Pizza hut lays off all its drivers just because minimum wage was increased.

[Kfox]

Oh, I pay far above min wage.

Yes; most companies do. But for those who can't, I don't find them immoral because of this.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yes; most companies do. But for those who can't, I don't find them immoral because of this.

As I see it, if an employer & employee have
a voluntary relationship, the employer is
giving the employee the very best deal
the employee could find....better than
any other employer. To not hire them
at the agreed upon terms would be
a worse situation for the employee.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yes; most companies do. But for those who can't, I don't find them immoral because of this.

Why not?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You speak of "exploit" as if it were a bad thing. There is a big difference between mistreat vs exploit. To exploit means to make full use of. It would be foolish to hire someone to do a job without making full use of their labor. What do you find wrong with a manager making full use of the employee's labor?

I'm not playing this game with you.

adjective: exploitative; adjective: exploitive

making use of a situation or treating others unfairly in order to gain an advantage or benefit.
"an exploitative form of labor"

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No; The store profit.

I'm trying to figure out where you're going with this question. I get the sense that you'd probably find it condescending if I answered it directly, taking it at face value.

 

[Stevicus]

$18 per hour is not minimum wage! That is the amount the owner chooses to pay; and if the business cannot afford to pay it, there is no obligation to do so. So if he goes out of business because of this decision he made, it is his fault unlike things outside of his control like high rents, or high gas prices.

So, if the minimum wage were raised to $18 per hour, that would then be out of the owner's control. Would he not complain about it to the government? Many business owners did complain to our state government when the voters passed minimum wage increases. They wanted the government to reverse it.

But they're still strangely silent and not complaining about high rents, high utilities, high gas prices - nor have I seen them going to government petitioning for price controls on those products and services. They only complain about wages and taxes - and they demand the government placate them on those issues alone.

 

[Kfox]

Why not?

Because they are acting within the law, and are giving someone a job who otherwise would not have one. Those are good things not bad, and good behavior is moral; not immoral.

 

[Revoltingest]

You speak of "exploit" as if it were a bad thing. There is a big difference between mistreat vs exploit. To exploit means to make full use of. It would be foolish to hire someone to do a job without making full use of their labor. What do you find wrong with a manager making full use of the employee's labor?

I recall someone being interviewed about emigrating
from a socialist country. Asked what it's like to be
exploited by capitalism, he said it's better than being
exploited by socialism.

People exploit me. I exploit others.
We all like the arrangement.

 

[Kfox]

I'm trying to figure out where you're going with this question. I get the sense that you'd probably find it condescending if I answered it directly, taking it at face value.

Just because a person is a business owner does not mean he is making lots of money and can afford to pay those he hire more. I personally have known business owners who before going out of business was paying his employees more than he could afford to pay himself. To paint all employers who pay minimum wage with the same broad brush without knowing the details of what is going on with his business is lazy, ignorant, and wrong IMO

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Because they are acting within the law,

Is everything legal ethical?

and are giving someone a job who otherwise would not have one.

If that's the case, then their decision to take the job is coerced.

If someone's choice is between one particular job or no job at all - and everything that this entails, e.g. homelessness - then they're in a position to be taken advantage of.

If one party's BATNA is a completely intolerable situation, you can get them to agree to a moderately intolerable situation that they would never have agreed to if they had the opportunity for a free choice.

Those are good things not bad, and good behavior is moral; not immoral.

No, what you're describing isn't moral.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Just because a person is a business owner does not mean he is making lots of money and can afford to pay those he hire more.

Sure.

I personally have known business owners who before going out of business was paying his employees more than he could afford to pay himself.

Sounds like the right thing to do.

As I mentioned earlier, the employee isn't sharing in the risk or reward of the business; their arrangement is one where they provide labour for a fair wage.

To paint all employers who pay minimum wage with the same broad brush without knowing the details of what is going on with his business is lazy, ignorant, and wrong IMO

Depends on the jurisdiction and their minimum wage, but I'm comfortable saying that, for instance, $7.25/h in 2024 is unethical across the board.

 

[Kfox]

So, if the minimum wage were raised to $18 per hour, that would then be out of the owner's control. Would he not complain about it to the government?

When minimum wages goes up, usually business that pay minimum wage raise their prices.

Many business owners did complain to our state government when the voters passed minimum wage increases. They wanted the government to reverse it.

But they're still strangely silent and not complaining about high rents, high utilities, high gas prices

Whaaaat??? Where do you live? When gas prices went to $4, $5, $6 per gallon, everybody was complaining, and they were all blaming it on Biden. Where I live I hear far more people complaining about expensive housing, high rent, leading to the homeless crisis than minimum wage increase. If nobody around you ever complain about these things, that is the exception; not the rule

- nor have I seen them going to government petitioning for price controls on those products and services. They only complain about wages and taxes - and they demand the government placate them on those issues alone.

My experience working when minimum wages increased:
When I was a kid I got a job at McDonalds, and it took me a year to get 2 raises 3% each, so after a year I was making 6% over minimum wage. Then minimum wage increased 5%, and instead of giving everybody a 5% raise, they only brought those making less than the new minimum wage, up to the new level. So now instead of me making 6% over minimum wage, I was only making 1% over the new minimum wage, then the prices went up 5% everywhere canceling out the 5% increases some got but I did not so my buying power was less than it was prior to the minimum wage increase. The only thing raising the minimum wage did was put more people on minimum wage.

 

[Stevicus]

When minimum wages goes up, usually business that pay minimum wage raise their prices.

Whaaaat??? Where do you live? When gas prices went to $4, $5, $6 per gallon, everybody was complaining, and they were all blaming it on Biden. Where I live I hear far more people complaining about expensive housing, high rent, leading to the homeless crisis than minimum wage increase. If nobody around you ever complain about these things, that is the exception; not the rule

People complained, yes. That wasn't what I said.

My experience working when minimum wages increased:
When I was a kid I got a job at McDonalds, and it took me a year to get 2 raises 3% each, so after a year I was making 6% over minimum wage. Then minimum wage increased 5%, and instead of giving everybody a 5% raise, they only brought those making less than the new minimum wage, up to the new level. So now instead of me making 6% over minimum wage, I was only making 1% over the new minimum wage, then the prices went up 5% everywhere canceling out the 5% increases some got but I did not so my buying power was less than it was prior to the minimum wage increase. The only thing raising the minimum wage did was put more people on minimum wage.

 

[Kfox]

Sounds like the right thing to do.

As I mentioned earlier, the employee isn't sharing in the risk or reward of the business; their arrangement is one where they provide labour for a fair wage.

But according to you, they are immoral because the pay was minimum wage.

If that's the case, then their decision to take the job is coerced.

If someone's choice is between one particular job or no job at all - and everything that this entails, e.g. homelessness - then they're in a position to be taken advantage of.

So according to you, it is better that we take that choice away from them, so they have no job at all and become homeless, right?

 

[Kfox]

People complained, yes. That wasn't what I said.

On post #246 you said "strangely silent and not complaining about high rents, high utilities, high gas prices" Those were your exact words.

 

[Stevicus]

On post #246 you said "strangely silent and not complaining about high rents, high utilities, high gas prices" Those were your exact words.

The context made it clear that I was referring to businesses and comparing their complaints about minimum wage increases versus their silence on price increases imposed by their peers in the business community. I read this as meaning that they won't badmouth other businesses as readily as they'll badmouth the people.

 

[Kfox]

The context made it clear that I was referring to businesses and comparing their complaints about minimum wage increases versus their silence on price increases imposed by their peers in the business community. I read this as meaning that they won't badmouth other businesses as readily as they'll badmouth the people.

The people I see complaining about high rent, gas prices, and utilities are people; not businesses. Perhaps the reason businesses are not complaining is because these things don't really hurt them the way minimum wage increases hurt them.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

The people I see complaining about high rent, gas prices, and utilities are people; not businesses. Perhaps the reason businesses are not complaining is because these things don't really hurt them the way minimum wage increases hurt them.

Actually, businesses closing due to increasing utilities and rent costs is fairly common - at least here in the UK. It tends to affect small businesses significantly more though, for obvious reasons.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

But according to you, they are immoral because the pay was minimum wage.

There are wage rates that are so low as to be unethical, yes.

So according to you, it is better that we take that choice away from them, so they have no job at all and become homeless, right?

No, it's better that the workers improve their BATNA by unionizing, or that the law recognizes the unbalanced bargaining power by enshrining protections for workers... such as fair minimum wage rates.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It's only in California, but I'm sure everybody knows Pizza Hut chains make more than enough money to accommodate all employees, including the minimum wage increase.

Do we know this? I don't know this. And the article doesn't mention it either. Do you have the numbers?
Another option they would have had would be to increase prices for customers to offset the increased costs.

I own a business with employees myself and I can tell you that an increase in the operating costs due to wages increase can be quite painful.
I don't know how the laws are in the US, but next to paying the wages, we also need to pay additional taxes based on the wages.
So an increase of say 100 euro's for the employee easily becomes an increase of 150-200 in cost for the employer.

If you then have thousands of employees, that increase quickly runs into hundreds of thousands, if not millions.
I can imagine it's quite painful. And if the business is already struggling or not making that much profit, it will very quickly result in red numbers also.

The employer is in business to make money after all. A business is not a charity organization to hand out money to workers.
If my business doesn't make me money, I do what I must to either make sure it makes money (which might mean laying people off) or I just quit it and sell it or liquidate it (meaning everybody loses their job).

Sure, it sucks for the employees, but it goes both ways. As an employer myself, I sometimes feel like employees can act very entitled. I don't "owe" you a job.

This is just a disgusting show of
Incredible greed and disregard for the working people that had made that made this chain successful and without them Pizza Hut would not even be around.

If that were true, I don't think they would be fired as that would mean that Pizza Hut as of now would be doomed to fade away in California.

Great way to show thanks and appreciation from the management at Pizza hut around Christmas to their workers.

I show my thanks and appreciation to my employees by paying their wages. I don't "owe" them anything else.


Don't get me wrong, it could be that this is a disgusting greedy move on the part of the management. But I'm not seeing anything in that article that supports that.
What's the turn over for the california franchise? What's the operating cost of those drivers? What's the gross and net profit?

These are important numbers to include if you are going to make such accusations, it seems to me.