-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Tim Hortons
- Thread starter Phillip L
- Start date
sakimano
Active Member
Very serious. I'm sure there's a minimum wage worker there somewhere that enabled you to get where you were. Someone in the proverbial mailroom or the cleaning staff. One can always find reason to be outraged if you try hard enough.
Anyway, anone find anymore superchargers? How are there still no Mississauga sites under construction ? I
So your big gotcha that you were trying to set up is that if I have ever interacted with a minimum wage employee, I am somehow guilty of repressing them. All of this despite the fact that I have openly supported increases in minimum wage for years. Um... okay then! You got me!
Anyways the supercharger at Sherway Gardens in EtobiCOKE is <10km from Mississauga, so there you go.
sakimano
Active Member
There are supposed to be superchargers in north-west Mississauga and another in central / southern Mississauga so no that's not it.
sakimano
Active Member
What are you talking about? Speaking out against someone saying something inappropriate...what did I say that's inappropriate? I suggested the description of the business owner 'screwing' employees was interesting when you actually look at what is happening financially, and what is likely to happen in the near future...the very people who the policy tries to protect will indeed get sscrewed, but it will be when they get fired, not when they lose their free bagel sandwich.
I didn't say anything about a business owner paying his employees 'less than they can afford to live within the city they work'...nor is that even remotely relevant. For the record, the Tim Horton's franchise that cut some of the employees' free benefits did so in the town of Cobourg...not in metro Vancouver. Housing prices in Cobourg are about 1/6th that of Toronto. Are you sure you know what you're talking about? Are you sure you can't live on $28,000/year in Cobourg? Especially when half the employees are students who live with their family. I think you need to do your homework.
All I said was that when employees are getting a fairly sizeable raise, business owners have the right to react and I don't think he 'screwed' anyone. This owner took away some of the FREE benefits he was formerly giving employees. This wasn't something they were legally entitled to. This was something he was giving them, but when the new wage law came in, he took those away and obliged by the law paying them their 20% wage increase. What if a business owner gives someone a car allowance, and is then forced to cut it because of a recession in order to keep the business open. is the business owner 'screwing' the employees? Or is he keeping their job alive by managing his business?
sakimano
Active Member
Let's look at this from 30,000 feet. If you own a fast food restaurant in Ontario and minimum wage jumps 30% on you in the span of 30%, and the majority of your employees are paid near minimum wage and you'll have to give raises to your more senior employees to keep up, you have a few choices.
One of them is to fire some people.
One is to close the store and fire everyone.
One is to cut costs, which may be emlpoyee benefits or other costs.
One is to lose a third of your profits.
None of those choices are good ones. My point is pretty simple...this won't end well for the employees you're trying to 'stick up for'. There will instead be firings.
Are any of you people managers? When tasked with cutting costs and firing an employee did any of you cut your income by 30% to save that person getting fired? If so, that's very noble of you. If not, I think you're pretty normal as most people can't afford a 30% wage cut even though a few in the thread are scoffing that fast food franchise owners should do so.
Anyway, if you want to see the future of Tim Horton's, next time you go to McDonalds take note.
3 years ago American cities saw protests erupt demanding $15 minimum wage. McDonalds IMMEDIATELY put into effect a few test stores that used touch screen LCD TV screens in place of cashiers to give customers the option. It worked well. Why did they do this? They recognized that to maintain the profitability of their business while still offering cheap food, they needed to develop a plan to cut costs. Now when you go to a typical McDonalds franchise on their own property there's usually 1 or at most 2 actual cash registers, and that will drop to 1 before long. There are now 4-6 LCD screens for you to self order, and on top of that you can order from your phone. There won't be a cash register before too long. What does this mean? McDonald's fired the cash register staff. Simple, fast, effective cost cutting.
Now what? Those people are unemployed and on social assistance. So rather than the 18 employees continuing, you have 15 who got a $6,000/year raise and 3 who got a $15,000 a year pay cut (comparing UI to working). And that will run out. Then what...welfare?
This is a shitty scenario that I don't think people have thought out. The cold reality is the business owner won't take the hit. They'll move on to something or somewhere else and take their capital with them. Or they'll adapt the business and that usually means cutting costs...and the biggest cost is staff.
One of them is to fire some people.
One is to close the store and fire everyone.
One is to cut costs, which may be emlpoyee benefits or other costs.
One is to lose a third of your profits.
None of those choices are good ones. My point is pretty simple...this won't end well for the employees you're trying to 'stick up for'. There will instead be firings.
Are any of you people managers? When tasked with cutting costs and firing an employee did any of you cut your income by 30% to save that person getting fired? If so, that's very noble of you. If not, I think you're pretty normal as most people can't afford a 30% wage cut even though a few in the thread are scoffing that fast food franchise owners should do so.
Anyway, if you want to see the future of Tim Horton's, next time you go to McDonalds take note.
3 years ago American cities saw protests erupt demanding $15 minimum wage. McDonalds IMMEDIATELY put into effect a few test stores that used touch screen LCD TV screens in place of cashiers to give customers the option. It worked well. Why did they do this? They recognized that to maintain the profitability of their business while still offering cheap food, they needed to develop a plan to cut costs. Now when you go to a typical McDonalds franchise on their own property there's usually 1 or at most 2 actual cash registers, and that will drop to 1 before long. There are now 4-6 LCD screens for you to self order, and on top of that you can order from your phone. There won't be a cash register before too long. What does this mean? McDonald's fired the cash register staff. Simple, fast, effective cost cutting.
Now what? Those people are unemployed and on social assistance. So rather than the 18 employees continuing, you have 15 who got a $6,000/year raise and 3 who got a $15,000 a year pay cut (comparing UI to working). And that will run out. Then what...welfare?
This is a shitty scenario that I don't think people have thought out. The cold reality is the business owner won't take the hit. They'll move on to something or somewhere else and take their capital with them. Or they'll adapt the business and that usually means cutting costs...and the biggest cost is staff.
Whisky
Member
Raising minimum wage isn't being done to save obsolete jobs. It's being done to save sustainable employment. Most studies show that companies that pay more, have better workers, and are more profitable. Most studies show that increasing minimum wage costs a fraction of a percentage of jobs, and increases the overall wealth of a community making it a net-positive. So yes, you can be right about job losses, and still be wrong about the overall benefits the community receives from raised minimum wage.
Automation is happening everywhere, and was going to happen regardless of minimum wage payments. If you read studies, there's a small correlation between minimum wage increases and automation. Automation did trend over a decade ago, but failed. It's been tried again, and will likely succeed as people are more comfortable with the technology and since the technology has gotten better. Yes, sometimes companies install automation in response to policy change, but this is more about making a political point then a long-term strategic plan. Automation is coming regardless.
I'll go back to my point. If your business can't pay a living wage, it's a failed business. If there are ways to automate and save money (which, btw, is still arguably quite difficult to do... again, if you read the latest studies on this, companies have been avoiding automation because it's not as cheap as one would assume it is), it's going to happen anyway.
My commentary was purely based on the numbers you presented, and in response to the general tone of entitlement. When you sympathize with the business owner running a profitable business, and have less empathy with a workforce that's struggling to make ends meet, that's a problem. People are suffering. People are working 60+ hour weeks to make ends meet. These aren't trivial struggles.
I came from a poor neighbourhood during a time where you could work 20/hour weeks at minimum wage (or near minimum wage), live with a roommate, and get a university degree with little student loan debt. That's impossible today. When our wages can't pay enough to give people the opportunity for success, we're doing something wrong. When we're sympathizing with a business owner making $300k of profit a year because their costs are going up, that's a problem. When we make arguments against people making a living wage based on simplified arguments, it shows a poor level of entitlement.
Automation is happening everywhere, and was going to happen regardless of minimum wage payments. If you read studies, there's a small correlation between minimum wage increases and automation. Automation did trend over a decade ago, but failed. It's been tried again, and will likely succeed as people are more comfortable with the technology and since the technology has gotten better. Yes, sometimes companies install automation in response to policy change, but this is more about making a political point then a long-term strategic plan. Automation is coming regardless.
I'll go back to my point. If your business can't pay a living wage, it's a failed business. If there are ways to automate and save money (which, btw, is still arguably quite difficult to do... again, if you read the latest studies on this, companies have been avoiding automation because it's not as cheap as one would assume it is), it's going to happen anyway.
My commentary was purely based on the numbers you presented, and in response to the general tone of entitlement. When you sympathize with the business owner running a profitable business, and have less empathy with a workforce that's struggling to make ends meet, that's a problem. People are suffering. People are working 60+ hour weeks to make ends meet. These aren't trivial struggles.
I came from a poor neighbourhood during a time where you could work 20/hour weeks at minimum wage (or near minimum wage), live with a roommate, and get a university degree with little student loan debt. That's impossible today. When our wages can't pay enough to give people the opportunity for success, we're doing something wrong. When we're sympathizing with a business owner making $300k of profit a year because their costs are going up, that's a problem. When we make arguments against people making a living wage based on simplified arguments, it shows a poor level of entitlement.
comanchepilot
Member
First of all, it was more than one Franchise owner that cut benefits to workers.
Secondly, the one which made the headlines first announced the cuts in an email sent from his winter vacation home in Florida. He owned several stores. So yeah, he wasn't hurting for money. He was just sore that he was making slightly less, and his workers wouldn't be as poor as they were before.
Thirdly, every time minimum wage it's fast food franchises which see a boost in sales, since the poorest people have a bit extra to spend for a luxury item then couldn't afford previously.
I vaguely remember Timmies coffee being good 25 years ago. Now it's crap.
Secondly, the one which made the headlines first announced the cuts in an email sent from his winter vacation home in Florida. He owned several stores. So yeah, he wasn't hurting for money. He was just sore that he was making slightly less, and his workers wouldn't be as poor as they were before.
Thirdly, every time minimum wage it's fast food franchises which see a boost in sales, since the poorest people have a bit extra to spend for a luxury item then couldn't afford previously.
I vaguely remember Timmies coffee being good 25 years ago. Now it's crap.
If my wife heard you compare Dunkin to Tim Hortons you might end up with that swill over you. The Tim Hortons, not the Dunkin'. She wouldn't waste Dunkin'.
I have no idea. I don't drink coffee so I haven't tasted any of it. I'm glad not to deal with the time and cost.
comanchepilot
Member
I have a bag of both Tims and Dunkin' and made a half pot of both the other day - I sealed both in a vacuum bag and figure those are my coffees of last resort for when I have absolutely nothing left. . .
Similar threads
- Article
- Article
