Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

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


nucklehead

Recommended Posts

One step closer to Totalitarian rule; Forcing economic rules on the people. 

 

It’s easy to denounce the economics of minimum wage hike myth, but even easier to deduce that this is yet another example of how the Left continues to make empathetic decisions over business decisions. The feel-good story of a higher, standard minimum wage was not predicated on economics, it was based on emotions, or morality, as the Left would rather say. 

 

We are voting a slow decent into Socialism. Bye-bye, economic freedom and fair trade principles. Bye-bye open-market competitiveness. Welcome, Walmart. 

 

The average Canadian must be entirely illiterate to misunderstand basic economic principles to the point of attempting to adjust the minimum wage inorder to give workers more earnings. More earnings means more money to spend on rent or food, etc., so up goes the prices of what they consume, in part to pay for the artificial wage increase at local businesses and services.

 

The free market simply adjusts to survive and find the profit margins in a closed system where only one variable change. Ratios of the margins stay the same. The only change is the temporary illusion of the effected people who benefit and the employers who have had the government decide how they do business. Sound familiar? It’s Socialism, the enemy of self-determination, free will and competition among the people. 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2018-01-03 at 9:52 PM, luckylager said:

I worked over a dozen different "food and beverage" jobs back in the day. I think one, maybe two places actually paid you for breaks. 

You know, the time you're not actually WORKING.

 

There's no legal requirement to pay people for time they're not working.

Happy employees, usually mean you get better work from your staff. There may not be a requirement by the Employment Standard's Act of BC, but every place I've worked be it retail, restaurants, or my current job paid for coffee breaks. As the saying goes, pay peanuts, don't be surprised if you get monkeys. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Ghostsof1915 said:

Happy employees, usually mean you get better work from your staff. There may not be a requirement by the Employment Standard's Act of BC, but every place I've worked be it retail, restaurants, or my current job paid for coffee breaks. As the saying goes, pay peanuts, don't be surprised if you get monkeys. 

I was talking about lunch breaks. I've never had an employer that didn't allow / pay for coffee and smoke breaks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Ghostsof1915 said:

Happy employees, usually mean you get better work from your staff. There may not be a requirement by the Employment Standard's Act of BC, but every place I've worked be it retail, restaurants, or my current job paid for coffee breaks. As the saying goes, pay peanuts, don't be surprised if you get monkeys. 

I've read into it a little more since my original comment, my opinion on unpaid lunch breaks hasn't changed however, employees are losing some of their health and insurance benefits.

 

Brutal and totally uncalled for. Those Timmy Ho's owners are total jerks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, gurn said:

?

Fair question, I suppose.

I don’t like doing the leg-work on here to write out a connect-the-dots for people to formulate opinions from and so I leave things for readers to work out for themselves. 

 

Who else can can afford to employ mass amounts of minimum wage earners, but the giants who sell us Made in China goods. (Another topic)? What we’ve seen from those type of employers is that workers do not get their 40h work weeks and the employers consequently avoid paying out full-time benefits. The little guys out there have their own challenges and are bought-up by small chains who are bought-up by conglomerates who... it’s not like we are new to it. Even Sears and Zellers have bowed to Walmart. 

 

Regardless of the antics which the giants rely on to turn a buck off of their employees, the cash flow ratio stays the same for the workers, unless their hours are suddenly cut below the benefits entitlement threshold. Then they are in worse shape than they were before the magic trick of free money/wage hike was implemented by government. 

 

My point was twofold. One, more earnings means more money to spend, means costs go up in a fixed ratio. Two, expect more Walmarts to buy up employers who sell to franchises, etc. This result is Capitalism, ruled by the government, aka, Socialism. 

 

Big Business loves this concept and the their supposed enemy, the !eft, can’t seem to figure anything past inducing their endocrine system and their emotions when it comes to looking past their Starbucks coffee on the issue. It’s astounding just how shortsighted the Left is on this. Watch the rent go up in proportion to the wage and new boogie man for the mob to chase. It will get worse once the NDP socialists starts subsidized housing for those workers, until the tax payers predictably revolt and do what they always do to these tax-parasites and give them the boot. How quickly the people of BC have forgotten the plot of the last socialist movement. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ghostsof1915 said:

Happy employees, usually mean you get better work from your staff. There may not be a requirement by the Employment Standard's Act of BC, but every place I've worked be it retail, restaurants, or my current job paid for coffee breaks. As the saying goes, pay peanuts, don't be surprised if you get monkeys. 

Happy or entitled employees though?

Why should you be forced to pay me more and why should I be forced to take it? I’m a monkey and I know I’m only good at flipping burgers. I don’t want you to go under because I am now worth what some chefs are worth. Neither of us have a choice. 

 

I think the employer is buckling down on breaks, not necessarily taking them away. We have labour laws that define worker breaks and that isn’t under attack, correct?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, 189lb enforcers? said:

Happy or entitled employees though?

Why should you be forced to pay me more and why should I be forced to take it? I’m a monkey and I know I’m only good at flipping burgers. I don’t want you to go under because I am now worth what some chefs are worth. Neither of us have a choice. 

 

I think the employer is buckling down on breaks, not necessarily taking them away. We have labour laws that define worker breaks and that isn’t under attack, correct?

More and more people are abandoning  shopping at Tim Hortons  / Walmarts  etc  because  because of the wage / benefits package they offer attracts such a low quality of worker.    Service at these business's is of the lowest quality as well as their products.  Low quality products with LOW quality service. 

 

No thanks. 

 

If the Tim Hortons of Canada are no longer profitable and go under, that could be great news.    That will only create  jobs at other businesses that have a more intelligent business plan.   Better quality products with better quality service -  with better wages  / benefits.

 

I am happy to pay more for better products and more professional service from employees. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, luckylager said:

I've read into it a little more since my original comment, my opinion on unpaid lunch breaks hasn't changed however, employees are losing some of their health and insurance benefits.

 

Brutal and totally uncalled for. Those Timmy Ho's owners are total jerks.

10 bucks says you’re not a business owner.

No way you make that comment if it’s your money at play.

 

Business conducted at Timmy’s isn’t supposed to be a charity or a profit-sharing venture. 

 

You never struck me as the kind of guy who thought Business was only here to provide a means to suckle the rest of the population from. If it wasn’t fair and equitable, everyone would quit working there and go next door, probably not to Wendy’s, but maybe A&W and Timmy’s would either change or fold. Let the workers decide. Let’s see those decisions and how the economy adjusts on its own, as it should be!

 

The principles of freedom of choice and the spirit of capitalism are codependent and have created the best civilizations for humans to live and prosper. Minimum wage transactions have been freely negotiated since the beginning of time in these cultures. Supply and demand set the limitations on what minimum wage is and when left alone, the market adjusts itself. You want more, go get it yourself. 

 

The folks whose freedom and decision it is to make careers out of minimum wage jobs deserve their wages in our economic system. By no means should I be forced to pay for anyone else’s missing ambitions to be the business man and not the help. Equal opportunity means equal risk/reward for those who try and succeed, but that’s not true for those who expect more for less, as it goes. I think this is pretty much the baseline expectation for the people who vote Conservative, am I right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, kingofsurrey said:

More and more people are abandoning  shopping at Tim Hortons  / Walmarts  etc  because  because of the wage / benefits package they offer attracts such a low quality of worker.    Service at these business's is of the lowest quality as well as their products.  Low quality products with LOW quality service. 

 

No thanks. 

 

If the Tim Hortons of Canada are no longer profitable and go under, that could be great news.    That will only create  jobs at other businesses that have a more intelligent business plan.   Better quality products with better quality service -  with better wages  / benefits.

 

I am happy to pay more for better products and more professional service from employees. 

FTR, I’ve been in a Walmart 4 times. 

Same with Princess Auto.

Unsurprisingly, they have not closed their doors from the two of us excersising our freedom of choice - while we still have “choices” between competitors. Slowly, profit margins cause little guys to sell to big guys, until its a Walmart economy. The Left, to the astonishment of no one except themselves, are obliviously accelerating the process. 

 

In your last statements, you are exact in citing the spirit of competition and more aptly, Capitalism. 

 

These soulless conglomerates take the place of the corner or General Stores which we once had in our communities. Remember those? There is a reason they’re gone.  That’s where minimum wages were earned by students and the elderly. Now, there are all sorts of people in BC who make careers out of it and demand those small business owners, and even the taxpayers, to pay for it. 

 

We set up a sweet system way back there, in the past. Our demographics changed to the point that see folks demanding small employers pay them to make a career out of these positions. Those places are replaced by bigger ones until it is a box store at the edge of town and a vacant lot in the community. This is good for whom, exactly? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, 189lb enforcers? said:

10 bucks says you’re not a business owner.

No way you make that comment if it’s your money at play.

 

Business conducted at Timmy’s isn’t supposed to be a charity or a profit-sharing venture. 

 

You never struck me as the kind of guy who thought Business was only here to provide a means to suckle the rest of the population from. If it wasn’t fair and equitable, everyone would quit working there and go next door, probably not to Wendy’s, but maybe A&W and Timmy’s would either change or fold. Let the workers decide. Let’s see those decisions and how the economy adjusts on its own, as it should be!

 

The principles of freedom of choice and the spirit of capitalism are codependent and have created the best civilizations for humans to live and prosper. Minimum wage transactions have been freely negotiated since the beginning of time in these cultures. Supply and demand set the limitations on what minimum wage is and when left alone, the market adjusts itself. You want more, go get it yourself. 

 

The folks whose freedom and decision it is to make careers out of minimum wage jobs deserve their wages in our economic system. By no means should I be forced to pay for anyone else’s missing ambitions to be the business man and not the help. Equal opportunity means equal risk/reward for those who try and succeed, but that’s not true for those who expect more for less, as it goes. I think this is pretty much the baseline expectation for the people who vote Conservative, am I right?

The issue is renegging on Health benefits. I'm sure there are a few long time employees of that dump who are now losing their benefits. Which IMO is pretty hearless.

 

Sure, discontinue your benefits package for all new employees, but those that had the benefits prior to the min wage increase should keep theirs. $15 hr is a $&!# wage as it stands.  

 

I've been the purchasing agent for a small business for over a decade in an industry I legitimately love.

 

I guess I'm of the opinion the employer should be looking after their long term employees because I feel my employer has gone above and beyond for years, to keep me.

 

My salary goes up by about 3% yr, but bonuses are completely tied to the health and profitability of the business. Good news for me is we keep growing, yeah!

We've never had a benefits package that makes sense for the employer or employees, but we're paid very well to compensate.

Our lowest paid employees are in Shipping & Receiving, both are paid $40k/yr + a year end bonus.

10 employees, $6m in annual revenue.

 

I bet that Tim's can afford to pay their employees $15hr plus whatever pathetic benefits package they offered and keep the owners rolling in dough(nuts).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, luckylager said:

The issue is renegging on Health benefits. 

 

 

I bet that Tim's can afford to pay their employees $15hr plus whatever pathetic benefits package they offered and keep the owners rolling in dough(nuts).

I understand your position and why you have it. Sounds like quite the business venture, btw. 

 

What we both need to understand though is that there are 100 hungry people waiting for you to quit your job so they can have it, benefits or not,irrespective of how we feelz. 

 

Employers are not obligated to carry benefits for its workers unless its mutually beneficial or if the law demands it. That’s their rights. The workers have rights as well, specifically, to improve their resume and ability to attain a higher wage bracket. When the government tells people or businesses how to spend their money, you’ll see Socialism.

 

I worry that our people are too preoccupied with their own lifestyle choices to see what is around the corner for that kind of entitlement thinking. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, 189lb enforcers? said:

10 bucks says you’re not a business owner.

No way you make that comment if it’s your money at play.

 

Business conducted at Timmy’s isn’t supposed to be a charity or a profit-sharing venture. 

I don't think people understand who is effected by min wage raises.  For some reason everyone thinks it's the billionaires that are greedy and trying to suck every last dollar out of the people in poverty.  But that's not the case, the take home a franchise owner gets varies depending on the location but the average Tims store makes 1.5 million a year gross, in which the owners take home average is 250k.  The average Tims had 27 employees working and average of 32 hr per week.  That $2.6 raise adds over 110k in expenses.  Where do people think that 110k comes from?  It's not like that annual franchise fee is going down.  So really it's taking over 45% of that owners take home (before taxes), and in the end he's the one that is taking a major hit.  

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2018-01-03 at 9:15 PM, Chicken. said:

Their employees are allowed to quit if they dont like it and want to go make the same minimum wage elsewhere, shouldn't be too difficult to find a job...

If an employee doesn’t want to be taken advantage of, and abused - then get qualified for a job that your skills are much needed, and not easily replaced.  Or become your own boss, and (take the financial risks) and start your own business.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@189lb enforcers?

 

"More earnings means more money to spend on rent or food, etc., so up goes the prices of what they consume, in part to pay for the artificial wage increase at local businesses and services."

 

Is this not why many economists say that a MW increase helps fuel the economy from the bottom up? Isn't the reality that prices continue to climb each year (rent, for example), regardless of whether MW increases or not? So if prices continue to rise each year but MW does not, doesn't this mean that those at the bottom are not able to keep up (thus struggling more each year to live) and help add to the economy? Doesn't this hurt all of us in the long-run, businesses included?

 

"The folks whose freedom and decision it is to make careers out of minimum wage jobs deserve their wages in our economic system. "

 

I'm a firm believe that free will is a myth - although that is a debate for another thread, I'm sure. It's easy to make your claim, but the reality is that there countless outside variables that often take choices out of the hands of people, especially those at the bottom - e.g. life circumstances, location, ethnicity, etc.

 

Edit: @189lb enforcers?I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that the "thanks" trophy isn't a sarcastic dodge and that an actual response is soon to come :P

 

Edit #2: I guess it was a dodge. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A minimal existence,(bus,no car,etc)A livable wage indexed to inflation yearly, is what minimum wage should be..Those with a higher education can have their fancy holidays and F350's and giant house.AND can still order their $5 coffees from those that need to server it to them!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, 189lb enforcers? said:

 

Employers are not obligated to carry benefits for its workers unless its mutually beneficial or if the law demands it. That’s their rights. The workers have rights as well, specifically, to improve their resume and ability to attain a higher wage bracket. When the government tells people or businesses how to spend their money, you’ll see Socialism.

 

I worry that our people are too preoccupied with their own lifestyle choices to see what is around the corner for that kind of entitlement thinking. 

https://www.forbes.com/2011/01/19/norway-denmark-finland-business-washington-world-happiest-countries.html#3936d1f7472e

 

In Pictures: The World's Happiest Countries

 

Happiness means having opportunity--to get an education, to be an entrepreneur. What's more satisfying than having a big idea and turning it into a thriving business, knowing all the way that the harder you work, the more reward you can expect?

 

With this in mind, five years ago researchers at the Legatum Institute, a London-based nonpartisan think tank, set out to rank the happiest countries in the world. But because "happy" carries too much of a touchy-feely connotation, they call it "prosperity."

 


 

And yet joining Norway in the top 10 prosperous countries are its Scandinavian sisters Denmark, Finland and Sweden, with equally small and civilized Switzerland and the Netherlands also in the club. None of these countries are blessed with great hoards of oil and gas.

 

What else? They are all borderline socialist states, with generous welfare benefits and lots of redistribution of wealth. Yet they don't let that socialism cross the line into autocracy. Civil liberties are abundant (consider decriminalized drugs and prostitution in the Netherlands). There are few restrictions on the flow of capital or of labor. Legatum's scholars point out that Denmark, for example, has little job protection, but generous unemployment benefits. So business owners can keep the right number of workers, while workers can have a safety net while they muck around looking for that fulfilling job.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, kingofsurrey said:

https://www.forbes.com/2011/01/19/norway-denmark-finland-business-washington-world-happiest-countries.html#3936d1f7472e

 

In Pictures: The World's Happiest Countries

 

Happiness means having opportunity--to get an education, to be an entrepreneur. What's more satisfying than having a big idea and turning it into a thriving business, knowing all the way that the harder you work, the more reward you can expect?

 

With this in mind, five years ago researchers at the Legatum Institute, a London-based nonpartisan think tank, set out to rank the happiest countries in the world. But because "happy" carries too much of a touchy-feely connotation, they call it "prosperity."

 


 

And yet joining Norway in the top 10 prosperous countries are its Scandinavian sisters Denmark, Finland and Sweden, with equally small and civilized Switzerland and the Netherlands also in the club. None of these countries are blessed with great hoards of oil and gas.

 

What else? They are all borderline socialist states, with generous welfare benefits and lots of redistribution of wealth. Yet they don't let that socialism cross the line into autocracy. Civil liberties are abundant (consider decriminalized drugs and prostitution in the Netherlands). There are few restrictions on the flow of capital or of labor. Legatum's scholars point out that Denmark, for example, has little job protection, but generous unemployment benefits. So business owners can keep the right number of workers, while workers can have a safety net while they muck around looking for that fulfilling job.

And they all have small population, also I love how they list prostitution under civil liberties.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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