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

[Revoltingest]

Could you elaborate on what this means?

There's discrimination against fat women (IMO).
This means that for a given wage, I can hire fat
women who are more qualified on average.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

They need to stay profitable, so if government
changes the environment, they'll respond
accordingly.

I just gave a non-government involved solution that some businesses are starting to utilize, amd that is assessing skills as a part of the application process. And, unremarkably, employers doing that are finding they're overall hiring better workers with thatbit of information added to the overall selection processes.

It can be difficult to pay enuf to attract workers
who perform well enuf to be profitable.
Ya canna just retain people who cost more than
they're economic value. That's not sustainable.

Sounds like a problem for the system amd those who do business without being able to afford tye cost of business. I'm not too fond of my tax dollars making up the difference with employers who pay wages so crappy that we end up subsidizing the difference so the worker can put food on the table. It's even less tolerable when we add in the fact executive pay is rocketing. My taxes should be going towards the disabled and school, not a class of working poor who work and do what they're supposed to but can't make it anyways. Employers need to pay better.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

There's discrimination against fat women (IMO).
This means that for a given wage, I can hire fat
women who are more qualified on average.

How are they more qualified though? You mentioned rejection in the previous post, how does that play into it?

 

[Revoltingest]

I just gave a non-government involved solution that some businesses are starting to utilize, amd that is assessing skills as a part of the application process.

That actually already happens, but not at every company.
Even at lower level jobs.
But apparently not ones you've been involved with.

And, unremarkably, employers doing that are finding they're overall hiring better workers with thatbit of information added to the overall selection processes.


Sounds like a problem for the system amd those who do business without being able to afford tye cost of business. I'm not too fond of my tax dollars making up the difference with employers who pay wages so crappy that we end up subsidizing the difference so the worker can put food on the table. It's even less tolerable when we add in the fact executive pay is rocketing. My taxes should be going towards the disabled and school, not a class of working poor who work and do what they're supposed to but can't make it anyways. Employers need to pay better.

For workers who don't produce enuf to justify
their cost to employers, someone will have to
pay for the subsidy. No matter how you structure
it, taxpayers will foot that bill.
Are you willing to hire people who cost you
more than they earn you?

 

[Revoltingest]

How are they more qualified though? You mentioned rejection in the previous post, how does that play into it?

I've hired people with different levels of various qualities.
Intelligence.
Diligence.
Ethics.
Knowledge.
More of those qualities means more qualified.
Less means rejection.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

That actually already happens, but not at every company.

Yeah. I said that.

Even at lower level jobs.
But apparently not ones you've been involved with.

No. It's not a very common practice.

For workers who don't produce enuf to justify
their cost to employers, someone will have to
pay for the subsidy.

Then do things differently than expecting the tax payer to make up the difference.

Are you willing to hire people who cost you
more than they earn you?

That's a rather silly question. About as silly as it being a norm for tax payers to subsidize people's wages.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I've hired people with different levels of various qualities.
Intelligence.
Diligence.
Ethics.
Knowledge.
More of those qualities means more qualified.
Less means rejection.

How does does being a fat girl correlate to being qualified?

 

[Revoltingest]

How does any of that correlate to being fat?

I said there's discrimination against fat women.
Not that there's a correlation.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I said there's discrimination against fat women.
Not that there's a correlation.

This is what you said.

My company had a reputation for hiring "fat girls".
Why?
For a given wage level, they tended to be more
qualified because of (IMO) rejection by others.

What does that mean? How are they more qualified? Why are they more qualified? What does rejection by others have to do with it?

 

[Revoltingest]

No. It's not a very common practice.

In your limited experience.

Then do things differently than expecting the tax payer to make up the difference.

Businesses are many & diverse. They're run with
different philosophies, by different people, with
different levels of competence. You're saying they
should all just do things differently...better...to
achieve your goals. But that's naive.
If you ever run a business, & employ people,
you'll find that you can't afford to hire workers
who cost more than they produce.

That's a rather silly question.

It's serious.
Put yourself in the position of running a business.
Understand what happens if you pay based upon
need/want rather than productivity. That's not
sustainable.

About as silly as it being a norm for tax payers to subsidize people's wages.

The social safety net should be available to all
in need....not just those who have jobs in the
private sector. Expecting business to be the
singular welfare provider for unproductive
workers is unrealistic.
Taxpayers must step up to provide for those
unable to support themselves.

 

[Revoltingest]

This is what you said.

What does that mean? How are they more qualified? Why are they more qualified? What does rejection by others have to do with it?

This is hard to explain.
Because they're discriminated against, then
for a given level of quality, they tend to be
offered lower wages in the market.
I took advantage of the discount, since their
being fat was no problem for me.

As with all workers, some were stars, & others
had to get the boot. When hiring, ya can't
know for certain which will be which.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

This is hard to explain.
Because they're discriminated against, then
for a given level of quality, they tend to be
offered lower wages in the market.
I took advantage of the discount, since their
being fat was no problem for me.

As with all workers, some were stars, & others
had to get the boot. When hiring, ya can't
know for certain which will be which.

So they're cheap labor?

 

[Watchmen]

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

They have a duty to their shareholders and California is artificially and drastically increasing the minimum wage for such workers to $20/hour rather than let the market dictate. California saw fit to impose this minimum wage on national restaurant chains but not others. Curious, don’t you think? Also, every job is worth a certain amount. Obviously, Pizza Hut believes $20/hr is excessive for someone delivering pizza. I tend to agree, and it’s their prerogative.

 

[Heyo]

For workers who don't produce enuf to justify
their cost to employers, someone will have to
pay for the subsidy. No matter how you structure
it, taxpayers will foot that bill.
Are you willing to hire people who cost you
more than they earn you?

You see the blame with the workers "who don't produce enuf to justify their cost to employers".
I see an employer who offers a product at a price that isn't economically viable. He gets a state subsidy (the state pays for his workers he can't pay with the revenue of the product). With this subsidy he is also outcompeting other businesses which have a sound price calculation.
That's communism. (I.e. it is the same planned economy as in most socialist/communist countries who keep prices for basic need items artificially low by subsidising them.)
People are happy because prices are low, not realising that they are paying by their taxes.

 

[Heyo]

So they're cheap labor?

See it this way:
There is a pool of workers with different levels of skills.
Those with high skills in all categories (including interpersonal skills and looks) get hired by the best paying companies.
In the remaining pool are those who lack job skills or interpersonal skills/looks.
Those with interpersonal skills/looks have been rejected because of lack of job skills.
Those without still have a percentage who were only rejected because of lack of interpersonal skills/look.

It's the same for autists and ugly/fat girls.

 

[RestlessSoul]

There's discrimination against fat women (IMO).
This means that for a given wage, I can hire fat
women who are more qualified on average.

Or you could treat all your employees with dignity and respect, and pay them a wage which reflects the value of their labour. And since you wouldn't be hiring if you weren't looking to profit yourself from that labour, we can reasonably assume that it's value to you is quite high.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Those with high skills in all categories (including interpersonal skills and looks) get hired by the best paying companies.

I was just now thinking of how I like the Madonna song Material Girl, but actually hate it and angers ever fiber and nerve amd atom of my existence because I know it's right. It's the world we live in. In it's not being a good person or love thy neighbor or any other idealistic garbage, it's hot *****es and the rich playboys who can afford them and pay for all the disposable, garbage bull**** for them.

 

[Revoltingest]

So they're cheap labor?

That's what you get from my posts?
Geeze, Louise. No one is cheap.
But for a given wage, some workers tend to be better than others.

 

[Koldo]

That is the better solution than to expect individual
businesses to act as parents who subsidize the
unproductive.

But either the owner of those businesses or the business themselves will be the ones to subsize the unproductive through taxes since they are the ones that have the money.

 

[Revoltingest]

You see the blame with the workers "who don't produce enuf to justify their cost to employers".

"Blame" is the wrong inference.
Goodness...you guys see too many things as judging
people morally. Instead, it's about their different
levels of productivity.
However, I do morally judge those who steal.
I've had my share of those employees.
They wreck their lives by their own hand.

I see an employer who offers a product at a price that isn't economically viable. He gets a state subsidy (the state pays for his workers he can't pay with the revenue of the product).

The business doesn't get the subsidy. Nay, the
business subsidizes employees with payroll taxes,
& usually other bennies, eg, health insurance.
For employees unable to earn enuf for the lifestyle
they want, voters have the state step in to assist.

That's communism.

Have you become one of those wild eyed right
wingers who uses "commie" as a broad epithet?
Let me help...

Dictionary.com | Meanings & Definitions of English Words

The world's leading online dictionary: English definitions, synonyms, word origins, example sentences, word games, and more. A trusted authority for 25+ years!

www.dictionary.com

It's not communism.
It's not even socialism.

Dictionary.com | Meanings & Definitions of English Words

The world's leading online dictionary: English definitions, synonyms, word origins, example sentences, word games, and more. A trusted authority for 25+ years!

www.dictionary.com

People are happy because prices are low, not realising that they are paying by their taxes.

You'll pay for goods, services, & employee largesse
one way or another. It'll either by by prices, taxes,
or a reduction in value received.