Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Enter Search Term. Use arrows to navigate between autocomplete results. If no results appear, use Enter to do a full site search.
Forum Closure ×
Canucks Community
Forum Closure

Tim Hortons Heirs Cut Paid Breaks and Benefits After Minimum Wage Hike

nucklehead

By nucklehead
in Off-Topic General

Recommended Posts

RUPERTKBD Canucks Hall-of-Famer

RUPERTKBD

Posted
Posted

It's an online poll on the main page of MSN so take it FWIW, but I was surprised (and disappointed) to see that when people were asked if they'd pay higher prices to support a minimum wage increase, the result was a "No" from 53% of respondents.

 

I'd happily pay an extra dime, or quarter for my coffee. In fact, I don't have the foggiest idea of what it costs anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheOgRook Canucks Regular

TheOgRook

Posted
Posted
22 minutes ago, RUPERTKBD said:

It's an online poll on the main page of MSN so take it FWIW, but I was surprised (and disappointed) to see that when people were asked if they'd pay higher prices to support a minimum wage increase, the result was a "No" from 53% of respondents.

 

I'd happily pay an extra dime, or quarter for my coffee. In fact, I don't have the foggiest idea of what it costs anyway.

You don't want to know my friend.  Selling coffee is like owning a money printing machine. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kragar Canucks First-Line

Kragar

Posted
Posted
11 hours ago, Ryan Strome said:

I think the constant line up speaks for itself. Keep in mind this isn't Tim Hortons it's some franchisee in Ontario. I'm certain they can pay their staff they're just being greedy. 

 

I understand @Kragars argument however these people have had ample notice of this coming. I realize they can't unilaterally raise the prices of goods at their restaurant but they make huge money running a timmies like @SabreFan1 pointed out.

Perhaps.  Until there is some idea of what the owners make, we can't say whether they are being greedy or are struggling or whatever else the situation is.  To say they are being greedy, then they would have to be pulling in a fair bit more than $250K in personal income per store year.  One thing to consider: when full sized stores are worth around a million (or more), there's also the opportunity cost.  As an owner, if you lose $250K per year, and (as an example... I have no idea what they make) are only making 150K per year from a store, I can imagine many owners not thinking it is worth it.  They can invest their million elsewhere, with less risk, hassle and effort.  Some may be willing to continue and keep the store open, because they are better corporate citizens, but many won't.  

 

Not sure so much what knowing ahead of time can do.  There are limits on what they can do to alter their income and expenses.  Raising prices is obviously an easy way to increase revenue, and cutting benefits is an easy way to cut costs.  Doing either of them has consequences, of course, but it's at least a place to start.  In this case, perhaps they could have given more warning, but maybe all that would have done was started the boycott sooner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
kingofsurrey Canucks Franchise Player

kingofsurrey

Posted
Posted
35 minutes ago, Kragar said:

Perhaps.  Until there is some idea of what the owners make, we can't say whether they are being greedy or are struggling or whatever else the situation is.  To say they are being greedy, then they would have to be pulling in a fair bit more than $250K in personal income per store year.  One thing to consider: when full sized stores are worth around a million (or more), there's also the opportunity cost.  As an owner, if you lose $250K per year, and (as an example... I have no idea what they make) are only making 150K per year from a store, I can imagine many owners not thinking it is worth it.  They can invest their million elsewhere, with less risk, hassle and effort.  Some may be willing to continue and keep the store open, because they are better corporate citizens, but many won't.  

 

Not sure so much what knowing ahead of time can do.  There are limits on what they can do to alter their income and expenses.  Raising prices is obviously an easy way to increase revenue, and cutting benefits is an easy way to cut costs.  Doing either of them has consequences, of course, but it's at least a place to start.  In this case, perhaps they could have given more warning, but maybe all that would have done was started the boycott sooner.

Is a business is not profitable when running paying a fair living wage, then it is best if that business closes.

 

That will create a new opportunity for another business to start up that offers a product  / price structure that makes sense and is profitable to run paying a living wage to its employees.

 

If Tims can't run by paying the new minimum wage  then too bad so sad.  Thanks for the memories. Next......

 

Personally, i hope that starbucks  buys their locations.  Better product.  Better coffeshop environment.....  Better consumer experience...  =    Better business model. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SabreFan1 Canucks All-Star

SabreFan1

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Ryan Strome said:

Probably because I should have wrote 

couldn't care less?

I'll give you a pass on the "should have wrote".  Only because I've murdered the English language myself plenty of times, especially when I post tired. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ForsbergTheGreat Canucks Franchise Player

ForsbergTheGreat

Posted
Posted
13 hours ago, Ryan Strome said:

I think the constant line up speaks for itself. Keep in mind this isn't Tim Hortons it's some franchisee in Ontario. I'm certain they can pay their staff they're just being greedy. 

But who cares if they have outside money, if you had a rich uncle who gave you a ton a money in his will should have mean you should care less about making a profit in your business. If you ran a business and you were going to take a 46% hit on your gross income, without seeing a 46% growth in profit you’d probably not be too happy.  It’s still a job they do, a business they run, I’m can’t imagine it just being a side hobby they enjoy. They still expect to get value for their work and that value is based on what the market determine to.  The gov’t coming in and setting a wage price hinders the market from working the way it’s meant to. 

 

If you want to get paid more than minimum wage then develop a skillset that makes you more valuable, the more important you are to a business’s success the more you will get paid.  If you don’t feel you’re getting paid for what value you believe you bring, there are plenty of others companies out there that will.  Life isn’t about equality, striving for equality only takes away freedoms.  Life if about economical fairness (not emotional fairness) the more you bring to the table to the more you get to take home. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kragar Canucks First-Line

Kragar

Posted
Posted
17 minutes ago, kingofsurrey said:

Is a business is not profitable when running paying a fair living wage, then it is best if that business closes.

 

That will create a new opportunity for another business to start up that offers a product  / price structure that makes sense and is profitable to run paying a living wage to its employees.

 

If Tims can't run by paying the new minimum wage  then too bad so sad.  Thanks for the memories. Next......

 

Personally, i hope that starbucks  buys their locations.  Better product.  Better coffeshop environment.....  Better consumer experience...  =    Better business model. 

Imagine you are on a roadtrip.  Driving along, you decide it is time to stop for dinner, in some town you've never been to before.

 

When you pull off the freeway, you see your favorite gas company's station.  You see the advertised price, and figure, yeah, I'll stop there on the way back to the freeway to fill up.  You continue to drive along, and you find a restaurant that appeals to you.  Next to the restaurant is another gas station.  Same company as before, but their price is 10 cents per litre cheaper.

 

What gas station do you fill up at?  Same service, same product.

 

You have no idea about each station's finances.  Is the one right by the freeway gouging travelers?  Does the cheaper place run smarter hours, so their costs are lower?  Does one place pay higher rent than the other?  Do they pay the same wage?  Is one run by a family, so wages aren't part of the equation?

 

Most of the time, you are going to pay less for your gas.  More importantly, so is nearly everyone else that knows about both stations.

 

The vast majority of people doing min-wage work are not doing so to fully support themselves.  Most of them, are 2nd or 3rd income. 

 

Now, apply the logic to the above example to labor.  Why, when these employees are doing something plenty of other people are doing, and willing to do at min-wage, should they get paid more?

 

I agree with you that there are benefits to having people earn more.  But, when wages are increased by outside, arbitrary forces like government, it messes with the natural order of supply and demand.  If people feel they are being paid unfairly, do something about it.  Go on strike, negotiate better pay, increase their skills and value to their employer (or, another one).  Min wage laws are not the answer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ForsbergTheGreat Canucks Franchise Player

ForsbergTheGreat

Posted
Posted
37 minutes ago, kingofsurrey said:

Is a business is not profitable when running paying a fair living wage, then it is best if that business closes.

Why is it the responsibility of the business to make sure it’s enough income for people to live.  Isnt it the individuals own responsibility to ensure they have enough income to survive?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
kingofsurrey Canucks Franchise Player

kingofsurrey

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

Why is it the responsibility of the business to make sure it’s enough income for people to live.  Isnt it the individuals own responsibility to ensure they have enough income to survive?  

Government needs to have laws in place to stop the exploitation of societies more vulnerable citizens.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...