Workers want pay boost

[twebber55]

as always the answer is probably somewhere in the middle

 

[Tonka's Skipper]

I would like to point out the following:

1. Lots of minimum job workers are hard workers, trying to make a living. Most are indeed hard working men and woman with ethics and morals.

2. There is today little chase of advancement . Companies and unions are fast taking benefits away form the lower ranked workers and changing full time jobs to part time.

3. If they were given the better wage they maybe able to work toward a better job.

4. Companies are fast moving jobs over seas and many of us silly Americans have not figured out that by buying made in the USA the jobs they save maybe their own.

5. Lastly , I would point out we can give folks a honest living wage or they end up on welfare and we pay that. Take your choice!

AKK

 

[slappy magoo]

So, an increase in the minimum wage (topic of the thread) is designed to reward those who don't work and punish those who do?

Uh...how exactly does that work again?

Easy - just because "the world needs ditch-diggers too" doesn't mean ditch diggers deserve fair compensation because they ARE just ditches, after all. No matter how grueling or back breaking a job you do, if someone else can do it, not only should you not be able to afford food AND rent, but you should have to be forced to fight for your job in the quarry on the edge of town every Saturday night. And then Captains of Industry can televise the fights and make some big money they won't share with you.

 

[The Crafty Veteran]

In the old days of door to door sales, the man with the longest tenure was considered the crafty veteran.

Sports teams near their trading deadlines and if they are in championship contention look to acquire the crafty veteran to put them over the top.

Or, someone who has been to WDW as much as I have could consider themselves, alas, The Crafty Veteran.

I hope this clears things up for some.

 

[jaklgreen]

So, an increase in the minimum wage (topic of the thread) is designed to reward those who don't work and punish those who do?

Uh...how exactly does that work again?

I don't understand what you are saying here. Are you implying that the people who work at the jobs with a starting pay of minimum wage do not work for their money but everyone else does? My husband is a computer programmer and he works hard and gets paid a fair amount but there are plenty of times when he does not have work to do and just sits there all day messing around on the internet. I Work in food and I can tell you that I am constantly running my butt off and am lucky to be able to grab a quick bite to eat before the lunch rush starts. Do those of you who do not work food or other customer service jobs have to work on your feet rushing around all day with maybe a short 10 min break for your whole shift? Don't say I do not work and deserve money!!!!! It might not be as mentally challenging of a job then some others but do not doubt for a second that I physically work harder then most "real" jobs. And that deserves more then your disdain and the bare minimum pay. I work in this job because I put my kids first and it gives me the flexibility to be able to take them to school and be off of work when they get home. That does not make me a loser who is too lazy to get a "better" job. I do an honest days work and it helps me feed my family. So don't look down on these people like they are beneath you because they work in these jobs. If no one worked at these jobs then there would be no Disney World or McDonalds or any restaurant for that matter. Oh and it is not "punishing" anyone if these people get a better wage. If you are afraid of higher costs maybe you should look at what you do that makes companies have to raise their prices. Do you grab a ton of napkins that you do not use that have to be thrown away? Do you just have to have a "free" to go cup for some "free" water, like those don't cost the company anything. When you order your food to go to you have to have everything packaged separately so they have to use a bunch of containers? There are a lot of ways to be able to pay the employee more and not raise prices and most of them start with the consumer.

 

[slappy magoo]

I don't understand what you are saying here. Are you implying that the people who work at the jobs with a starting pay of minimum wage do not work for their money but everyone else does?

HE'S not implying that, he's implying that OTHER PEOPLE IN THIS THREAD are seemingly implying that (sometimes explicitly writing it) and he's giving it the same sort of huhwhahuh vibe you are.

 

[jaklgreen]

HE'S not implying that, he's implying that OTHER PEOPLE IN THIS THREAD are seemingly implying that (sometimes explicitly writing it) and he's giving it the same sort of huhwhahuh vibe you are.

My apologies to CDavid. My post was intended for those who look at service workers like we are a piece of gum on the bottom of their shoes.

 

[flynnibus]

Do those of you who do not work food or other customer service jobs have to work on your feet rushing around all day with maybe a short 10 min break for your whole shift? Don't say I do not work and deserve money!!!!! It might not be as mentally challenging of a job then some others but do not doubt for a second that I physically work harder then most "real" jobs

Pay is not generally tied to the difficulty of work.. but to the difficulty of getting someone to DO said work. That can be based on difficulty in finding someone qualified to do the work, or it can be based on difficultly in getting someone to agree to do the work (example.. 3rd shift, ugly jobs, etc).

Just because the valet parker runs back and forth all day long... while the gem smith just sits on his butt all day while a little machine does all the work, the valet will never be paid as well as the gem smith. Why? Because the valet parker is doing work that someone else can easily be brought in to do. He is doing work that has very low requirements = easily replaced.

Simple supply and demand... if you are a waitress, there is an endless supply of people that can easily be brought in to do that job. If you are a specialist, and people don't have those skills, then less supply for that role = higher pay.

That doesn't mean anyone can do the job as WELL as someone else.. but when we are talking 'what pay a job is worth' - its going to boil down to simple supply and demand for people qualified to do the job.

Jobs that require the least amount of qualifications are generally going to be paid less -- regardless of how hard one perceives a job to be.

If you are afraid of higher costs maybe you should look at what you do that makes companies have to raise their prices. Do you grab a ton of napkins that you do not use that have to be thrown away? Do you just have to have a "free" to go cup for some "free" water, like those don't cost the company anything. When you order your food to go to you have to have everything packaged separately so they have to use a bunch of containers? There are a lot of ways to be able to pay the employee more and not raise prices and most of them start with the consumer.

You are basically acknowledging that to offset the costs they must cut services. No amount of saving napkins tho is going to offset the cost of raising everyone's pay 50-100% or make a job role viable. You'd have to settle for things like 'no more hostess', each staff working more tables, etc.

 

[jaklgreen]

I am not saying to cut cost they have to cut services. Having people not waste food and products is not cutting back on any service. We cut back on service by having the self serve napkin dispensers out. The only other way to cut cost when it comes to that is either provide none or limit the amount people take. It is sickening how much waste there is. People grab handfuls of napkins and condiments they will never use and they just get thrown away. Usually the people who complain about the price of stuff are the ones who do this. In their mind they think this is the way to "get their money's worth" when it is this behavior that causes the price increases. I am not saying that this would solve anything. I was just pointing out how there can be other way of saving money to be giving to labor instead of just instant price hikes.

 

[lazyboy97o]

I am not saying to cut cost they have to cut services. Having people not waste food and products is not cutting back on any service. We cut back on service by having the self serve napkin dispensers out. The only other way to cut cost when it comes to that is either provide none or limit the amount people take. It is sickening how much waste there is. People grab handfuls of napkins and condiments they will never use and they just get thrown away. Usually the people who complain about the price of stuff are the ones who do this. In their mind they think this is the way to "get their money's worth" when it is this behavior that causes the price increases. I am not saying that this would solve anything. I was just pointing out how there can be other way of saving money to be giving to labor instead of just instant price hikes.

Food items are relatively high margin. The far bigger costs associated with food service establishments are overhead such as rent, power, gas, wages, etc. A few cents here and there will not cover jumps in wages. Curtailing items that are already commonly free at other establishment, for right or wrong, can have a negative impact on customer service as it creates an atmosphere of nickel and dimeing.

 

[flynnibus]

I was just pointing out how there can be other way of saving money to be giving to labor instead of just instant price hikes.

Yes, but you are also talking about different orders of magnitude.

Sure you can say 'the business can save money elsewhere and pay the people more'. But since we've already painted the business guys as greedy, if there were low hanging fruit like that where they could save costs... shouldn't they already be doing that? They're wasting profits.. and evil greedy business owners wouldn't do that would they? So you have to assume they will cut costs that will impact services actually offered. Be it through reduced staff, reduced offerings, or reduced quality. Sure necessity is the mother of all invention and there will be ways people devise to improve existing efficencies without reducing services... but enough to offset the full new costs? No... and when you apply this to the whole supply chain you see how it's not just labor costs that go up, but all costs go up.

 

[CDavid]

But since we've already painted the business guys as greedy, if there were low hanging fruit like that where they could save costs... shouldn't they already be doing that? They're wasting profits.. and evil greedy business owners wouldn't do that would they? So you have to assume they will cut costs that will impact services actually offered. Be it through reduced staff, reduced offerings, or reduced quality..

If the business owner should already have picked the low hanging fruit, so to speak (and even where 'greedy' is an overstated stereotype), then they are probably already limited in where and to what extent they may reduce costs. Yet, we're still typically told that increased wages will lead to reduced employment, as employers cut back of offset the higher labor costs. However, it's not like companies have workers on the clock who they don't really need and wouldn't miss - or as you state, they would have already been eliminated. Finally, the market (and competitors) may also limit how offerings or quality may be altered without driving business away.

Yes, increased wages are going to lead to belt tightening by the employer where they can, including employee numbers, but in the end increased costs to them tend to be passed on to the consumer - but those price increases are themselves nearly always grossly exaggerated. Were Walt Disney World faced with a substantial wage increase, It is difficult to see where they could substantially reduce CM ranks without dramatically reduced services (and thus reduced profits).

 

[flynnibus]

If the business owner should already have picked the low hanging fruit, so to speak (and even where 'greedy' is an overstated stereotype), then they are probably already limited in where and to what extent they may reduce costs. Yet, we're still typically told that increased wages will lead to reduced employment, as employers cut back of offset the higher labor costs. However, it's not like companies have workers on the clock who they don't really need and wouldn't miss - or as you state, they would have already been eliminated. Finally, the market (and competitors) may also limit how offerings or quality may be altered without driving business away.

But your last statement is the usual 'dont worry about it' catchall that infers the gap will magically be covered by some revenue that isn't accounted for. If the owner has already trimmed costs, and is already operating on minimal staff like you said, where does the money come from? Only two places... reduce what you are doing, or reduce margins. Now this is where the advocates go 'ah ha! see.. we'll just cut into those crazy profits!' - which is possible for some companies, but for many it's not. And for the companies that could reduce profits... as part of this living wage law are we also going to pass laws that say "The stock market can not penalize companies for reduced profits due to mandated labor cost increases"? Because that's what will happen. And know what happens then? The company cuts back on expenses (jobs) to try to correct things back to their previous metrics.

Any way you cut it, as long as free market forces are in play here, if you increase costs, it's going to negatively impact businesses and hence their workers. Unless the government steps in and stops the market from reacting.. that's where things will head.

Yes, increased wages are going to lead to belt tightening by the employer where they can, including employee numbers, but in the end increased costs to them tend to be passed on to the consumer - but those price increases are themselves nearly always grossly exaggerated

I think the problem is when people try to apply the math of one business to another. Not all are the same. A company like mine that operates in the 60+% operating margin is a lot different than say a grocery store that operates on a 3% operating margin. Different businesses have different cost structures and pressures on pricing.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Yes, increased wages are going to lead to belt tightening by the employer where they can, including employee numbers, but in the end increased costs to them tend to be passed on to the consumer - but those price increases are themselves nearly always grossly exaggerated. Were Walt Disney World faced with a substantial wage increase, It is difficult to see where they could substantially reduce CM ranks without dramatically reduced services (and thus reduced profits).

Most people in this country do not work for a company like Disney. They work for smaller businesses that do not have the same numbers and scale. Disney increasing wages (which they should, along with training and service expectations) is different than saying every job, everywhere in the country under $15/hour-$25/hour being jumped up that high.

 

[slappy magoo]

In the old days of door to door sales, the man with the longest tenure was considered the crafty veteran.

Sports teams near their trading deadlines and if they are in championship contention look to acquire the crafty veteran to put them over the top.

Or, someone who has been to WDW as much as I have could consider themselves, alas, The Crafty Veteran.

I hope this clears things up for some.

Really? That's the best you could come up with?

 

[Nubs70]

Really? That's the best you could come up with?

Care to share your backstory? Let me guess: A person hard of sight with a proclivity for self flagellation.

 

[slappy magoo]

Care to share your backstory? Let me guess: A person hard of sight with a proclivity for self flagellation.

Nothing so exotic, I'm afraid. I just find that a name like Slappy Magoo keeps me grounded and humble.

 

[Preston Chatsworth]

Interesting thread and I feel for the small business owner who is being told by our government how much to pay their employees. Not only will they have to increase the minimum wage but I hear the government is about to mandate that employers start to pay over-time regardless of any agreement that was made between the employer and employee when hired.

 

[flynnibus]

Interesting thread and I feel for the small business owner who is being told by our government how much to pay their employees. Not only will they have to increase the minimum wage but I hear the government is about to mandate that employers start to pay over-time regardless of any agreement that was made between the employer and employee when hired.

The government already has overtime laws... the catch is it's on a weekly basis, not daily.. and classes of employees are exempt from the law. It's not about an arrangement by the employee, it's how the job is classified.

 

[Preston Chatsworth]

The government already has overtime laws... the catch is it's on a weekly basis, not daily.. and classes of employees are exempt from the law. It's not about an arrangement by the employee, it's how the job is classified.

That explains why you always see one union/government worker digging a ditch and 10 others standing around watching him. Obviously, these are workers who receive over-time regardless of production. So by mandating over-time, the government in essence is decreasing production, right? What a person could do in 8 hours will now be completed in 10 or so. Again, this is an example of rewarding those for failure and punishing those who achieve success. Socialism 101.