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

[9-10ths_Penguin]

This is quite short-sighted - and, IMV

• How many people can now make a living because of someone who worked hard enough to have 700,000 to invest?
• If, like in some cities, things change and they have to close, who looses the $700,000?
• Should the employees of that franchise reap all the benefits and not suffer in the potential losses?
• Should the employee that did not sacrifice anything to make the business run and knows that most likely won’t make it his/her career, is only there to make money until a better opportunity arrises or completes their education to go into that field, somehow be recompensed in such a degree that the investor has to bear all the brunt of the employees desires? (most pizza-hut employees move on to better pastures in under 3 years. It is the employer that assumes all the cost of training.
• Like Chick-fil-A, most workers are young people in transition (a common occurrence for fast foods) - live at the parents home and is trying to make extra money - they are part-time employees
• Full-time, corporate, and management roles are eligible for comprehensive health, dental, and vision insurance packages, as well as 401(k) retirement plans and access to a health savings account or flexible spending account.
• Pizza hut offers educational benefits and a pathway to success.

I couldn’t find the median age.

To me, it doesn’t sound like money hungry capitalists but rather capitalists with a heart rewarding those who want a future in that business and helping those who know they will be only there for a short time.

Like I mentioned in my reply to @ImmortalFlame a few posts back, this isn't really about the minimum wage. It isn't even about the number of people employed; I'll guess that the number of FTEs working to deliver pizza for Pizza Hut won't change that much with their outsourcing.

The difference is in that the rules for app-based delivery services allow employers to do things that traditional employers would never be allowed to do because they're unfair labour practices, like refusing to pay drivers for standby time.

And the whole point of this outsourcing these "capitalists with a heart" are doing is to take away those benefits you listed from their delivery drivers.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

More specific answers to your questions:

This is quite short-sighted - and, IMV

• How many people can now make a living because of someone who worked hard enough to have 700,000 to invest?

If their wages are so low that they still qualify for social assistance, they aren't "making a living."

• If, like in some cities, things change and they have to close, who looses the $700,000?

It wouldn't be the full $700,000; the business would have assets that would be liquidated in the event of full-on closure.

That being said, the business owner is the one who gets both the profit and loss of the overall business.

• Should the employees of that franchise reap all the benefits and not suffer in the potential losses?

Yes. The business owner is the one who takes on the risk with the expectation of return on their investment.

If the employees aren't sharing in the return, they shouldn't share in the risk.

• Should the employee that did not sacrifice anything to make the business run and knows that most likely won’t make it his/her career, is only there to make money until a better opportunity arrises or completes their education to go into that field, somehow be recompensed in such a degree that the investor has to bear all the brunt of the employees desires? (most pizza-hut employees move on to better pastures in under 3 years. It is the employer that assumes all the cost of training.

The workers should be compensated based on the value of their labour. The financial circumstances of the business owner doesn't change this value.

• Like Chick-fil-A, most workers are young people in transition (a common occurrence for fast foods) - live at the parents home and is trying to make extra money - they are part-time employees

Their living situation doesn't change the value of their labour.

• Full-time, corporate, and management roles are eligible for comprehensive health, dental, and vision insurance packages, as well as 401(k) retirement plans and access to a health savings account or flexible spending account.
• Pizza hut offers educational benefits and a pathway to success.

Yes: compensation, including benefits, is an important part of attracting and retraining staff. This serves the overall goal of business profitability.

I couldn’t find the median age.

To me, it doesn’t sound like money hungry capitalists but rather capitalists with a heart rewarding those who want a future in that business and helping those who know they will be only there for a short time.

It sounds to me like a business has decided on the balance between compensation to retain staff vs. higher costs associated with staff turnover that works for them.

 

[metis]

I'm strongly in favor of labor unions and generally rising minimum wage, especially since CEO's and investors are on the average earning a higher percent of profits than ever before here in the States.

BTW, it seems to me that a person who truly believes in Jesus would support this as he persistently appealed that we need to do more help the poor.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I had a boss once who was a cold-blooded capitalist. I liked him very much. He never told me how or when to do my work. He was happy as long as he got his share.

I do prefer bosses who leave me alone to do my work.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

"Rags" can simply mean building from
scratch, as opposed to silver spoon
billionaires like Trump.

Bill Gates came from wealth though. No, he didn't have everything handed to him like Trump, and he actually did make a successful company (thanks to Jobs doing the real hard work), but that's not rags to riches. That's riches to ultra riches.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I'm strongly in favor of labor unions and generally rising minimum wage, especially since CEO's and investors are on the average earning a higher percent of profits than ever before here in the States.

BTW, it seems to me that a person who truly believes in Jesus would support this as he persistently appealed that we need to do more help the poor.

Yup. Amd while people love to dog on the poor, what do those executives actually do other than taking more and more millions of dollars while worker wages stagnant as buying power of the dollar declines?
Ship them all off and lets have mom n pop shops flourish and prosper again.

 

[Revoltingest]

Bill Gates came from wealth though. No, he didn't have everything handed to him like Trump, and he actually did make a successful company (thanks to Jobs doing the real hard work), but that's not rags to riches. That's riches to ultra riches.

Bill Gates didn't have family wealth create Microsoft.
So it's reasonable to include it in "rags to riches".
Tom Monaghan is a stricter example, having
emerged from an orphanage with nothing but
a loony brother.
The larger point is that many companies exist
only because some individual made them happen.
Underlings, financiers, & existing infrastructure
were useful, but they create nothing without a
prime mover blazing the path.

 

[Valjean]

I do prefer bosses who leave me alone to do my work.

I suspect employees who need leaders or bosses are likely incompetent. If they know their jobs and are willing to work, what leadership would they need?
I could say the same thing about political 'leaders'.
In a democracy The People should be leading themselves, and making their own decisions.
In either case, organizers or coördinators may be necessary, but following "leaders" is a dangerous abdication of personal responsibility.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Everybody I know who does this do it as a second job. If you're doing this as your main job, get another job.

Second job/main job isn't the issue. It's demanding someone use a service that pays very little to its workers and in most situations is unsustainable. Even if it's a second job, if you're only pulling in a few bucks an hour after expenses it's not worth it. And most of America just isn't big enough to make it worth your time. Too many drivers in an area can also hurt. And, again, you have to rake in tips and a lot of people don't tip.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The larger point is that many companies exist
only because some individual made them happen.
Underlings, financiers, & existing infrastructure
were useful, but they create nothing without a
prime mover blazing the path.

Companies generally exist because many people. The "prime mover" gets nothing without those others.

 

[Revoltingest]

Companies generally exist because many people. The "prime mover" gets nothing without those others.

One might infer that 1 person as prime
mover is worth thousands of workers.
Or that no company ever needed Steve
Jobs, Henry Ford, etc because the workers
created the company for them.

 

[Kenny]

Like I mentioned in my reply to @ImmortalFlame a few posts back, this isn't really about the minimum wage. It isn't even about the number of people employed; I'll guess that the number of FTEs working to deliver pizza for Pizza Hut won't change that much with their outsourcing.

The difference is in that the rules for app-based delivery services allow employers to do things that traditional employers would never be allowed to do because they're unfair labour practices, like refusing to pay drivers for standby time.

And the whole point of this outsourcing these "capitalists with a heart" are doing is to take away those benefits you listed from their delivery drivers.

The problem with this position is that one forgets that the person who delivers also receives tips. So, though minimum wage as a minimum, the maximum can be quite lucrative, thanks to “capitalists with a heart”.

 

[Kenny]

More specific answers to your questions:



If their wages are so low that they still qualify for social assistance, they aren't "making a living."

I think one needs a more comprehensive investigation on these particulars.

I have many people in our church that get social assistance and don’t want to earn more because it will stop their assistance. The fact that many choose Pizza Hut as a career (as do those in Chick-Fil-A) gives credence that it is a good place to work at.

It wouldn't be the full $700,000; the business would have assets that would be liquidated in the event of full-on closure.

Correct! So it is understandable that the one who has the most to risk should have just recompense

That being said, the business owner is the one who gets both the profit and loss of the overall business.

Correct! So it is understandable that the one who has the most to risk should have just recompense

Yes. The business owner is the one who takes on the risk with the expectation of return on their investment.

If the employees aren't sharing in the return, they shouldn't share in the risk.

And they don’t.

The workers should be compensated based on the value of their labour. The financial circumstances of the business owner doesn't change this value.

That is true. And not only do full-time employees get their wages, but are offered profit sharing, tuition helps and growth. Not a bad deal

Their living situation doesn't change the value of their labour.

True.

Yes: compensation, including benefits, is an important part of attracting and retraining staff. This serves the overall goal of business profitability.

True… and, imv, they do a good job of that

It sounds to me like a business has decided on the balance between compensation to retain staff vs. higher costs associated with staff turnover that works for them.

That is a subjective position as “why someone works there” has to be factored in. When my grandchildren worked for Chick-Fil-A - it wasn’t because there were thinking of making it a career.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Correct! So it is understandable that the one who has the most to risk should have just recompense

Not when it means short-changing their workers. "The worker deserves his wages" - I think I read that in a book somewhere.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

One might infer that 1 person as prime
mover is worth thousands of workers.
Or that no company ever needed Steve
Jobs, Henry Ford, etc because the workers
created the company for them.

It's called a group effort.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That is a subjective position as “why someone works there” has to be factored in. When my grandchildren worked for Chick-Fil-A - it wasn’t because there were thinking of making it a career.

Why do you keep devaluing your grandchildren?

 

[Revoltingest]

It's called a group effort.

Without the leader, the group
is just a feckless crowd.

 

[Kenny]

Not when it means short-changing their workers. "The worker deserves his wages" - I think I read that in a book somewhere.

Correct! Now we have to determine was work and what wages unless you want to pay the doctor the same amount as a driver who delivers pizza.

 

[Kenny]

Why do you keep devaluing your grandchildren?

Au contraire, mon ami! It is a great experience to understand the value of work, motivation to go beyond minimum wage because of one’s potential, the value of understanding authority, customer service, and more - intangibles that are without price. (not to mention that what they earn is basically ‘net’ because thee is no lodging or meals that have to be paid for. My grandchildren have thousands of dollars save and they aren’t even at the age of ‘full-time’ employment. They have learned to not spend all their money!

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Au contraire, mon ami! It is a great experience to understand the value of work, motivation to go beyond minimum wage because of one’s potential, the value of understanding authority, customer service, and more - intangibles that are without price.

Dude. You're literally devaluing them: arguing that their employer shouldn't pay them a reasonable wage. Why?

Do you think their labour isn't worth at least $16/h to their employer?

(not to mention that what they earn is basically ‘net’ because thee is no lodging or meals that have to be paid for.

And how do the childrens' parents feel about subsidizing Chick-fil-A?

The arrangement you describe sounds a lot like a kid's lemonade stand, where the kids grab "free" sugar and lemons from the kitchen, except the "kid" getting the freebies is a Chick-fil-A franchisee.

My grandchildren have thousands of dollars save and they aren’t even at the age of ‘full-time’ employment. They have learned to not spend all their money!

And one of my roommates in university saved up not only a few thousand but over $100,000 for school by working in a fish & chip shop through high school and not spending any of it. I guess this is the difference that strong minimum wage laws can have.

It seems strange that a grandfather would be so dismissive of the value of his grandchildren's labour.

My roommate got all the benefits your grandchildren got plus the satisfaction of paying for all of his university tuition and expenses himself. Odd that you would be okay with this opportunity being denied to your own family.