Re: Here come the price increases!
Posted: March 31st, 2024, 11:09 am
Lots of broadstroking, rationalizing and conflating going on but, oh well
Necessary Evil is not free.
Necessary Evil is not free.
The question is, will it really do that, at least for all employees?storewanderer wrote: ↑March 30th, 2024, 12:31 pm Also, the sit-down restaurants will suffer from this too as employees can get the $20/hr at fast food and will go work at fast food instead... they'll need to increase wages as well, which in turn causes the price increase, which in turn lands them in the same exact spot as the fast-food places...
Great point!!BillyGr wrote: ↑March 31st, 2024, 12:02 pmThe question is, will it really do that, at least for all employees?storewanderer wrote: ↑March 30th, 2024, 12:31 pm Also, the sit-down restaurants will suffer from this too as employees can get the $20/hr at fast food and will go work at fast food instead... they'll need to increase wages as well, which in turn causes the price increase, which in turn lands them in the same exact spot as the fast-food places...
While it is understandable that smaller, local or small chain fast-food type places would have to raise pay to compete for help with the big brands, it may not be as necessary for sit-down restaurants, since employees there may be willing to work for a lower up front pay rate, knowing that they will eventually get even more than the $20/hour when tips are factored in.
Maybe more of an issue in the kitchen, but even there someone who is actually "cooking" stuff may not be happy going to a fast-food place where they are not doing much, if any, actual cooking.
That is highly unlikely, as it is a fabulous class action lawsuit that would pay out in the billions based on their store and employee count in California. If you know someone actually getting a ten minute lunch when mandated to have a 30 they should call a lawyer as they're going to be fabulously rich. As in they're going to get about a months pay for every single missed lunch. There is no employee law subject that is more litigated in California than meal and rest break law where the employer is assumed guilty until proven innocent under the law. They can however be compensated with PIL or Pay In Lieu, where they get one hour of additional pay for not being able to take their 30 minute uninterrupted off the clock lunch. Free food is not considered compensation. With the ample staffing of In-N-Out I do not see why they would ever have a need for PIL payouts, but I could see that at bare bones fast food places that these days are running with a supervisor and only one or two employees.veteran+ wrote: ↑March 31st, 2024, 11:04 amAt In & Out the employees have about 10 minutes to eat their lunch. They can order their food only after they punch out. Good luck with that. Indigestion?ClownLoach wrote: ↑March 30th, 2024, 2:03 pmBeing a retail focused board, it should be noted the majority of retailers are cutting lunches to 30 minutes as they reduce their staffing. If fast food is severely curtailed then these employees will not be able to leave the store and eat. They certainly can't go to a sit down restaurant. You can say "well they should bring their lunch" but I always hated the break room experience and needed to get out and breathe fresh air. Fast food is a necessary evil.storewanderer wrote: ↑March 30th, 2024, 12:31 pm
Why? So other businesses could open up and sell the same exact products but not be part of the law? Instead of getting the fast food from a "fast food place" now you get it from a counter in a gas station or a counter in a grocery store or a counter attached to a sit down restaurant so those places can get around this new law? Then what has been accomplished...?
Not all consumers have the time or wealth for sit down restaurants either. Not everyone is so privileged to always be able to go to a sit down restaurant. Not to mention most of the chain sit down restaurants which may be within budget for fast food consumers to switch to serve you what is basically the same as fast food (frozen/reheated stuff, fried stuff) presented on a glass plate and with a tip involved.
Also the sit down restaurants will suffer from this too as employees can get the $20/hr at fast food and will go work at fast food instead... they'll need to increase wages as well, which in turn causes the price increase, which in turn lands them in the same exact spot as the fast food places...
There is zero justification for the attack that has been launched on the fast food industry in California. Also interesting how Starbucks is carefully exempted. If you want to attack all food service businesses and put these rules on them then maybe okay but I even think that is too narrow. Maybe all "food" businesses- and that would include grocery stores.
But the big winner again will be the big corporations who get more royalties. As with most of these so called "Progressive" initiatives which seem to be funded by dark money from big money billionaires (not unlike other political initiatives that get pushed by other "groups") under the guise of helping people (higher wage in this case- which will be washed out through cuts in hours/higher prices on items purchased) the end result is really just even more money for big corporations through the higher royalties they'll receive from the increased prices. I wouldn't be surprised if the investors in the franchisors funded this whole thing. Playing the employees as total tools and fools under the guise of "helping" them.
I was thinking back of house staff is going to be the bigger issue for the restaurants. Not only those cooking but also cleaning.BillyGr wrote: ↑March 31st, 2024, 12:02 pmThe question is, will it really do that, at least for all employees?storewanderer wrote: ↑March 30th, 2024, 12:31 pm Also, the sit-down restaurants will suffer from this too as employees can get the $20/hr at fast food and will go work at fast food instead... they'll need to increase wages as well, which in turn causes the price increase, which in turn lands them in the same exact spot as the fast-food places...
While it is understandable that smaller, local or small chain fast-food type places would have to raise pay to compete for help with the big brands, it may not be as necessary for sit-down restaurants, since employees there may be willing to work for a lower up front pay rate, knowing that they will eventually get even more than the $20/hour when tips are factored in.
Maybe more of an issue in the kitchen, but even there someone who is actually "cooking" stuff may not be happy going to a fast-food place where they are not doing much, if any, actual cooking.
It is important to note that fast food restaurants have never paid "subminimum wage" since they do not attach tips to transactions as they do not solicit for tips typically. I know Starbucks and Five Guys try to capture tips, but they are not doing this "subminimum wage" thing. That is a sit down restaurant thing.veteran+ wrote: ↑March 31st, 2024, 1:26 pm In response, to prevent the same type of advancement among their employees, restaurant owners organized the National Restaurant Association (NRA) in 1919, a powerful organization created to preserve and expand the subminimum wage.
This is where the tip culture in America was established unlike Europe. They convinced (bribed) the U.S. government to agree. This accomplished the idea for customers to subsidize their payroll expenses under the guise of encouraging employees to deliver better customer service.
Very effective and long lasting scheme. And Americans bought into it.
They understand it just fine. They just don't care. What are you going to do, not get a drink? Most people want a drink with their meal. Sure, you can go to CVS or a gas station and buy a drink first, but that defeats the point of fast food, which is to save time. So while people may be annoyed, the vast majority of them will cough up the $2.99 for a drink.storewanderer wrote: ↑March 30th, 2024, 11:33 am I do not understand why these chains do not understand what an issue drink pricing is and how it upsets/annoys customers. 2.99 for a fast food drink is simply too high. Wendys still has a 16oz drink at .99 here and Jack in the Box has a 16oz drink at 1.79 (just increased) but you cannot order either on the app/kiosk, only at the cash register.
Taxes are marginal. If a single person is making 50k a year, then 22% of any additional money they make will go to federal taxes, and (in California) 6% to state taxes. There is no way "most" of the raise can go to taxes, because the highest marginal tax rate in the US is 37%, for income over 500k.ClownLoach wrote: ↑March 30th, 2024, 10:40 am So really the joke is on everyone who was picketing for these big wages, because most of the raise is going out the door to the IRS and FTB as soon as it becomes anything close to a "living wage" negating the entire activity.