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

[Twilight Hue]

Running a business can just mean you have experience at exploiting workers, how much actual work do you think a CEO does in a day compared to an hourly worker, company executives are the only ones that get payed to play golf

All those luxury exquisite dinners at the golf course it's got to be rough!

 

[Stevicus]

I tend to agree with Salix on this one. While it is true that workers are considered somewhat of a cost, this is better than the slavery which preceded capitalism. Its been replaced, and anyone poor or rich may buy stock in large companies. It is not so much shareholders but shares themselves which cause workers to be considered expendable. In a way this is good.

The negative side is that shares have no hearts, and so corporations are run by servants of inhuman heartless strips of paper. Shareholders can try and insert some humanity into the process, but it is a cold process. Still it is better than other systems like patronage and slavery. It is not only about the bottom line but is also about each worker having our own value and our own will, and we accept that sometimes jobs aren't going to last or won't pay enough.

I'm currently leaving a job, and I haven't fully negotiated the next job. I'm going to be floating for a bit, possibly for a long time or may need to take up temporary work. If I had a patron or a master I wouldn't need to fend for myself, but I prefer to have the risk and own my soul.

It is true that these delivery drivers will likely be able to find other employment. It's not like it was back in some of the old mill or mining towns where a single employer could make or break a community. Although it's much better than it was 100-150 years ago, and I certainly agree it's far better than slavery. So, we've made some progress since the bad old days of yesteryear, but there are many who are justifiably worried that we could be taking steps backward, which could be a problem.

I would also add a slight caveat in regards to news stories like this, since a lot of conservative economists and business leaders have been arguing and fighting tooth and nail against minimum wage increases. So, it's like they're trying to "send a message" with a veiled warning that more jobs could be lost if there's continued pressure to raise the minimum wage.

But even then, there's a trade-off. A major complaint one hears across the board from customers is the overall decline in service from the various restaurants and retail establishments they frequent. Businesses may wish to cut to the bone and pay the lowest amount possible to their employees, but then that leads to high turnover, which can compromise service, among other things. It may not be just the pay either, as there might be other factors and working conditions which can be discerned by the customer in terms of poor service. Or, as companies like Starbucks found out the hard way, a poorly-trained and/or incompetent employee can screw up so badly as to cause a major lawsuit against the company. You get what you pay for.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

It is true that these delivery drivers will likely be able to find other employment. It's not like it was back in some of the old mill or mining towns where a single employer could make or break a community. Although it's much better than it was 100-150 years ago, and I certainly agree it's far better than slavery. So, we've made some progress since the bad old days of yesteryear, but there are many who are justifiably worried that we could be taking steps backward, which could be a problem.

I would also add a slight caveat in regards to news stories like this, since a lot of conservative economists and business leaders have been arguing and fighting tooth and nail against minimum wage increases. So, it's like they're trying to "send a message" with a veiled warning that more jobs could be lost if there's continued pressure to raise the minimum wage.

But even then, there's a trade-off. A major complaint one hears across the board from customers is the overall decline in service from the various restaurants and retail establishments they frequent. Businesses may wish to cut to the bone and pay the lowest amount possible to their employees, but then that leads to high turnover, which can compromise service, among other things. It may not be just the pay either, as there might be other factors and working conditions which can be discerned by the customer in terms of poor service. Or, as companies like Starbucks found out the hard way, a poorly-trained and/or incompetent employee can screw up so badly as to cause a major lawsuit against the company. You get what you pay for.

I'm convinced they [large corporations] know they can treat people like expendable and replaceable cogs because of the mentality among workers that if you won't do it someone else will, and they know someone needs a job and will always need a job, creating an opportunity for a revolving model if employment where the company is doing fine but struggles like hell to retain anyone. It's got to be cheaper to do that or we should expect many companies to be folding. But they survive with poor employee treatmeny and high turnover.

 

[Koldo]

So no qualifications. Got it.

Companies are expected to make a profit and have sales and profit projections that are reflected in P&L statements are presented to stockholders. Failure to make those projections result in loss of jobs, and more importantly drops in stock prices which may lead to failure of companies.

As much of a shock it may be to you, companies aren't charities that are in business for the sole purpose to keep people working.

Can you elaborate how exactly a drop in stock prices results in failure of companies and loss of jobs?

 

[Stevicus]

I'm convinced they [large corporations] know they can treat people like expendable and replaceable cogs because of the mentality among workers that if you won't do it someone else will, and they know someone needs a job and will always need a job, creating an opportunity for a revolving model if employment where the company is doing fine but struggles like hell to retain anyone. It's got to be cheaper to do that or we should expect many companies to be folding. But they survive with poor employee treatmeny and high turnover.

It may be cheaper in the short run for some companies, but there have been other companies facing severe cutbacks, having to close many of their stores. Some places can't get anyone who wants to work for them, so they end up closing too. Some employers are absolutely dumbfounded. They just can't understand why no one will want to work crappy, dead-end jobs for low pay.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

That wouldn't be a bad thing if door dash will supply a feasible healthcare plan like company often times do to their contractor's.

Under prop 22 they a stipend to drivers who get x amount of active work time (I don't remember the exact hours required)(actice time as in only the time between accepting a delivery amd completing it count towards it) and don't already have insurance.
For Door Dash though it's probably not something they are worried about. Most drivers probably don't get that many hours as they're doing other things, and many of those who do likely qualify for medicaid from the state (Medi-Cal) or have are under Covered California (subsidized insurance from the state insurance market thingy).
As for Door Dash, Uber Eats and the rest, there's the issue you have to be able to stay busy to make anything, and I still stand by my belief you have to do your own maintenance and repairs to make a profit. And if you can't rake in hella tips (I never could with delivery) you'll probably be better off trying to walk and babysit people's dogs.

 

[RestlessSoul]

I'm convinced they [large corporations] know they can treat people like expendable and replaceable cogs because of the mentality among workers that if you won't do it someone else will, and they know someone needs a job and will always need a job, creating an opportunity for a revolving model if employment where the company is doing fine but struggles like hell to retain anyone. It's got to be cheaper to do that or we should expect many companies to be folding. But they survive with poor employee treatmeny and high turnover.

Those businesses which genuinely care about their customers and their employees can be expected to offer a better service and a better product, than their rush-to-the-bottom competitors. The question then becomes, How much of a premium are customers willing to pay for quality? If a business' customers are themselves in insecure low paid jobs, they probably can't afford to. That's what happens when you replace decent secure jobs with low paid low skill bogus self employment; everybody loses.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Under prop 22 they a stipend to drivers who get x amount of active work time (I don't remember the exact hours required)(actice time as in only the time between accepting a delivery amd completing it count towards it) and don't already have insurance.
For Door Dash though it's probably not something they are worried about. Most drivers probably don't get that many hours as they're doing other things, and many of those who do likely qualify for medicaid from the state (Medi-Cal) or have are under Covered California (subsidized insurance from the state insurance market thingy).
As for Door Dash, Uber Eats and the rest, there's the issue you have to be able to stay busy to make anything, and I still stand by my belief you have to do your own maintenance and repairs to make a profit. And if you can't rake in hella tips (I never could with delivery) you'll probably be better off trying to walk and babysit people's dogs.

That's informative. Thanks.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Can you elaborate how exactly a drop in stock prices results in failure of companies and loss of jobs?

Basic economics. A company's value is reflected by its stock value. As stock prices continue to drop, they can go to zero close to zero, resulting in the company have no value, and companies will end up in Chapter 11 bankruptcy (reorganization) or Chapter 7 bankruptcy (liquidation).

 

[SalixIncendium]

And how well is that working for our economy and society anf workers?
Stakeholders need knocked down many pegs and rungs and notches and acceot they aren't gods to obey and please.

You know you're free to start your own company and employ your own workers, yes?

People can be outraged and whine all day on an Internet forum about how uncaring and mean shareholders and big businesses are, but how many of you are actually doing anything about it?

 

[Koldo]

Basic economics. A company's value is reflected by its stock value. As stock prices continue to drop, they can go to zero close to zero, resulting in the company have no value, and companies will end up in Chapter 11 bankruptcy (reorganization) or Chapter 7 bankruptcy (liquidation).

Wouldn't that happen strictly due to debt rather than stock prices though?

 

[SalixIncendium]

Wouldn't that happen strictly due to debt rather than stock prices though?

Yes. And debt is inversely proportional to stock prices.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Another thing that I'm not sure everyone here understands...

6.8 billion dollars in revenue.

Revenue is not profit. Revenue is gross sales, from which every business expense comes out of...COGS: product cost, labor, marketing, rent, etc. are taken from this.

So 6.8 billion dollars in revenue means nothing without understanding a company's expenses.

 

[PureX]

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.

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.

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

MSN

The funny thing is that it's the management forcing the workers to strike, effectively. Which will only hurt their own profit margins and punish their investors. How stupid is that?

 

[PureX]

If they can't pay their workers a decent wage they deserve to go under.

THIS!

 

[Debater Slayer]

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.

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.

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

MSN

Corporations generally aim to maximize profit and minimize expenses, so it doesn't surprise me that Pizza Hut did this when it could do without the drivers. After all, many corporations seem to view employees as more or less just another item on the list of assets.

I don't like how some countries and companies aim for continual growth (which, in many cases, is unsustainable and leads to highly exploitative and abusive policies), but this is a problem that is far larger than Pizza Hut. I don't think it makes much sense to focus on one corporation or expect it to operate in a charitable manner when it is not legally bound to do so. Corporations generally try to make as much profit as rules and regulations will let them get away with, for better or worse (and sometimes beyond those as well, if they can bend the rules).

 

[Heyo]

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.

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.

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

MSN

It will probably cost them some business but my guess is that they are willing to take one for the team (team unrestricted capitalism). Minimum wage is a bane for every greedy company and this is just a demonstration of displeasure with it.

 

[Koldo]

Yes. And debt is inversely proportional to stock prices.

That doesn't sound quite accurate. Stock prices may be very low even in the absence of debt. If a company's stock prices go down due to it paying better wages, but without drowning the company into debt, how does that generate loss of jobs per se?

 

[Koldo]

Another thing that I'm not sure everyone here understands...

Revenue is not profit. Revenue is gross sales, from which every business expense comes out of...COGS: product cost, labor, marketing, rent, etc. are taken from this.

So 6.8 billion dollars in revenue means nothing without understanding a company's expenses.

Literally the only reason I haven't criticized Pizza Hut... yet.

 

[SalixIncendium]

That doesn't sound quite accurate. Stock prices may be very low even in the absence of debt. If a company's stock prices go down due to it paying better wages, but without drowning the company into debt, how does that generate loss of jobs per se?

I was speaking as a general rule.

Why would a company's stock prices go down due to paying better wages?