Goodwill Closing

KBear

Supporting Member
Aug 17, 2001
4,169
1
38
west end
www.gtagirls.com

danmand

Well-known member
Nov 28, 2003
46,500
4,906
113

FAST

Banned
Mar 12, 2004
10,069
1
0
More lost jobs because of unions,...

Good thing they closed, if they cannot pay their workers.
They are still paying,...the more intelligent NONE unionized ones.

Fricken IDIOT unions.

FAST
 

KBear

Supporting Member
Aug 17, 2001
4,169
1
38
west end
www.gtagirls.com
Good thing they closed, if they cannot pay their workers.
Part of GoodWill's mission plan was to help people with some problems or disabilities enter the work force, and you cant do that if the employees are full time, unionized and there is little turnover.

Expect most retail jobs do not pay $14 per hour, and do not have such a high percentage of the work force full time. Also retail often cuts back on staffing in the winter months which Goodwill could not do. I don't like it, but it is the competitive market we are in.

Should all retailers close? Maybe you don't care, as you buy online from China.
 

Occasionally

Active member
May 22, 2011
2,928
7
38
From the Globe & Mail: High rent, union rules blamed for closing of Toronto-area Goodwill stores

The union challenged Goodwill's ability to cut hours in the slow winter months. Goodwill Industries of Toronto v Canadian Airport Workers Union

Would be hard to compete in retail when unionized and paying staff $14 per hour. If the pay was cut by about $2 per hour Goodwill would be in profit or close to it.
Paying staff $14/hr for a place on the downhill (even with government funding) doesn't even make sense.

Most retailers pay their clerks minimum wage to $15/hr, and many of them shut down despite high margin goods. Successful retailers are lucky to make 5% profit at the end of the day. And the standard for-profit store has clerks trying to encourage sales by having them chat and upsell.

Goodwill, Value Village, Talize, and all these kinds of bargain bin type of stores have passive clerks whose job is to simply process items and checkout. There's no sense of service, upsell or item knowledge. It's up to the customer to look around and do their own thing.

So to pay clerks at Goodwill a similar (or even higher) wage than for-profit stores doesn't make sense.

Looks like a classic case of all or nothing. The business survives based on it's current fundamentals (which aren't changing any time soon), or everyone sinks in the boat together.
 

danmand

Well-known member
Nov 28, 2003
46,500
4,906
113
Part of GoodWill's mission plan was to help people with some problems or disabilities enter the work force, and you cant do that if the employees are full time, unionized and there is little turnover.

Expect most retail jobs do not pay $14 per hour, and do not have such a high percentage of the work force full time. Also retail often cuts back on staffing in the winter months which Goodwill could not do. I don't like it, but it is the competitive market we are in.

Should all retailers close? Maybe you don't care, as you buy online from China.
My opinion is that companies, who cannot pay their workers a living wage, do not deserve to be in business, and should make way for some that can.

I understand that you want to buy things cheap, so you can afford a better life style, but thing about the people who must try to exist on less than $20,000 a year.
 

Occasionally

Active member
May 22, 2011
2,928
7
38
My opinion is that companies, who cannot pay their workers a living wage, do not deserve to be in business, and should make way for some that can.

I understand that you want to buy things cheap, so you can afford a better life style, but thing about the people who must try to exist on less than $20,000 a year.
If you don't believe businesses should exist unless they can pay livable wages, then most retailers would be shut down as the majority of people working at them probably make no more than $15/hr..... which is about $30,000 a year (assuming they work full time hours).

Also a good portion of restaurants (wage + tips) probably don't pay great either unless you are lucky enough to work in a high volume eatery with lots of business and good tippers.

Retailing, restaurants and such are high labour jobs. You have lots of people working there to make it work, so that's why businesses often fail despite paying people practically minimum wage. Retailers also have head office, fleet trucks and distribution centres worth 1,000s of employees they have to pay too. They aren't like a software or internet company where if they get lucky, that team of 20 people working in a leased office is generating $100M sales a year because they got lucky with a web site.

Not all jobs should be livable wages. Some pay bad, some pay well. To expect every job to pay enough so he/she can live a decent life is a big no-no in my books. You got to earn it. And that even excludes the whole inflation rate issue. If all low income earners doubled their incomes, it's not like everything will have the same prices..... unless the government wants to impose some kind of price cap on stuff. Prices will go up, high income earners would also get pay bumps, so 5 or 10 years later it'll be back to square one again as the low income pay bump is now not effective anymore because that loaf of bread which was $2.99 is now $4.99.

No way I expect the paperboy to be making $20/hr.
 

danmand

Well-known member
Nov 28, 2003
46,500
4,906
113
If you don't believe businesses should exist unless they can pay livable wages, then most retailers would be shut down as the majority of people working at them probably make no more than $15/hr..... which is about $30,000 a year (assuming they work full time hours).

Also a good portion of restaurants (wage + tips) probably don't pay great either unless you are lucky enough to work in a high volume eatery with lots of business and good tippers.

Retailing, restaurants and such are high labour jobs. You have lots of people working there to make it work, so that's why businesses often fail despite paying people practically minimum wage. Retailers also have head office, fleet trucks and distribution centres worth 1,000s of employees they have to pay too. They aren't like a software or internet company where if they get lucky, that team of 20 people working in a leased office is generating $100M sales a year because they got lucky with a web site.

Not all jobs should be livable wages. Some pay bad, some pay well. To expect every job to pay enough so he/she can live a decent life is a big no-no in my books. You got to earn it. And that even excludes the whole inflation rate issue. If all low income earners doubled their incomes, it's not like everything will have the same prices..... unless the government wants to impose some kind of price cap on stuff. Prices will go up, high income earners would also get pay bumps, so 5 or 10 years later it'll be back to square one again as the low income pay bump is now not effective anymore because that loaf of bread which was $2.99 is now $4.99.

No way I expect the paperboy to be making $20/hr.
I understand, you think it is more import that you can buy your things and services on the cheap, so you can have an artificially high standard of living. Exploitation of the poor is not a concern of yours
 

Occasionally

Active member
May 22, 2011
2,928
7
38
I understand, you think it is more import that you can buy your things and services on the cheap, so you can have an artificially high standard of living. Exploitation of the poor is not a concern of yours
I don't set the prices. But what I do control is how I spend it.

Any business out there is free to double their clerks' wages.... which in turn will increase the price of their products. But they don't because of competition.

Now if they want to keep business afloat and similar prices and quality, then get rid of some employees, double their wage and have them double their workload to balance everything out. Not going to happen.

Business have a hard enough time staying afloat, and most of these retailers and food places pay their employees less than $15/hr. So to expect them to bump up wages, have the manager eat the costs, assume the business is still profitable enough to survive, or that suddenly a lot more customers suddenly come in and buy stuff to balance out the increased wages is.... living in dreamland.

I understand you are trying to fight the plight of the low wage earner, but you are fighting a losing battle of reality.

And besides, nobody ever said or guaranteed that working at a store stocking shelves would be a good career able to support themselves or a family of 4. In fact, nobody has ever guaranteed that if you become a doctor that you automatically live the high life. All that is known is that some jobs pay a lot, some moderate, and some pay a low hourly wage. It's up to people to choose, earn and get what they want.

These kinds of low end jobs are meant for students or people in transition trying to make a few bucks to keep float. That's why no guidance counselor, career adviser, teacher, or parent ever tells their kid to strive to be a stockboy.

I don't know what the most menial job is out there..... paperboy?..... but for you to expect every job pay a decent livable wage is laughable.

What you want is some kind of expanded government controlled set of wages, prices and costs where an entity (government) gets involved and sets laws and controls things from City Hall. the gov already sets certain wage and benefit and vacation standards. And business have to provide comp all those gov deductions and such. You want more control.

Money isn't infinite. So your ideal world is some kind of communist set of policies where whether you are Al Bundy selling shoes or a surgeon, everyone kind of makes a similar amount of money in a tight band so it's very leveled out.

No thanks. I went to school, earned two degrees and like to earn what I get. No disrepect to that stockboy who helped me get something from the top shelf, but too bad. Our jobs are different, our backgrounds are different, and if my job pays more, that's the way it is. Don't blame me if a company wants to pay me much more than that $14/hr job.
 

jackson11

New member
Jun 6, 2010
486
0
0
My opinion is that companies, who cannot pay their workers a living wage, do not deserve to be in business, and should make way for some that can.

I understand that you want to buy things cheap, so you can afford a better life style, but thing about the people who must try to exist on less than $20,000 a year.
Companies should pay what the job is worth. Why should a retail company be forced to pay an employee the same (or near the same) as say a doctor, engineer, lawyer or even plumbers, electricians, etc. I worked in retail a long time and met a lot of great people but reality is the job is very unskilled and many people were either students there to pay their way through school, there as just "extra income/ secondary income" to their spouse (or "keeping busy not staying at home") or people that dropped out of high school etc. Not trying to disrespect anyone's choices in life or people that didn't graduate from high school however reality is retailers pay what the employee is "worth"

Retailers are also accountable to more than just employees (they have inventory, supply chains, home offices, investors/ stockholders etc etc) that they have to balance out to make a profit. And margins can be real thin. You can spend a $100 in a retail store and depending on what you buy the retailer may only get $10-15 that they need to use to balance everything.

And Occasionally summed it up pretty well...just because you raise wages to a "living wage" it won't prevent prices from rising. Retailers would try to recoop some of that extra cost through price increases pushing the "living wage" or net gain back down to below living standards.

If someone wants to earn more then what retail pays then it is a free market don't blame the retailer.....better yourself and get out of retail (before anyone comments "not possible" etc it is what I did so it is possible if you are determined enough)
 

Occasionally

Active member
May 22, 2011
2,928
7
38
Companies should pay what the job is worth. Why should a retail company be forced to pay an employee the same (or near the same) as say a doctor, engineer, lawyer or even plumbers, electricians, etc. I worked in retail a long time and met a lot of great people but reality is the job is very unskilled and many people were either students there to pay their way through school, there as just "extra income/ secondary income" to their spouse (or "keeping busy not staying at home") or people that dropped out of high school etc. Not trying to disrespect anyone's choices in life or people that didn't graduate from high school however reality is retailers pay what the employee is "worth"

Retailers are also accountable to more than just employees (they have inventory, supply chains, home offices, investors/ stockholders etc etc) that they have to balance out to make a profit. And margins can be real thin. You can spend a $100 in a retail store and depending on what you buy the retailer may only get $10-15 that they need to use to balance everything.

And Occasionally summed it up pretty well...just because you raise wages to a "living wage" it won't prevent prices from rising. Retailers would try to recoop some of that extra cost through price increases pushing the "living wage" or net gain back down to below living standards.

If someone wants to earn more then what retail pays then it is a free market don't blame the retailer.....better yourself and get out of retail (before anyone comments "not possible" etc it is what I did so it is possible if you are determined enough)
Spot on. Thanks jackson.
 

SkyRider

Banned
Mar 31, 2009
17,572
2
0
Many immigrant families pool their money, buy a house in Brampton and live 10-12 people in that house. The kids attend school, graduate in the top 10% of their class, become professionals and make multi-time a "living wage".
 

Occasionally

Active member
May 22, 2011
2,928
7
38
Many immigrant families pool their money, buy a house in Brampton and live 10-12 people in that house. The kids attend school, graduate in the top 10% of their class, become professionals and make multi-time a "living wage".
It might be crowded and noisy, but it's a good strategy to save money as opposed to everyone trying to get their own place when they can't afford it.

Now if more Canadian-born people used that strategy to save a few bucks, then perhaps that $14/hr stockboy could save enough money to make it on his own. Unfortunately for them, the culture for people born and raised in Canada is to try to make it on your own as soon as you're lets say in your early 20s no matter what job you have. So if it means living paycheque to paycheque as a clerk sharing a rental with strangers then that's what they force themselves to do.
 

danmand

Well-known member
Nov 28, 2003
46,500
4,906
113
Companies should pay what the job is worth. Why should a retail company be forced to pay an employee the same (or near the same) as say a doctor, engineer, lawyer or even plumbers, electricians, etc. I worked in retail a long time and met a lot of great people but reality is the job is very unskilled and many people were either students there to pay their way through school, there as just "extra income/ secondary income" to their spouse (or "keeping busy not staying at home") or people that dropped out of high school etc. Not trying to disrespect anyone's choices in life or people that didn't graduate from high school however reality is retailers pay what the employee is "worth"

Retailers are also accountable to more than just employees (they have inventory, supply chains, home offices, investors/ stockholders etc etc) that they have to balance out to make a profit. And margins can be real thin. You can spend a $100 in a retail store and depending on what you buy the retailer may only get $10-15 that they need to use to balance everything.

And Occasionally summed it up pretty well...just because you raise wages to a "living wage" it won't prevent prices from rising. Retailers would try to recoop some of that extra cost through price increases pushing the "living wage" or net gain back down to below living standards.

If someone wants to earn more then what retail pays then it is a free market don't blame the retailer.....better yourself and get out of retail (before anyone comments "not possible" etc it is what I did so it is possible if you are determined enough)
It is up to society to ensure that everybody can live a decent life, of which a living wage is an important part. It has been proven conclusively that the most productive, peaceful and harmonic societies are ones where inequality is low and social mobility is high. The rich people in these societies understand that and are in full agreement. (as Henry Ford understood that a living wage is good for business)

The cornerstones of successful societies are a living wage for all, free education to everyone's ability, including re-education for the unemployed, universal healthcare and a general welfare system.

Canada fails on all these points, except on the universal healthcare. While better than the US, social mobility is low, and children of poor parents do not have equal access to education. Tuition alone for law school in Toronto is $35,000 (I know), ensuring that only children of well off parents can afford the education.

Personally, I fail to understand that anybody would be against equal opportunities for all children. Even if people believe their parents are the architects of their own poverty, how can anybody punish the children for the sins of their parents.

Equal opportunities in life should be a cornerstone of any civilized society, and if that requires helping disadvantaged parents, so be it.
 

FAST

Banned
Mar 12, 2004
10,069
1
0
Many immigrant families pool their money, buy a house in Brampton and live 10-12 people in that house. The kids attend school, graduate in the top 10% of their class, become professionals and make multi-time a "living wage".
This is fact,...and unions hate this.

And their solution,...is to unionize every lazy ass worker,...who is dumb enough to think that is a solution.

Their philosophy of economics,...involves trees, and Marxism, ...and nothing more.

FAST
 

FAST

Banned
Mar 12, 2004
10,069
1
0

Occasionally

Active member
May 22, 2011
2,928
7
38
It is up to society to ensure that everybody can live a decent life, of which a living wage is an important part. It has been proven conclusively that the most productive, peaceful and harmonic societies are ones where inequality is low and social mobility is high. The rich people in these societies understand that and are in full agreement. (as Henry Ford understood that a living wage is good for business)

The cornerstones of successful societies are a living wage for all, free education to everyone's ability, including re-education for the unemployed, universal healthcare and a general welfare system.

Canada fails on all these points, except on the universal healthcare. While better than the US, social mobility is low, and children of poor parents do not have equal access to education. Tuition alone for law school in Toronto is $35,000 (I know), ensuring that only children of well off parents can afford the education.

Personally, I fail to understand that anybody would be against equal opportunities for all children. Even if people believe their parents are the architects of their own poverty, how can anybody punish the children for the sins of their parents.

Equal opportunities in life should be a cornerstone of any civilized society, and if that requires helping disadvantaged parents, so be it.
Who says poor families don't have access to good education?

What you need to get into college/university is good grades and whatever qualifications they deem important (extra-curicular activities). Money is a non-factor because that's what student loans are for...... just like what I got. An Ontario sponsored loan and a Federally sponsored loan. Get put on the default 10-year payback plan and pay it off bit by bit every month until it's done. Big deal. You make it sound like everyone is rich, wanting to go to law school and doesn't care about students loans, which are a common element as most kids have some kind of loan.

What determines if you can pay it off or not is what kind of job you get and your spending habits.

Who cares if law school is $35,000. Get a loan. And pay it off when he/she becomes a lawyer making 6-digits.

In fact, I think having tuition is a good thing for a number of reasons:

1. Less tax on people, since the student bears the brunt of it
2. The student will focus money on what they want to do. If it was free, heck I'd probably go for trying to be a doctor even though I know I wouldn't be good enough at science. And if I fail at the program, oh well.... I'll just go into arts and get another round of freebies. Having fees makes people try because who wants to fail, have a student loan and no degree?
3. Countries with huge social assistance programs gives lazy people a way out knowing they can sit back and get a monthly cheque. No thanks. I did my best going to school, got a good job, good pay and have no interest knowing part of my leveled-out pay goes to a guy sitting around not trying

I can understand why places with very heavy social services can lead to happy societies. The top earners make enough to still live well, the people in middle the same. And the low earners (who would be struggling in a capitalistic culture) are happy because they are getting support.

I prefer a place like Canada which has policies in place to help poor people, but not to the extent where the top earners get gimped too much. High earners already get half their paycheques deducted, so there's already a balancing act with progressive income tax rates. Lower income earners pay maybe 30%???
 
Ashley Madison
Toronto Escorts