Cafe charges customers 35 cent "minimum wage fee"


Recommended Posts

Sandor    436

I worked 40 / week while putting myself through college with zero student loans. No one can tell me that higher education is unattainable for them in the United States... NO ONE. It might be that way in other parts of the world... but not here.

Working full time while going through school isn't exactly sensible though.

Link to post
Share on other sites
SierraSonic    592

And it will be worse if hte min wage gets raised to 15 and hour like lots of min wage workers do.  Yea, they may get an increase in pay but food, clothes, and other items they by themselves will increase thus not changing a damn thing money wise for them.  If people want to make more money, work for it.  If not, you get what you get.

Statistically proven that the rate of increase would be pennies on the dollar compared to the extra they would earn.

 

if that is the case they better get a couple of them because you are not going to make it.  How is that anyone else's fault?  Raising the wage is going to cause many of these types of jobs to go away because employers will not be able to employ as many people.

He drew the line where the government told him he had to...

The biggest growing job fields in america are the service industry. They are becoming more and more common as the de facto job.

 

I agree that someone has to do these jobs, but they were not meant as career jobs to provide a living wage.  I am not classifying jobs as living wage, it was the politicians that did this when they passed the bill.  They said everyone deserves a living wage.  Well $9.50 is not a living wage and not everyone deserves it.

 

I know lots of people that worked 2 or 3 different jobs to make ends meet.  You do what you have to do.  I worked 2 jobs while going to school and even after I had a better paying job for extra money.  It is the mentality of people that needs to change.

Wrong, all full time jobs are considered to be able to make a living wage, in the mid 70s these jobs kept getting more and more unbearable for employees due to gaps in increasing the minimum wage over time. 

 

And then people would go work somewhere else and that shop would be forced to increase his wages to entice people to work for him.  That is the way it works in anyone job.  You have to pay to get and keep good workers.  There is no government involvement in the hiring.

>.> You have no idea how a business is run, people NEED jobs, jobs don't need SPECIFIC people because EVERYONE is fighting over the SCRAPS.

 

All I was trying to point out is that the more government gets involved the more expensive things are going to get, hence the higher taxes.  It is not all caused by the small minimum wage increase, but it is a small part of it.  I would rather keep my money and decide what to do with it than to give the majority of it away, but that is just me.

That was my point.  Higher taxes are the cause and will be the result of more regulation and mandates.

The more government gets involved the better the minimum standards are, unless you prefer to have "natural milk" instead of actually natural milk that we have to call organic, and it may not even be truly organic because we have two different descriptions of organic. I rather have the benefits that come with giving up a little money.

 

There has to be a good balance of regulations, some industries are over burdended, others are too free and 

35c makes sense. Don't bash on someone's business before you understand their financing system and how they value inventory.

Increase the prices sure, don't blame the minimum wage "that doesn't affect his employees which are paid more than minimum anyway"

 

This is why the customers should be a bit more adult and not boycott him... a boycott harms his employees too. If his business goes down he'll have to fire them.

 

The owner could still have been more polite about making his point if he wasn't trying to be political.

Yes, but saying "I don't agree with you, but take my money" doesn't make for a good point.

Link to post
Share on other sites
redfish    607

Good. That's one less scummy employer paying the bare minimum. We're talking about a city with a population of nearly 20,000 people - I'm sure they'll be able to find better jobs.

 

If that's true, then they could have had other jobs to begin with and what he pays them doesn't make a difference -- if they didn't like the wages, they could have left. However, if they couldn't have left -- that means its not the business owners fault and he's just being competitive with the other businesses in the area. [That's why minimum wage laws exist in the first place, because competition conspires to keep wages down]

 

 

Yes, but saying "I don't agree with you, but take my money" doesn't make for a good point.

 

No need to be outraged, the business owner is just being stupid. People are stupid sometimes, you need to get over it. Punishing the owner for being stupid is being just as petty as him.

 

This was how I would have made a point,

 

The owner is being pretty silly expecting people to get upset over a 35 cent increase. Then again, the customers are t*it-for-tat in being petty if they're really outraged and claiming they'll never go back there. The owner is just being stupid... people act stupid sometimes, get over it. And really, not going to that restaurant anymore will just harm the employees that they want to support. If business drops because their outrage causes them to leave, the employees will get fired. If there was a space for tip on the receipt, I'd just add 0.35 extra to the tip and write "I'm happy to pay 0.35 more so your employees get better wages."

 

Maybe that would change his opinion more than threatening to shut down his business would?

Link to post
Share on other sites
theyarecomingforyou    10,428

The point is they are making more than min wage already.

Where does it say that? :huh: I've read the article multiple times and NOWHERE does it say that.

 

If he was already paying them more than the new minimum wage then it would have ZERO effect on his business. He obviously wasn't, hence why he added the fee as a political statement.

 

If that's true, then they could have had other jobs to begin with and what he pays them doesn't make a difference

Just because they have a bad job doesn't mean there aren't better jobs out there. A lot of time people stick with a job simply due to inertia, because they have formed friendships with co-workers and don't want to risk the income they have - that doesn't mean it isn't a bad job and that they couldn't find better elsewhere.

 

Bad businesses don't deserve to be supported, even if it is the employees that lose out.

Link to post
Share on other sites
redfish    607
 
Just because they have a bad job doesn't mean there aren't better jobs out there. A lot of time people stick with a job simply due to inertia, because they have formed friendships with co-workers and don't want to risk the income they have - that doesn't mean it isn't a bad job and that they couldn't find better elsewhere.

 

Bad businesses don't deserve to be supported, even if it is the employees that lose out.

 

Then isn't it their fault and not the business owners? You're not making a good case that its the owner's fault; employees have some responsibility. If a lot of them quit (or threatened to quit), he would be forced to raise wages.

 

I mean, if jobs were plentiful, they wouldn't be worried about losing their source of income by quitting... if jobs aren't plentiful... then you are punishing them by boycotting the business.

Link to post
Share on other sites
FloatingFatMan    21,368

Not in the US? In fact, in the US it's actually easier if you are struggling because of all the grants / extra care given to minorities... it's almost criminal.

 

 

What would that be? If you have the mental capacity for an education it is available to you.

 

Not everyone does have the mental capacity for higher education. Not everyone lives in suitable circumstances where they can access higher education, not everyone has a suitable home life where they can access higher education.

 

Don't presume that everyone's life is as privileged as your own.  There are many many factors that could prevent someone from furthering themselves in life.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
redfish    607

Not everyone does have the mental capacity for higher education. Not everyone lives in suitable circumstances where they can access higher education, not everyone has a suitable home life where they can access higher education.

 

Don't presume that everyone's life is as privileged as your own.  There are many many factors that could prevent someone from furthering themselves in life.

 

Agricultural and industrial jobs typically pay a lot better than low-end service jobs. Its one of the reasons its so bad that we're driving these sectors out of Western economies.

Link to post
Share on other sites
FloatingFatMan    21,368

Agricultural and industrial jobs typically pay a lot better than low-end service jobs. Its one of the reasons its so bad that we're driving these sectors out of Western economies.

 

Sure, if you live in the countryside or near an industrial area.

Link to post
Share on other sites
theyarecomingforyou    10,428

Then isn't it their fault and not the business owners? You're not making a good case that its the owner's fault; employees have some responsibility. If a lot of them quit (or threatened to quit), he would be forced to raise wages.

And in an ideal world that would happen. Just because exploitation is tolerated doesn't mean it's acceptable.

 

As I said, he's a scummy employer and I hope he goes out of business. At the same time I hope all his employees are able to find other, better jobs.

Link to post
Share on other sites
redfish    607

Sure, if you live in the countryside or near an industrial area.

 

Most people are close enough or can move to where the jobs are. There used to be a lot more agriculture and industry in the US than there is now, but was driven out by trade deals... and what still exists attracts illegal labor. Its really not a good situation.

Link to post
Share on other sites
tmorris1    141

Working full time while going through school isn't exactly sensible though.

Why not?  You have to pay for it somehow.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
tmorris1    141

The biggest growing job fields in america are the service industry. They are becoming more and more common as the de facto job.

 

Wrong, all full time jobs are considered to be able to make a living wage, in the mid 70s these jobs kept getting more and more unbearable for employees due to gaps in increasing the minimum wage over time. 

 

>.> You have no idea how a business is run, people NEED jobs, jobs don't need SPECIFIC people because EVERYONE is fighting over the SCRAPS.

Can you live on $9.50 an hour?  This has nothing to do with full-time jobs.  This applies to all jobs with the exception of some teen-agers.

Link to post
Share on other sites
tmorris1    141

Not everyone does have the mental capacity for higher education. Not everyone lives in suitable circumstances where they can access higher education, not everyone has a suitable home life where they can access higher education.

 

Don't presume that everyone's life is as privileged as your own.  There are many many factors that could prevent someone from furthering themselves in life.

So you think someone with a lower mental capacity should make the same wage as someone with a higher mental capacity doing a more skilled job?  The higher your skill level and the need for those skills will determine your wage.

 

What circumstance would prevent someone from getting an education in the US?

 

Why are you presuming that I have a privileged life then?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
tmorris1    141

If his staff were making more than the minimum wage he wouldn't have needed to add a minimum wage fee now, would he? He is a scummy employer because he's paying staff the bare minimum and adding this fee to make a political statement protesting the rise. If he cared about his employees he would pay them a living wage.

He was already paying minimum wage or more to his employees.  The state raised the minimum wage by $.75 so now he has to pay them more.  What is a living a wage anyway?  $15, $20, $30?

Link to post
Share on other sites
FloatingFatMan    21,368

So you think someone with a lower mental capacity should make the same wage as someone with a higher mental capacity doing a more skilled job?  The higher your skill level and the need for those skills will determine your wage.

I didn't say that at all, stop inventing things.

What circumstance would prevent someone from getting an education in the US?

They could be a single parent with no one to care for the kid, as one example.

 

Why are you presuming that I have a privileged life then?

Compared to some folks, you do.

Link to post
Share on other sites
redfish    607

We don't even know who he was paying minimum wage to. For all we know, it was just the busboys.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Joe User    518

I worked 40 / week while putting myself through college with zero student loans. No one can tell me that higher education is unattainable for them in the United States... NO ONE. It might be that way in other parts of the world... but not here.

 

You're over 40, right?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Joe User    518

35 cents enrages people?

 

Inappropriate politics enrages people. That's all this is, an example of a person who wont shut up about politics to the point where they have to make a statement to everyone who eats at their diner.

 

Besides, he's going to pull in over $50,000/yr from this fee, is 100% going to the workers?

Link to post
Share on other sites
theyarecomingforyou    10,428

His staff was making more than minimum wage

The point is they are making more than min wage already. The 10,000 extra May be his current profit margin.

He was already paying minimum wage or more to his employees.  The state raised the minimum wage by $.75 so now he has to pay them more.

That's completely different to what you said before. Earlier you said he was paying them MORE than the minimum wage, for which you have yet to produce any evidence.

 

What is a living a wage anyway?  $15, $20, $30?

The living wage for Washington County in Minnesota?where this cafe is located?is $9.69.

Link to post
Share on other sites
redfish    607

Inappropriate politics enrages people. That's all this is, an example of a person who wont shut up about politics to the point where they have to make a statement to everyone who eats at their diner.

 

Besides, he's going to pull in over $50,000/yr from this fee, is 100% going to the workers?

 

Yea, he's being stupid. What I'm trying to convince people here of that its not worth being outraged over people being stupid -- it doesn't help anyone. Be a bigger adult than he's being.

Link to post
Share on other sites
tmorris1    141

That's completely different to what you said before. Earlier you said he was paying them MORE than the minimum wage, for which you have yet to produce any evidence.

The living wage for Washington County in Minnesota?where this cafe is located?is $9.69.

I provided a link to the article it spells it all out what more do you want?

The living wage is meaningless. It is an arbitrary number that some politician pulled out of their rear end. There is no way you can live on that wage.

Link to post
Share on other sites
theyarecomingforyou    10,428

I provided a link to the article it spells it all out what more do you want?

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.

 

The living wage is meaningless. It is an arbitrary number that some politician pulled out of their rear end. There is no way you can live on that wage.

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
SierraSonic    592

Then isn't it their fault and not the business owners? You're not making a good case that its the owner's fault; employees have some responsibility. If a lot of them quit (or threatened to quit), he would be forced to raise wages.

 

I mean, if jobs were plentiful, they wouldn't be worried about losing their source of income by quitting... if jobs aren't plentiful... then you are punishing them by boycotting the business.

If a lot of them quit, a lot of people who currently earn $0 will take their ###### positions at ###### pay, people do not quit to work elsewhere unless it is a step up, people do not give up life providing income, no matter how ###### the terms.

 

Most people are close enough or can move to where the jobs are. There used to be a lot more agriculture and industry in the US than there is now, but was driven out by trade deals... and what still exists attracts illegal labor. Its really not a good situation.

Thats true, but that is a situation also created by competing with labor rates where the minimums are much lower, which is more incentive than paltry tax credits.

 

Can you live on $9.50 an hour?  This has nothing to do with full-time jobs.  This applies to all jobs with the exception of some teen-agers.

No, it would currently take about $15 an hour for me to be able to live on my own. I mean, i could live off it, just in the street or a car which I may lose. My situation though will differ than those in other states, or even a different part of this state. A living wage is living above the poverty level and being able to support ones family just barely enough. It was the original intent of the minimum wage, and it kept in sync with that rate up until the mid 70s where some certain "economics" turned for the worse, notice in periods of where the minimum wage was high, the economy was strong, it falls, and the economy falls with it.

 

So you think someone with a lower mental capacity should make the same wage as someone with a higher mental capacity doing a more skilled job?  The higher your skill level and the need for those skills will determine your wage.

 

What circumstance would prevent someone from getting an education in the US?

 

Why are you presuming that I have a privileged life then?

Yes, minimum wage should be the minimum for everyone no matter what their abilities are, the people that do more than minimum should get paid more, but more often than not, do not.

 

He was already paying minimum wage or more to his employees.  The state raised the minimum wage by $.75 so now he has to pay them more.  What is a living a wage anyway?  $15, $20, $30?

Okay pick one, he either pays more than minimum and wouldn't get affected, or pays minimum + upto 35c, and does, but should have had more tact dealing with the situation.

Link to post
Share on other sites
HeartsOfWar    28

You're over 40, right?

 

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

 

Not everyone does have the mental capacity for higher education. Not everyone lives in suitable circumstances where they can access higher education, not everyone has a suitable home life where they can access higher education.

 

Don't presume that everyone's life is as privileged as your own.  There are many many factors that could prevent someone from furthering themselves in life.

 

This line of thinking is tremendously backwards. It's true that not everyone has the same mental capacity to excel, but excellence isn't the same across all fields. Second, in the US It's not a matter of mental capacity but ambition. Home life doesn't factor into the equation with a higher education. There are plenty of grants and programs out there willing to shelter students that want to learn and strive for excellence if they can't do so at home.

 

I wouldn't call my life privileged when I put myself through college. Sure, I wasn't homeless and at war with drugs or abuse, but I certainly didn't have the opportunities some of my friends had and I came out ahead of them... all because of my own ambition.

 

Ones failure of ambition can not be blamed on a society...

 

If someone enjoys the service industry and finds comfort in it, I am not saying they're wrong, but what I am saying is that they and their families could be better served if they tried to strive for more. Why settle when there are grants and federal programs that want to help? Again... it likely comes back to ambition.

 

Working full time while going through school isn't exactly sensible though.

 

Not true, and this is why the US is a nation of debt; instead of putting in the effort first by working hard to attain that diploma, students now expect it to be handed over first and paid for later...

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
SierraSonic    592

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

 

 

This line of thinking is tremendously backwards. It's true that not everyone has the same mental capacity to excel, but excellence isn't the same across all fields. Second, in the US It's not a matter of mental capacity but ambition. Home life doesn't factor into the equation with a higher education. There are plenty of grants and programs out there willing to shelter students that want to learn and strive for excellence if they can't do so at home.

 

I wouldn't call my life privileged when I put myself through college. Sure, I wasn't homeless and at war with drugs or abuse, but I certainly didn't have the opportunities some of my friends had and I came out ahead of them... all because of my own ambition.

 

Ones failure of ambition can not be blamed on a society...

 

If someone enjoys the service industry and finds comfort in it, I am not saying they're wrong, but what I am saying is that they and their families could be better served if they tried to strive for more. Why settle when there are grants and federal programs that want to help? Again... it likely comes back to ambition.

 

 

Not true, and this is why the US is a nation of debt; instead of putting in the effort first by working hard to attain that diploma, students now expect it to be handed over first and paid for later...

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.

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
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Content

    • By zikalify
      Open letter asks tech firms to stop targeting ads at users under 18
      by Paul Hill



      An open letter has been signed in the U.K. by a member of parliament (MPs), academics, and children’s rights advocates to bring an end to advertising to users younger than 18 by big tech firms such as Facebook and Google. Among those signing were Caroline Lucas MP, Amnesty International, Privacy International, and Friends of the Earth.

      The letter was published just days after a lawsuit was lodged against Google accusing it of breaking U.K. and E.U. data protection laws by targeting under-13s with addictive programming and using their data for advertising purposes. The letter calls on protections to be extended to all children under the age of 18.

      A section of the open letter reads as follows:

      In the case of Google, it allows all users to disable ad personalisation within a user’s account settings. To address some of the concerns being raised by the signatories, it could automatically set this toggle to disabled for all children’s accounts. While this may not address some of the tracking that Google performs, it will eliminate the problem of behavioural advertising.

    • By Garg Ankit
      TikTok interim CEO invites Facebook and Instagram to support litigation against Trump ban
      by Garg Ankit



      Donald Trump has moved ahead with the executive order to ban TikTok and WeChat from the Google Play Store and the iOS App Store. The app will not be available to download or update come Sunday, but you can use it if it's already downloaded on your device. Vanessa Pappas took to Twitter to invite Facebook and Instagram to present a united front against the ban, citing freedom of expression and due process of law.

      Pappas, who recently became the interim CEO of TikTok after Kevin Mayer quit last month, was replying to Head of Instagram, Adam Mosseri, who tweeted that the US TikTok ban would be bad not only for Facebook or Instagram, but the internet in general.

      We'll have to wait and see if Zuckerberg owned Facebook and Instagram will publicly oppose the order. After all, it was he who reportedly persuaded the Trump administration to launch the attack on TikTok.

    • By zikalify
      Facebook: Standalone AR glasses are five to ten years away
      by Paul Hill



      Earlier this week, alongside its Oculus Quest 2 announcement, Facebook revealed Project Aria a research project investigating wearable augmented reality (AR) glasses.

      On Wednesday, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg revealed that the first pair of Aria glasses would be launching 2021, however, these will still be dependent on a smartphone. According to the head of Facebook Reality Labs Research Michael Abrash, the dependency on a smartphone could be removed within the next five to ten years and the technology could even supplant smartphones for some people.

      In the next couple of years, smart glasses will be dependent on smartphones due to battery life and processing constraints but as technology shrinks, cramming components into glasses could become feasible. Abrash reiterated that these glasses “are still years off. That’s not a 2021 thing. I’m talking about the future.”

      While glasses may be able to be used alone in the next decade, it’s unlikely that smartphones will disappear entirely. While glasses will no doubt be capable of performing many of the tasks we need them to do and more, there will be other tasks that are more convenient to complete on a phone screen.

      Source: Reuters

    • By Jay Bonggolto
      Facebook is clamping down on groups tied to violence and health misinformation
      by Jay Bonggolto

      Facebook announced today that it is taking additional steps to limit the spread of harmful content and misinformation in Groups. The social networking giant is honing in on Groups that contain health-related posts and those that are tied to violence.

      Tom Alison, Facebook's Vice President of Engineering, said the company has begun removing health groups from recommendations in order to give priority to authoritative sources of health information. That said, users can still invite others to health groups they belong to or search for this type of groups. The latest step comes after Facebook drew flak earlier this year for allowing people to share false information surrounding COVID-19, including conspiracy theories and fake remedies.

      In addition, the company is taking more stringent steps to limit the scope of groups linked to violence by removing them from recommendations, reducing their presence in search, and limiting their content in News Feed. This builds on Facebook's ongoing efforts to crack down on groups that pose risks to public safety such as U.S.-based militia organizations and QAnon.

      Facebook noted that it took down more than 1 million groups over the last year for violating its policies. It is now preventing repeat offenders from creating new groups for a period of time, though it's not clear how long that window lasts. For groups with no admin for some time, the company plans to archive them in the next few weeks. Admins who are about to step down can also invite members to become admins, and if nobody accepts the invitation, Facebook will suggest admin roles to members.

    • By Usman Khan Lodhi
      Facebook's latest app combines Messenger and Instagram chats for small businesses
      by Usman Khan Lodhi



      Facebook is introducing a unified app that lets small business owners manage their pages and profiles across Facebook, Instagram, and Messenger, Sheryl Sandberg, Chief Operating Officer at Facebook, announced in a blog post. She stressed how integral Facebook's tools and services are for small businesses:

      The app, named Facebook Business Suite, would unify the backend infrastructure for the three Facebook-owned apps, so business owners are able to receive messages from customers, updates, and alerts in a single inbox. The Menlo Park firm also plans to add WhatsApp integration in the future, it confirmed to The Verge. The social media giant also plans to expand the app to larger businesses next year.

      The app lets users post to Facebook and Instagram simultaneously, in addition to viewing insight into the performance of ad campaigns on the platforms. Doing so lets owners "easily see what's working and learn what's resonating with customers with Facebook and Instagram insights."

      Additionally, to help small businesses better analyze impacts of COVID-19, Facebook released two new surveys: its latest Global State of Small Business Report and a study on the pandemic's impact on consumers' purchasing patterns.