Tim Hortons Locations Owned By Founders' Kids Reduce Employee Benefits/Breaks

[sempel]

Except that those making $14 an hour are now going to go to their bosses and say WTF? So they get a raise to $15 or $16 an hour to keep the hierarchy of experience and responsibility in place, or some good people walk and find work elsewhere. So it won't be JUST the minimum wage workers who will be getting paid more because of this.

Therefore, goods and services will go up in price. Businesses have been talking about it for months and it's already seeing an implementation in the restaurant industry.
So, a $2 coffee now costs $2.10... that is an extra 1.3 cents of sales tax that is going to the government.
A $15 meal now costs $16... an extra 13 cents of sales tax... etc...

Only tax-free essentials are somewhat immune to this, but their prices may go up anyways.

Yes, you are required to bump up the people making $14 and hour so they are making more than the guy who is new. But it may only be a small fraction (say less than a dollar). The person currently making $16 say doesn't get a raise.

You have to realize our economy is in the toilet somewhat in the sense that demand for labor is not significantly higher than supply to the point where workers can afford to be choosy and walk away from jobs, especially with the belief that the rise in wages mean jobs will be lost.

Who says every job has to pay enough so that someone can make a living?

Where does it say in any law book, every job has to pay a decent amount?

If I sit at home and mow people's lawns or deliver newspapers, I should be guaranteed enough wages to make a living to buy a home, get a car, and whatever else I need? That sounds pretty generous of you. If there is an after life and I get reborn, I'll scrap doing well in school, forget about getting a good job, forget about getting promoted and I'll stay home knock on doors and mow lawns all day at $50 per home, which is what I feel entitled to.

And then you have people with shitty jobs and shitty pay and a shitty starting lifestyle because they don't have a lot money to begin with..... and then they decide to have 2 kids. Well, if you can't support yourself already, why the hell also have two kids???

Like most things/values in life, it is the choice/will of the people. Who said every person should get medical care for free? Nobody until it was proposed by Tommy Douglas and then it became law. So at the moment the idea of living wage is just a value that I'm sure many people support. I get that a part-time job, summer job, or something where people don't work full-time won't earn enough money. But if you work 40 hours/week, you don't think a person should be able to support themselves?

And I am the first guy that will tell you that a person has to live within their means. Can't expect to own a home, live in a nice condo, own a car, and do it all on $28000/year. But at the very least you should have the means TO LIVE.

If I'm making $14 an hour and have been there for years and have experience and responsibility, and a gomer high-school student comes in to earn some extra cash, and he is making $11.60 an hour... I'm probably going to be OK with that.
However, now that same gomer walks in off the street, has zero experience and zero responsibility and now he gets the same salary as I do without the negatives? Damn right that is going to make me think about expecting more money.
This isn't just my airy-fairy opinion... I have occasional exposure to a part of the retail segment, and this is exactly what supervisors have been talking about for months.
Why should an experienced supervisor get the exact same salary as Billy Jerk Off?

There will have to be some changes. But companies have had enough time and warning to come up with a plan.

Thanks....I do understand what everyone is saying, but some of the people that work for that wage don't have the education etc to break out of that income bracket, and they also can't afford to.

I just think it's shitty that the minimum wage hasn't kept up to inflation, and while I realize I may have to pay a little more for my goods and services to fund the increase, I don't mind because it helps someone else put food on the table - and I can afford it.

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

Education/ability are important factors. Teejay, do you realize that not everyone has the ability to better themselves. Not everyone can take courses, improve their skillset and move up the ladder?

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 guess paid breaks are company dependent. I've never had an issue getting paid for breaks when on an hourly wage.

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.

True.

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.

Yes the wage is provincially set. So people in one place have to budget and live differently than someone living elsewhere.

Do people remember there was a time Tim Horton's was paying people $20/hour to work there in Calgary during the recent oil boom? They had to up the wage in order to retain/attract workers because every other business.

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.

Least deserving? Why are they least deserving?

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.

FYI I used 10% for simple calculations. But it's business dependent. Some business have expensive products with expensive materials and very little labor. Other businesses are totally service. Then of course some are a mix.

 

[explorerzip]

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.

Yeah, there's definitely a difference between the cost of living in the GTA versus places further afield.

Guidance councilors are basically useless in giving actual guidance on the reality of a kid's chosen program. I think the private sector could work with the school system to develop more apprenticeship programs so that kid's can get a taste before committing money and time.

We're finally teaching basic financial literacy topics from K to 12, but I don't know what took so long. Everyone needs to manage their money if you're mopping floors or performing open heart surgery. There are examples at both ends of the spectrum of people that don't know how to manage their money.

There once was a time where you could start in the mail room (or any entry level job) and work your way up the corporate ladder. Those opportunities don't exist now because of automation, competition, temp workers and the rising costs of everything. So families no longer have the luxury of spending big money on education that doesn't lead anywhere.

 

[dickydoem]

There will have to be some changes. But companies have had enough time and warning to come up with a plan.


FYI I used 10% for simple calculations. But it's business dependent. Some business have expensive products with expensive materials and very little labor. Other businesses are totally service. Then of course some are a mix.

Yes companies have had some time to come up with a plan and it is that plan that these people are now being criticized for by Wynne. She created their problem and now is not happy with their solution.

Whether you used 10% for simplicity or not it makes for very misleading conclusions. Most service/fast food industries have a much higher labour component and therefore the impact is much greater than your calculation downplays.

And it isn't just the extra $2.40/hr that they are faced with. Employer contributions to CPP and EI will rise as will WC and OHIP premiums along with increased vacation pay. The two paid sick days and increased week of vacation must be factored into the cost as well. For many businesses it will be a substantial hit to their bottom line.

 

[Varmitt]

I don't know if this is in this thread....I don't have time to read the whole deal....BUT...next thing before the Election will be annual guarented income for everyone in the Province...then look out...why work...everything is good!!!!!

 

[sempel]

Yes companies have had some time to come up with a plan and it is that plan that these people are now being criticized for by Wynne. She created their problem and now is not happy with their solution.

Whether you used 10% for simplicity or not it makes for very misleading conclusions. Most service/fast food industries have a much higher labour component and therefore the impact is much greater than your calculation downplays.

And it isn't just the extra $2.40/hr that they are faced with. Employer contributions to CPP and EI will rise as will WC and OHIP premiums along with increased vacation pay. The two paid sick days and increased week of vacation must be factored into the cost as well. For many businesses it will be a substantial hit to their bottom line.

For example, if your payroll is 10% of expenses, it has now gone up by 2% to 12% of total expenses (these aren't actuals, just hypotheticals). So a 2% increase in expenses really isn't the biggest deal in the world.


That's what I said. I never said it was the industry number if you have taken it as that, sorry but that's your mistake.

I agree, it's not just salaries that go up. I've mentioned in other threads that the reason restaurants pay their staff so little is because they then will pay lower contributions on the income. So it's better for them to keep wages low and expect customers to tip rather than increasing prices, increasing wages, and saying no tips needed. So it's no different here. A rise in wages mean a rise in contributions.

 

[dickydoem]

That's what I said. I never said it was the industry number if you have taken it as that, sorry but that's your mistake.

I agree, it's not just salaries that go up. I've mentioned in other threads that the reason restaurants pay their staff so little is because they then will pay lower contributions on the income. So it's better for them to keep wages low and expect customers to tip rather than increasing prices, increasing wages, and saying no tips needed. So it's no different here. A rise in wages mean a rise in contributions.

I don't think it's my mistake but if it makes you feel better to characterize it as such, so be it.

It seems to me that you picked an extremely low number so you could pass off the effect of this policy as being a minimal 2% and no big deal (your words).

So continue to downplay the effect of this policy and whiteknight for Ms. Wynne and her government.

 

[Ref]

Not too sure if this has been mentioned, but instead of forcing businesses to pay people more, why didn't the Wynn government simply introduce a tax break to Ontario residents with a total income under $25,000? They could even have it eligible for people who have worked at least 9 months of the year.

 

[FAST]

Fiberalism,... 101

Not too sure if this has been mentioned, but instead of forcing businesses to pay people more, why didn't the Wynn government simply introduce a tax break to Ontario residents with a total income under $25,000? They could even have it eligible for people who have worked at least 9 months of the year.

Because that would be the logical, business friendly thing to do.

But that is not the current governments M.O.

Best to play politics,... and ignore economics,... plays better for those who are also have their head buried deep in the quick sand that is Socialism.

 

[sempel]

I don't think it's my mistake but if it makes you feel better to characterize it as such, so be it.

It seems to me that you picked an extremely low number so you could pass off the effect of this policy as being a minimal 2% and no big deal (your words).

So continue to downplay the effect of this policy and whiteknight for Ms. Wynne and her government.

No, you are correct. I didn't use the words "For example", "if", and "these aren't actuals, just hypotheticals". Oh wait - I did. So please continue to ignore the meanings of words in the English language and think somehow your jump to conclusion isn't your own fault.

If any government, Liberal, Conservative, NDP, etc. comes up with a policy I support, good on them. Obviously every government has to do at least a few things right else they'd be completely kicked out of office. As stated before, I'm no fan of Wynne and her government but the policy on some level is the right one.

There are plenty of policies that are enacted quickly without thinking about the full effect. For example, pot becoming legal is likely going to result in a few issues that should have been considered and figured out before coming out with the policy. But like anything else, if the concept is right, the rest will work itself out over time. Perhaps less people will have to work 2 or 3 jobs in order to make ends meet. It's very sad for someone to work a full-time job but still be in dire circumstances.

 

[sempel]

Not too sure if this has been mentioned, but instead of forcing businesses to pay people more, why didn't the Wynn government simply introduce a tax break to Ontario residents with a total income under $25,000? They could even have it eligible for people who have worked at least 9 months of the year.

I've always thought the same thing. Raise the minimum income that is taxable to something higher - say $18000-20000. Everyone across the board gets the benefit and gives people more money in their pocket. However, the result is a huge drop in government tax revenue which contradicts their mandate to spend and overspend.

 

[AJstar]

I've always thought the same thing. Raise the minimum income that is taxable to something higher - say $18000-20000. Everyone across the board gets the benefit and gives people more money in their pocket. However, the result is a huge drop in government tax revenue which contradicts their mandate to spend and overspend.

Either that, or have government top up their incomes to a minimum acceptable.
Would keep them working + productive instead of the massive move to unemployment insurance + welfare.
Governments just can't get in their skulls that higher expenses for businesses = less profits = less tax revenues.
Of course if inflation is their end game, then higher prices = higher tax revenues (Wynn is stupid like a Fox)

 

[sempel]

Either that, or have government top up their incomes to a minimum acceptable.
Would keep them working + productive instead of the massive move to unemployment insurance + welfare.
Governments just can't get in their skulls that higher expenses for businesses = less profits = less tax revenues.
Of course if inflation is their end game, then higher prices = higher tax revenues (Wynn is stupid like a Fox)

She's definitely not an economist. These idiots just go with spend, spend, spend, hoping that will stimulate an economy but forget that future generations get saddled with the debt.

 

[Occasionally]

Just by luck, I just posted in the other thread that government could do something similar..... help out poor people with more money since the government seems to have such bottomless pockets. I'm sure they could absorb getting less tax from people with lower tier jobs.

However, they won't do that as that cuts into their tax revenue.

They would rather put the financial assistance onus on businesses..... which the government and media play up (whether it's the US or Canada) as easy to do since every business out there is a huge corporation banking billions.....

..... (notice how nobody has ever made a correlation or cause/effect between higher wages and a let's say a local store run by an entrepreneur who's profitability is already on shaky ground).

 

[Occasionally]

I can't wait to see the shake out of these wage increases. But as a whole, we won't see the net effect for years.

Typically, stores and restaurants have the bulk of minimum wage jobs. The owners will do their thing to keep financials whole... cut people or hours, raise prices, cut into meal breaks and benefits like Tim's etc.....

A lot of companies don't have minimum wage employees (mine doesn't). Everyone makes probably $20/hr or more. So wage wise, we don't get affected one bit.

However, any company that deals with restaurants and retailers will get the fall out from their changes. And if they can't 100% absorb the wage change, what they will do is pass the buck to suppliers to help cover..... lower your costs etc....

If a lot of costs are passed down to suppliers, then they will raise prices later, or repackage things into smaller packages, get rid of low margin products, etc.... Or maybe things are kept whole and our wages are slowed down. So instead of the usual 2% annual increase, we get 0 or 1%. Nobody knows.

For sake of interest I hope more Sunset Grill and Tim's articles come out because we all get to see how this thing plays out. But would also like to see the effect on businesses that don't even have minimum wagers to start with.... if they've had to adjust due to external pressures too.

This will take time to hash out, but will make for interesting business reading material.

 

[Steeper]

These are part time entry level jobs people are turning them into full time jobs at a high rate of pay .Learn a skill set so your not working for 30 years at Tim Horons

 

[GameBoy27]

So let me get this straight. Wynne calls Tim Hortons store owners bullies for reducing workers hours, benefits etc. because the owners of the corporation makes a lot of money? Does that mean any small independent business owner who's forced to do the same in order to stay afloat are bullies as well?

 

[Occasionally]

So let me get this straight. Wynne calls Tim Hortons store owners bullies for reducing workers hours, benefits etc. because the owners of the corporation makes a lot of money? Does that mean any small independent business owner who's forced to do the same in order to stay afloat are bullies as well?

Who knows.

No Canadian or US government increasing wages to $14-15/hr has ever brought up small or unprofitable businesses.

Funny how, they only bring up the big profitable companies like Walmart or McDonald's or Tim's..... "Hey everyone, all these guys make billions, they can spare money to get everyone to $14-15/hr"

Hudson's Bay employs tons of people too, but notice how the government never mentions Canada's oldest company in the same breath as they lose money.

 

[sempel]

Who knows.

No Canadian or US government increasing wages to $14-15/hr has ever brought up small or unprofitable businesses.

Funny how, they only bring up the big profitable companies like Walmart or McDonald's or Tim's..... "Hey everyone, all these guys make billions, they can spare money to get everyone to $14-15/hr"

Hudson's Bay employs tons of people too, but notice how the government never mentions Canada's oldest company in the same breath as they lose money.

Yeah there seems to be two distinct groups of companies. There's these big corporations where the guys at the top earn millions and the company every so often makes "record-breaking profits". Clearly companies like these could EASILY afford to change their compensation practices to make it a little less top heavy so the guys at the bottom get a little more money. Companies like these should be voluntarily paying their workers better.

Then there's the second group - companies that lose money or barely break even. These businesses are lower volume, smaller, and generally have to pay their workers lower or give them less hours as it's not affordable otherwise. Forcing these companies to pay workers more will probably result in reduced hours, benefits, or employees.

Both groups of companies are whining about the changes. I think only 1 group has a legit concern.

I remember the Godfather Part 2. Vito Corleone works at a butcher shop when the local Don, Fanucci, tells the owner he has to hire the Don's nephew. As such, the butcher can no longer afford to keep on Vito. It's going to be the same thing for some businesses. They won't be able to handle the increase.

This all said, I still like the idea that a full-time worker can survive because they earn a living wage.

 

[rhuarc29]

Basic economics of the situation.

X = Revenue
Y = Costs
Z = Profit = X - Y

Wynne's legislation --> Y = Old Costs + Wage bump --> Y > X --> Z < 0 (not good)
• Franchisees now have a choice: cut discretionary costs, increase revenue, or go bust.
• They choose the second option and appeal to corporate to increase prices. Corporate says no go.
• So they choose the first option, by cutting discretionary costs. Now they have both the Wynne government and corporate on their backs bitching about "bullying". Um, who's the bully? The little franchisee, or the giant government and corporate entity?
• That makes their only recourse going bankrupt. I'm sure that'll help those employees a lot.

Both Wynne's government and corporate Tim Hortons are acting like hypocrites here. Wynne has no concept of how to balance a budget because she has no need to...the taxpayers will always bail her out. Corporate Tim Hortons, who have a lot more leeway to incur costs, instead put all the pain on their franchisees. Who the fuck are they to judge the franchisees?

 

[dickydoem]

Kathleen Wynne couldn't ran a successful lemonade stand, yet she wants to tell Tim Horton franchisees how to run their businesses. This lady is dangerous and the sooner she is gone the better.