Tim Hortons Locations Owned By Founders' Kids Reduce Employee Benefits/Breaks
- Thread starter Charlemagne
- Start date
I'm more interested in finding the section of our laws that discusses single mothers choices and how society should somehow be responsible for her litter of bastards
Giving a tax break to a low income person simply because they accidentally get pregnant is beyond absurd
Most of the intelligent people get an education, get a job, save up to buy a place and THEN start a family
Reading up on the Tim's change of policy, they got paid breaks and anyone with 5 years of employment there got 100% benefit coverage. Now Tim's is clawing those back.
Wow. I never knew low end jobs like this even got paid breaks and complete benefits coverage. Sounds like good perks for a low end job. When I was a summer student doing crappy hourly jobs, we never got paid breaks or perks. And I am 100% sure none of the permanent works that worked the floor with us got them too.... (not sure if the managers did though).
Even at my job, I have to pay small drug and and dental deductibles.
But going into this hourly wage mandate, I knew companies would claw back somehow. I never knew a place like Tim's would cut into meal breaks, but anyone out there who thinks companies with lots of minimum wage employees would all bump up pay and then just sit there and absorb the costs doing nothing is totally ignorant how running a business works.
I never understood that either.
You have some people who clearly can't handle raising themselves properly, have a dim outlook with crappy paying jobs, still has kids despite the crummy situation, and somehow the government (taxes from us) have to cover someone's poor planning.
Anyone begging for benefits from Tims or Walmart etc are basically lifers
I can not imagine why a 30+ year old grown ass adult applies for something like that
At the very least, work there a year and do a college course online or something
But then again, how many times have you seen them screw up your order? I mean how complicated is it to work there lol
The idea of a living wage sounds good in principle, but implementing it is a whole different story. There numerous other issues that to be dealt with at the same time like education, affordable housing, food, energy, transportation, etc. This government has bungled all of these files and more so all they have left is raising the minimum wage to buy votes again.
Minimum wage and entry-level jobs have been disappearing for decades, yet the education system has never responded to that reality. Families are forced to make career decisions without knowing what the prospects are and spending big money too. We are still pumping out grads that have few to no job prospects. We end up with grads with massive debt and some have to take minimum wage jobs.
It's a vicious cycle that will never end.
Minimum wage and entry-level jobs have been disappearing for decades, yet the education system has never responded to that reality. Families are forced to make career decisions without knowing what the prospects are and spending big money too. We are still pumping out grads that have few to no job prospects. We end up with grads with massive debt and some have to take minimum wage jobs.
It's a vicious cycle that will never end.
The idea of a living wage doesn't even make sense. It's provincially set. Ontario is now $14/hr. There's a big difference to begin with between someone making $14/hr in the GTA and making $14/hr in Sarnia.
As for grads, that's a tricky thing because even if the government was good at telling the world which career paths are on the ups and which ones are trending down, the key message when it comes to kids and careers is always "do what you want to do" as a priority. "Don't worry, money will follow". Says who?
Problem is I don't think people really know what's the trend (aside general trends like computer/web/health care is up). And even if told, how many students are going to do something they don't really want to do for sake of solid opportunities when they graduate? I didn't. I chose business because I like it, and it turns out there's always business jobs. So for me it worked out.
Another thing is people have been gravitating to the big city centres for ages. That's where the action is, that's where the jobs are. But also, the most people and highest living costs if you can't cut it.
You can have endless swarms of minimum wagers claiming they are broke. That's because that job doesn't work well in the GTA. But working minimum wage in let's say London Ontario would probably work out better due to lower living costs.
But how many people do you know pack up their bags and move to a smaller cheaper city and find modest work there? Hardly any. London Ontario has some big offices of finances, health care and the last time I checked 3M Canada's HQ is there. I'm sure a decently skilled person can land a job there and get away from the competitive and expensive GTA action, but most will stick around even if it's financially painful to do so.... because they have to be where the main hub is.
Hard to compare apples to oranges, but I did live on $15/hour a decade ago, while paying down my student debt (about 25% of my take-home went to paying it off). While that meant renting a room rather than buying a house, I was still able to own a 15-year-old vehicle, a cell phone, and have money left over for entertainment, including light hobbying. It wasn't long before I landed the job I wanted and fought my way up in the world though.
You could live quite well on $14/hour in rural parts of SW Ontario. It's all about choice and living within your means; something we've lost sight of. You can't expect to have a condo in the city, two vehicles, all the latest gadgets, and have a single-earner household if you work at Tim Hortons for a living.
I agree, that affordability is an issue. However, this legislation does not help affordability. Sure, it pays the least deserving more money, but it raises costs across the board too. The middle class just got royally screwed.
True, also rather than work for low wages at the other end of the spectrum some just go on social welfare which ironically is named "Ontario Works". Immigrants often shoulder the low wage the low wage job void. The generous social safety net in Ontario makes working optional. The socialist system in Ontario is increasingly creating a disincentive towards small business enterprise. The Wynne government has pilfered NDP socialist ideas in order to get votes, a strategy which worked for the Liberals before, but will it work again this time? The Conservatives usually self destruct, will Patrick Brown do a John Tory or a Hudak this time around to help out Wynne?
Very valid point, but to compare something more realistic take Toronto vs Ottawa
Ottawa is still a world class city with all the amenities (in some areas they have beaten TO even) and yet house prices and living expenses are a fraction of what we pay
Even better if you live in Gatineau (eg free child care, cheap cell phones & cars) and commute to Ottawa for work
[/quote]
It also seems to be the brokest most uneducated people who insist on living in condos in downtown Toronto
A large number of seniors (those without civil servant/teachers pensions) live on far less than that. And they just got an increase of less than $20/month to cover those rising prices and taxes.
Because it's not worth the political hit each and every year when they have to actively increase the minimum wage. The one thing the Liberals definitely got right is making it automatically go up by inflation every year. They take the hit now but the problem is fixed going forward.
The only thing I disagree with is how fast the bump is happening. I think it's about a 20% hit this year and then another smaller hit next year. That's too much for businesses to absorb all at once. It should have been staggered over a longer period of time... but it definitely needed to be done. If there wasn't an election next year (that the Liberals need to buy votes for) then this probably would have been implemented at a more gradual (i.e., appropriate) rate.
I have no problem with this. The harm to the few is smaller than the benefits to the many and it's the many that have been getting screwed over for too long.
This is another good article that explains the impact of the hike in minimum wage.
Part of what it points out is the way the media is portraying it to make it look far worse than it is. Gee, that never happens.
https://news.vice.com/en_ca/article/bjydv4/relax-ontarios-minimum-wage-increase-will-not-lead-to-massive-job-losses
Part of what it points out is the way the media is portraying it to make it look far worse than it is. Gee, that never happens.
https://news.vice.com/en_ca/article/bjydv4/relax-ontarios-minimum-wage-increase-will-not-lead-to-massive-job-losses
Of course the media hypes it up.
But there WILL be an effect.
The retail industry that I have exposure to has been talking about it for months...
-Salary increases across the board to keep things 'fair'
-Less temporary staff will be hired at busy times
-Prices of all products WILL go up... probably not enough for the consumer demographic to care much, but the prices WILL go up
One possible 'benefit' I can see is that the senior staff will get more hours because they will be hiring less temp staff.
And if poor people are going to put the money back into goods and services, it really gets many of them back to square one of being broke.
If a reason for raising wages is to help the economy by having low income people spend it buying stuff, that directly goes against what the purpose of these wage bumps is for.... which is to help pay for cost of living (ie. expensive rent in the GTA), not for so-called broke people can go buy sweaters, cellphones and upgrade their cable tv package.
Maybe a better way to have done it is to put some/all of the wage hike into escrow to be paid against actual cost of living expenses like rent, utilities, automobile/public transit fees etc.... so they don't blow it and then complain $14/hr isn't enough.
The implication you're making is that these people are incapable of budgeting and that is why they can't afford things. When people in that situation are saying that the real issue is, the cost of living rises incrementally while the minimum wage lags behind.
Businesses make unprecedented profits and "bonus" payments to executives in obscene amounts, then complain that the minimum wage will hurt their bottom line. I'm no economist so I won't pretend to know what the correct course of action is and will defer to those that do. But throughout my lifetime I have seen governments attempt trickle down economic models and they just don't work. Those in power don't reinvest profits into their employees. They use the extra funds to get even richer...for themselves.
I'm not implicating anything. The opinion of more money = more goods and services = good for business, is something someone in the article wrote.
Also, adjusted for inflation, minimum wage is no different than 40 years ago as per articles.
The key difference is that people making poor wages are forcing themselves to stick around the GTA which has high cost of living. So it's something they are really doing to themselves. They stick around the GTA and feel entitled the government boosts them up. Other parts of Ontario don't have this issue as badly.
If you have to move to a cheaper town, then that's what you got to do if you can't afford it, whether someone makes $11/hr or boosted to $14/hr.
The viewpoint that CEOs make huge money goes for the big splashy corporations. Most businesses are not big. And most CEOs or leaders or owners of companies don't make millions. Just because the Loblaws family super rich doesn't mean the owner of Bob's Fruit Market makes big bucks too.
You are also assuming every company out there makes big profits. That's not true. Again, the big established companies might, but that doesn't go for the small, medium and sole proporietor owners trying to keep afloat. However, the wage boosts apply to every business at some point.
Wynne picked the obvious target of this couple because they are supposedly rich, but even if they are it doesn't mean they should run their business at a loss. And their stores are far from the only Tim's that has enacted this policy. The one that I frequent has done it as well as I'm sure many others have too. It a classic tactic of the Fiberals. " Look over there, no over there, not at what we are doing."
The A&W near me has also changed their hours from 7am-11pm to 8am-10pm.
The A&W near me has also changed their hours from 7am-11pm to 8am-10pm.
I think that your assumptions are way way off target. The majority of workers were only earning minimum so that at least doubles your calculation and most stores in larger markets are open 24hrs not 16 so add another 50% as well. But hey you could use 10 cent and 2hrs and get a much smaller increase too.
It's the rare case where wages and benefits are only 10% of total expenses. Must cases are much higher. But feel free to use any low numbers you feel like, obviously Kathleen Wynne did.
