years to do a 2 year course.

 

Some good points, but I am not as old as you think I am and it's quite possible to do 40 / week and go to college without student loans.

 

My routine was:

 

wake up at 6 AM, leave house by 7 AM, get to college for 8 AM (55 mile commute one way), attend classes from 8 AM - 2 PM, get to work at 3 PM, work until 11 PM (ate lunch working or skipped lunch to do homework), went to bed as soon as I got home. Weekends were mostly spent catching up on homework either at home or having to drive back to campus.

 

Did that for 2 years working two jobs making a combined salary of 19k or $10 / hour and then 3 years at one job on a 24k salary which equated to $12.50 / hour.

 

My take home was less than that though because I was also contributing to a 401k, which tanked in 2008 and 2009 and still hasn't recovered.

 

I also had a nice beefy gas bill for the vehicle every week @ $120 or $480 for the month.

 

Every dime I earned was sucked up in gas, repair bills to the car, or put towards my college tuition.

 

All without ever taking a loan or using a single grant... so imagine what I could have slacked on if I did get a grant...

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Well, I guess you both need to re-evaluate because I am 32 and graduated Dec. 2005. So, if I can do it without student loans... it's more than possible.

 

Yep. I graduated in 2010 with no loans. Now I'm in grad school and I still don't have any loans.

 

It's not hard to do if you're responsible and choose your school wisely. But I fully acknowledge that I benefited heavily from Louisiana's huge investment in higher education, and I don't know what kind of financial incentives other states have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Yep. I graduated in 2010 with no loans. Now I'm in grad school and I still don't have any loans.

 

It's not hard to do if you're responsible, single, support no family, and choose your school wisely. But I fully acknowledge that I benefited heavily from Louisiana's huge investment in higher education, and I don't know what kind of financial incentives other states have.

FTFY.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Well, I guess you both need to re-evaluate because I am 32 and graduated Dec. 2005. So, if I can do it without student loans... it's more than possible.

 

Honestly, after looking at your schedule, you're an exception. Congratulations, you took on significant hardships and health risks to go to college and made it, but no, I would never say 'more than possible'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I think it's a bit crap of the restaurant to make a kind of stand against minimum wage, it's there to help people not go under the breadline. If the new minimum wage was having an effect on the restaurant then they could have included the price increase into the cost of fries, drinks etc.. to make up the difference, are we going to reach a point where food is sold really cheap only to have cook the food tax, using a plate tax tacked onto the bottom to make everything look cheaper than it actually is. 

It's not a stand against the increase per se - it's an honest pointing out that the cost (to the customer) will go up.

 

NOT pointing out that the cost will increase - and then smacking the customer with the increase anyway - would be both disingenuous AND dishonest.

 

If we were all honest with ourselves, we would admit that we are quite aware that any cost increase for a busines WIL be passed on to the customers OF that business.  However, when a business does this (puts that cost increase in stark terms), it's like "Oh noes - how DARE that business be honest with us!"

 

We will readily accuse a business, no matter how small the business is, of doing anything and everything bad - but would just as easily ask them to lie and cover up WHY their prices go up.

 

Which is worse, folks - the business telling you why the price of  your product is going up, or sneaking it on you without explanation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I read this entire thread, as well as the article from the owner of the cafe. Incoming wall of text.

 

Someone said they don't support a minimum wage. Others said they don't want government in business. Riddle me this. If government didn't step in:

  • Do you think we would still have sweat shops?
  • What would the minimum wage be?
  • What would have happened to AT&T and Ma Bell in 1984? Would the Internet even exist as it does now?
  • What would become of companies like Comcast? Would they be nice for the hell of it or run roughshod over customers -- like they are?
  • What would become of Microsoft's anti-trust trial circa 1999? The damage had already been done and Netscape is gone.
  • What would become of Intel's anti-competitive practices against AMD? The damage had already been done (lost "income of opportunity") and AMD is still struggling to survive.
  • Would we have laws such as those prohibiting insider trading?
  • Would there be any consumer protection laws such as those against false advertising (and arguably insider trading)?
  • Do you think slavery would still exist? (Remember, in the US, the North wanted to abolish it but the South didn't.)

I am often disgusted when people come across as completely anti-regulation. You cannot have no regulation. Look at cellular carriers and broadband ISPs in the US. You can't have over-regulation. Then, a business cannot even survive under the mountain of rules to make a buck. Hello, Double Irish/Dutch Sandwich. There is a happy medium that is difficult to attain. You also can't have regulatory capture, where a business gets so big that it is capable of buying out the government entities that are supposed to be over-seeing it. See ISPs, banks, pharmaceutical companies, movie and music lobbies and a whole slew of other corrupt industries bitchslapping consumers world-wide because they got too big due to various unfortunate circumstances.

 

Companies don't do nice things because they like people. A business exists to make money. To managers, executives, directors, etc. people are just resources. You put resources in, you take out money. A company will do whatever it can to increase its bottom line. If that means treating customers like dog ###### (see: Comcast) and its employees like bird ###### (see: Comcast) -- and it can do so because it's arguably colluded with others in its industry -- then it will. The natural evolution of a business in an industry is a monopoly. It will raise its bottom line, increase its political weight, push over competitors, squeeze their bottom line, put them out of business, and then, once it's saturated the markets that it operates in, squeeze more money out of its employees and customers until someone finally realizes, "Hey, we have a monopoly. We should break that up." Then wait 20 years for it all to happen again.

 

Not every industry operates the same. Not even every business in a single industry operates the same. Some business go under for treating their employees like crap. (That said, I honestly can't recall a single one.) Hey, Walmart is still here. The same Walmart that pays its employees minimum wage and asks customers to donate to help them earn a living wage. http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/pat-garofalo/2013/11/21/why-walmart-can-afford-to-pay-its-workers-much-more They say regulation isn't needed in industries with competition. What happens when there is plenty competition but it doesn't seem to have any effect? I'm looking at you again, Walmart. Consumers have plenty places to go but when push comes to shove, Walmarts prices are lower and people tight on cash can't afford Target. Walmart's nature is a disease to its own employees. The competitive pressure it creates puts pressure to lower worker standards of living, often pushing local stores out of business. Kinda reminds me of a sweat shop. There is no pressure to raise worker standard of living. In fact, there is every incentive for Walmart to lower standards of living because it raises their profit margin. There is only pressure on the workers to leave if they think they aren't being treated fairly, except they aren't because they need the money. This effect on the employees is visible and painful. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nickel_and_Dimed This book is a fun read.

 

You can't tell me with a straight face that all regulation is bad. I will concede that some is bad but a business will do disgusting things given the chance. You need look no further than your cable bill, and all the political ###### that goes into the numbers you find there, to see that.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

FTFY.

 

That's nice. I'm not single by the way, but you are correct - I don't have any children.

 

Actually, being single makes things way harder.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Why not put 50c on each menu item. People would still eat there and no-one needs to know it's to fund the shortfall.

 

There is a chain in the UK called Giraffe (overpriced burgers and portion sizes that would embarrass a Happy Meal) they put a 10% service charge on your bill at the end. This is to pay the servery staff above the minimum wage. I don't and won't tip, so this has fecked me off so much I only ate there once. Why don't they just increase prices by 10% and keep why quiet?

 

You don't choose the eatery on price, unless it's stupid expensive like Jamie's Italian (

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I think it's quite humorous that a lot of people here bemoan the state of the minimum wage and are always pushing to get it increased but when someone points out the effect of this then these same people think it's outrageous.  

Guess people don't like to see the consequences of their actions...

 

This is simply because people aren't happy if they're not b****ing about something!

 

If the restaurant had simply raised the cost of a single item 35 cents, people would've been b****ing up a storm about that. What's that called, being a hypocrite or simply two faced?!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Why not put 50c on each menu item. People would still eat there and no-one needs to know it's to fund the shortfall.
 
There is a chain in the UK called Giraffe (overpriced burgers and portion sizes that would embarrass a Happy Meal) they put a 10% service charge on your bill at the end. This is to pay the servery staff above the minimum wage. I don't and won't tip, so this has fecked me off so much I only ate there once. Why don't they just increase prices by 10% and keep why quiet?
 
You don't choose the eatery on price, unless it's stupid expensive like Jamie's Italian (

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Compulsory service charges are illegal in the UK unless posted in plain sight before you order.

And rightly so. If they want to pay their staff more than the minimum wage then they should just increase the menu prices rather than separate it out as a service charge. Can you imagine if every time the cost of something increased the restaurant added a fee on the bill? You'd end up with:

 

25p - Increased beef prices

15p - Increased utility bills

50p - Increased minimum wage

20p - Redecorating cost

50p - Increased tax rate

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

It's not a stand against the increase per se - it's an honest pointing out that the cost (to the customer) will go up.

 

NOT pointing out that the cost will increase - and then smacking the customer with the increase anyway - would be both disingenuous AND dishonest.

 

If we were all honest with ourselves, we would admit that we are quite aware that any cost increase for a busines WIL be passed on to the customers OF that business.  However, when a business does this (puts that cost increase in stark terms), it's like "Oh noes - how DARE that business be honest with us!"

 

We will readily accuse a business, no matter how small the business is, of doing anything and everything bad - but would just as easily ask them to lie and cover up WHY their prices go up.

 

Which is worse, folks - the business telling you why the price of  your product is going up, or sneaking it on you without explanation?

 

Honest?

 

Does this owner of the restaurant add a surcharge when the food he buys has its price increased?

Surchage of $0.40 on chocolate drinks because the price of Cacao boxes is no longer $17.50 but $20?

Or when he needs to increase the profits so that he can buy a new car for himself?

 

Besides, the minimum wage has increase by $0.35. A common operating cost of the employee in restaurant says that around 50% of the cost comes from the workforce.

So, the extra cost of the minimum wage hike would have been a $0.18 increase of the price across the menu and kept his profits as is.

 

That restaurant owner, not only decided to make a childish, petty political statement, he also made it so that he could get even more money.

So, I am going to say 'Douchest' instead of 'Honest'

 

As far as the minimum wage is concerned, it is not enough. People have to take two low paying jobs, which does not enable them to have a proper family life, which leads to social disasters of broken families, of children being caught in drug trafficking.

which costs everyone's money via taxes because you have to create prisons, you have to monitor and manage crime.

Or these people have to use food stamps, going to food program like SNAP,  which costs everyone's money via taxes.

A low minimum wage is a way to ensure slavery of certain citizens category.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I read this entire thread, as well as the article from the owner of the cafe. Incoming wall of text.

 

Someone said they don't support a minimum wage. Others said they don't want government in business. Riddle me this. If government didn't step in:

  • Do you think we would still have sweat shops?
  • What would the minimum wage be?
  • What would have happened to AT&T and Ma Bell in 1984? Would the Internet even exist as it does now?
  • What would become of companies like Comcast? Would they be nice for the hell of it or run roughshod over customers -- like they are?
  • What would become of Microsoft's anti-trust trial circa 1999? The damage had already been done and Netscape is gone.
  • What would become of Intel's anti-competitive practices against AMD? The damage had already been done (lost "income of opportunity") and AMD is still struggling to survive.
  • Would we have laws such as those prohibiting insider trading?
  • Would there be any consumer protection laws such as those against false advertising (and arguably insider trading)?
  • Do you think slavery would still exist? (Remember, in the US, the North wanted to abolish it but the South didn't.)

I am often disgusted when people come across as completely anti-regulation. You cannot have no regulation. Look at cellular carriers and broadband ISPs in the US. You can't have over-regulation. Then, a business cannot even survive under the mountain of rules to make a buck. Hello, Double Irish/Dutch Sandwich. There is a happy medium that is difficult to attain. You also can't have regulatory capture, where a business gets so big that it is capable of buying out the government entities that are supposed to be over-seeing it. See ISPs, banks, pharmaceutical companies, movie and music lobbies and a whole slew of other corrupt industries bitchslapping consumers world-wide because they got too big due to various unfortunate circumstances.

 

Companies don't do nice things because they like people. A business exists to make money. To managers, executives, directors, etc. people are just resources. You put resources in, you take out money. A company will do whatever it can to increase its bottom line. If that means treating customers like dog ###### (see: Comcast) and its employees like bird ###### (see: Comcast) -- and it can do so because it's arguably colluded with others in its industry -- then it will. The natural evolution of a business in an industry is a monopoly. It will raise its bottom line, increase its political weight, push over competitors, squeeze their bottom line, put them out of business, and then, once it's saturated the markets that it operates in, squeeze more money out of its employees and customers until someone finally realizes, "Hey, we have a monopoly. We should break that up." Then wait 20 years for it all to happen again.

 

Not every industry operates the same. Not even every business in a single industry operates the same. Some business go under for treating their employees like crap. (That said, I honestly can't recall a single one.) Hey, Walmart is still here. The same Walmart that pays its employees minimum wage and asks customers to donate to help them earn a living wage. http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/pat-garofalo/2013/11/21/why-walmart-can-afford-to-pay-its-workers-much-more They say regulation isn't needed in industries with competition. What happens when there is plenty competition but it doesn't seem to have any effect? I'm looking at you again, Walmart. Consumers have plenty places to go but when push comes to shove, Walmarts prices are lower and people tight on cash can't afford Target. Walmart's nature is a disease to its own employees. The competitive pressure it creates puts pressure to lower worker standards of living, often pushing local stores out of business. Kinda reminds me of a sweat shop. There is no pressure to raise worker standard of living. In fact, there is every incentive for Walmart to lower standards of living because it raises their profit margin. There is only pressure on the workers to leave if they think they aren't being treated fairly, except they aren't because they need the money. This effect on the employees is visible and painful. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nickel_and_Dimed This book is a fun read.

 

You can't tell me with a straight face that all regulation is bad. I will concede that some is bad but a business will do disgusting things given the chance. You need look no further than your cable bill, and all the political ###### that goes into the numbers you find there, to see that.

Domiran, I didn't say that I don't support a minimum-wage increase; I have WORKED minimum-wage, and the complaints that it won't support even a single individual are, in fact, justified.  (The business making the point stark by adding the equivalent of an "un-fee" - to cover the increased cost TO that business - hasn't said that, either.)

 

What this business person did - and what other businesses have tried to do with various sorts of "unfees" - is point out - to their customers - exactly how they directly impact the cost of providing goods and services to them.  Basically, it's the opposite of hiding the cost; instead, they are breaking it out as a separate line-item on the bill.

 

The reaction to this "unfee" is like the reaction to other "unfees" - all of which are entirely due to regulatory mandates - screaming, and rather loudly.

 

Like you are going to escape the additional costs being passed on, anyway, customers!

 

If a business - regardless of size - didn't pass on cost increases, they would start losing money - if the business loses too much money, they go OUT of business. (When a business fails, all the employees are out of work.)  That means that a business MUST pass the increased costs of DOING business - including mandatory-by-regulation wage increases - to the customers.

 

Not pointing that out to those same customers is not merely disingenuous, but actually dishonest on its face.

 

It sounds like the typical reaction to an "unfee" - which is actually, more often than not, a means to break out, so the customer is aware of it, exactly how much a regulation or other mandate affects the business costs - "How DARE they actually be truthful!"

 

We have gotten so used to horror story after horror story about Evil Businesses that when they start actually being straight with us, we start actually demanding that they go back to lying and covering up those increased costs by simply raising the prices anyway and NOT tell us why.

 

In other words, we don't really WANT Honest Business - at least when it comes to what their goods or services actually cost us, and especially not the regulatory impact.

 

"Business can do no right - but government can do no wrong."?  Please - $611 billion (US) in unaccounted-for spending just the past fiscal year by the US government alone (GAO)?  That's plenty of wrong if just an extremely-conservative ten percent was waste, fraud, and abuse ($61 billion US dollars).

 

The question begs asking once again - can we (as consumers, voters, etc.) actually HANDLE the Awful Truth?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Honest?

 

Does this owner of the restaurant add a surcharge when the food he buys has its price increased?

Surchage of $0.40 on chocolate drinks because the price of Cacao boxes is no longer $17.50 but $20?

Or when he needs to increase the profits so that he can buy a new car for himself?

 

Besides, the minimum wage has increase by $0.35. A common operating cost of the employee in restaurant says that around 50% of the cost comes from the workforce.

So, the extra cost of the minimum wage hike would have been a $0.18 increase of the price across the menu and kept his profits as is.

 

That restaurant owner, not only decided to make a childish, petty political statement, he also made it so that he could get even more money.

So, I am going to say 'Douchest' instead of 'Honest'

 

As far as the minimum wage is concerned, it is not enough. People have to take two low paying jobs, which does not enable them to have a proper family life, which leads to social disasters of broken families, of children being caught in drug trafficking.

which costs everyone's money via taxes because you have to create prisons, you have to monitor and manage crime.

Or these people have to use food stamps, going to food program like SNAP,  which costs everyone's money via taxes.

A low minimum wage is a way to ensure slavery of certain citizens category.

And what about indirect impacts on his cost of goods?

 

All businesses have suppliers - how many of THEM pay either minimum-wage, or have contracts indexed to it?

Those same suppliers will pass along THEIR cost increases to the business - which, in turn, must either pass them to the customer, or eat them.

 

Instead, you are jumping to conclusions that the business doesn't want to pay a higher wage - as opposed to the business simply being honest to their customers and breaking out that increased cost TO that business as a separate line item (remember, I referred to it as an "unfee").

 

I'm in FAVOR of an increase to the minimum-wage - I've actually worked at that wage, and I'm quite aware that it's not enough.  However, the debate isn't really about that - the debate is more about our unwillingness - as customers, voters, or even politicians - to actually be straight about the costs of mandates (everything from wage controls to pollution regulation).

 

You're accusing the business of overestimating the costs - if anything, I'm accusing the regulatory body of UNDERestimating the cost.  (I have NEVER known any regulatory body - on any level - to actually nail the cost of ANY regulation straight on - even when the regulation's cost is imposed by a fixed fee.)

 

Regulation IS necessary - I have never said otherwise.  However, the value of a regulation is the amount of good it does vs. the amount of harm done by that same regulation.

 

Beating on the business is easy.  Put yourself in the businessperson's shoes - exactly how honest are your regulators in terms of the impact their regulations and mandates have on you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Compulsory service charges are illegal in the UK unless posted in plain sight before you order.

I couldn't see it on the menu or on the fliers in the windows, or for that matter on the website. Unless it was in 2 point light grey text hidden behind a picture  :D

 

@theyarecomingforyou - Crown Carveries now charge extra if you want beef. Still a good value meal though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I couldn't see it on the menu or on the fliers in the windows, or for that matter on the website. Unless it was in 2 point light grey text hidden behind a picture  :D

 

 

Then you should have refused to pay it, and contacted the Office of Fair Trading.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

That's nice. I'm not single by the way, but you are correct - I don't have any children.

 

Actually, being single makes things way harder.

So you were disingenuous because you did not mention you had another form of income from your significant other.

 

I am making a bit of an assumption there, but that is the only way being single would make it harder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I am more curious about the mathematics involved in this whole thing. Surely it would have been better to distribute the price increase amongst the dishes they offer rather than making it a per-bill thing. This way, the more people are served and the more they eat, the greater the intake as a result. With the numbers not being on this guys side, it serves (no pun intended) as further proof that this is nothing but a political statement, in case there was any doubt before.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

And what about indirect impacts on his cost of goods?

 

All businesses have suppliers - how many of THEM pay either minimum-wage, or have contracts indexed to it?

Those same suppliers will pass along THEIR cost increases to the business - which, in turn, must either pass them to the customer, or eat them.

 

Instead, you are jumping to conclusions that the business doesn't want to pay a higher wage - as opposed to the business simply being honest to their customers and breaking out that increased cost TO that business as a separate line item (remember, I referred to it as an "unfee").

 

If that restaurant owner is smart, he has long term contracts over his supplies/utility/rents which guarantees the stability of the prices of the goods he needs for his restaurant.

If not, he is going to have to do what every other will do when the operating costs increase: adapt the prices.

When the gas prices increase, taxi companies adapt the prices.

When wood prices increase, furniture companies adapt the prices

When wieners prices increase, the hot dog stand down the road adapts its prices.

 

So yes, I am accusing him of being a douche by making a stupid political statement.

 

 

 

Beating on the business is easy.  Put yourself in the businessperson's shoes - exactly how honest are your regulators in terms of the impact their regulations and mandates have on you?

 

What? The laws are discussed in elected legislative bodies: that business owner had the possibility to vote and I am sure that he had the possibility during the hearing of the laws to voice his concerns.

Losing customers because the minimum wage prices will have to be transferred to the clients bill? Every other restaurants is going to have to do: he will level the playing field, unless restaurant owners wants to cheat to keeps their benefits: by taking only part time jobs? by denying health coverage?

This is even more douchesque

 

Example from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/07/subway-franchisee-wage-theft_n_5659915.html?utm_hp_ref=politics&ir=Politics

 


WASHINGTON -- A former Subway sandwich maker in Washington claims his employer used an inventive scheme to avoid paying him overtime: Creating fictional workers.

Erwin Zambrano Moya alleges in a lawsuit filed in federal court Wednesday that the Subway franchise at 2301 Georgia Ave. NW, near Howard University, systematically shortchanged him for the two years ending in June. According to the complaint, the owner accomplished this, in part, by paying Moya as if he were multiple workers, thereby keeping the real Moya under 40 hours each week.

Under the Fair Labor Standards Act, most hourly workers like Moya are entitled to time-and-a-half pay for any hours worked over 40 per week. Moya says he worked 70 hours per week on average, but was paid in "straight time," thanks to the multiple paychecks.

 

"To hide Plaintiff's very high number of hours worked per week, Defendant regularly paid Plaintiff about half of his wages under his name and about half under a fictional employee name, typically, Ever Ventura," the complaint states.

It goes on, "Sometimes during Plaintiff's employ, Defendant took it one step further to attempt to hide [minimum wage and overtime] violations by paying Plaintiff under the payroll of another Subway owned by Defendant or its agents or owners."

In addition, Moya claims he was paid at just $7.25 per hour, less than the $8.25 minimum wage in effect in D.C. during his tenure. He also says he wasn't paid at all for a 45-hour period shortly before his employment at Subway came to an end.

The franchise operator, identified in the complaint as Parvin Feroz, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

It isn't unheard of for low-wage businesses to be accused of splitting paychecks to dodge overtime rules. Last June, workers at eateries in the Ronald Reagan Building in downtown Washington alleged in a complaint filed with the Labor Department that their bosses forced them to accept pay through two separate checks. Some of those employees said they worked more than 80 hours per week.

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Then you should have refused to pay it, and contacted the Office of Fair Trading.

There are many restaurants I have been in all over the country that have a little line of text stating what they do.

 

Went in one italian restaurant in Brighton and they had a compulsory 20% service charge. Its a bit of pasta and tomato and the charge upwards of

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

There are many restaurants I have been in all over the country that have a little line of text stating what they do.

 

Went in one italian restaurant in Brighton and they had a compulsory 20% service charge. Its a bit of pasta and tomato and the charge upwards of

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.