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

[Charlemagne]

01/04/2018 07:21 EST

Tim Hortons Locations Owned By Founders' Kids Reduce Employee BenefitsThey've also cut back paid breaks.

Canadian Press

THE CANADIAN PRESS/EDUARDO LIMA

Pedestrians walk past a Tim Hortons coffee shop in downtown Toronto on June 29, 2016.

Employees at the Tim Hortons locations owned by the children of the co-founders of the franchise say they have reduced employee benefits and cut back paid breaks to help offset Ontario's $2.40 jump in hourly minimum wage.

Jeri Horton-Joyce and Ron Joyce Jr. wrote a letter to employees at their two Tim Hortons restaurants in Cobourg, Ont., that those who want to continue receiving dental and health benefits will have to pay a portion of the plan's costs themselves. Those working at the restaurant for more than five years will have to pay half, while those working from more than six months to five years will pay 75 per cent.

Employee breaks will also no longer be compensated, the letter dated December 2017 read. For example, those working nine-hour shifts will be paid for eight hours and 20 minutes, while those on three-hour blocks will be paid for two hours and 45 minutes.

"We apologize for these changes," the letter, widely circulated on social media, read. "Once the costs of the future are better known we may bring back some or all of the benefits we have had to remove."

A spokeswoman for the Great White North Franchisee Association, a group created last year to give voice to the concerns of some Tim Hortons franchisees, confirmed that the couple penned it.

The cutback in benefits and wages at their two locations, which came into effect Jan. 1, follow the rise in Ontario's minimum wage from $11.60 an hour to $14 this week. The couple also wrote that the changes come in anticipation of another $1 bump at the start of 2019.

The owners also pointed to "the lack of assistance and financial help from our head office and government" in the letter and said their decision follows "intense discussions with management and numerous small business owners in the area and other franchise owners."

Not in violation of provincial regulations

A Tim Hortons spokesperson declined to comment on the couple's statement, but said franchisees are responsible for handling all employment matters, including benefits and wages, at their restaurants while complying with all applicable laws and regulations.

"Our focus continues to be on supporting our restaurant owners by growing sales and profitability through a balanced and multifaceted strategy while ensuring we provide our guests with great experiences," the spokesperson said in an emailed statement.

None of the changes contravene Ontario's Employment Standards Act, which requires employers to give workers a 30-minute eating period — or two shorter breaks that add up to 30 minutes, if the employee agrees — if a shift lasts more than five consecutive hours. These do not have to be paid.

Additional breaks only have to be paid if the employee is required to stay on premises, said an Ontario Ministry of Labour spokeswoman. A nurse who must stay in a hospital lounge during his or her break, for example, would have to be paid, she said.

Many of our store owners are left no alternative but to implement cost-saving measures in order to survive.

The minimum wage hike and other new franchisee costs, like vacation pay, have put Tim Hortons franchisees in "a difficult situation," said a statement from the GWNFA's board of directors.

The GWNFA, whose membership hit half of all Canadian Tim Hortons franchisees last October, said its goal is to mitigate job losses.

But without help from their parent company in lowering food costs, raising prices and reducing couponing, the association said franchisees have been forced to take steps to protect their business.

"While other competitors have received concessions from their franchisors, unfortunately our chain has not," the GWNFA said. "Many of our store owners are left no alternative but to implement cost-saving measures in order to survive."

http://m.huffingtonpost.ca/2018/01/04/tim-hortons-locations-owned-by-founders-kids-reduce-employee-benefits_a_23323678/?ncid=fcbklnkcahpmg00000001

 

[anon1]

ha ha :biggrin-new:

https://www.thebeaverton.com/2018/01/tim-hortons-heirs-encourage-minimum-wage-employees-inherit-coffee-chains/

COBURG, ON — After cutting employee benefits and paid breaks, the heirs to the Tim Hortons fortune are encouraging their minimum wage employees to make up the lost earnings by inheriting multi-national coffee chains of their own.
“I understand our employees’ anxiety, but take it from me – inheriting an already-successful corporation is really easy,” explained Jeri Lynn Horton-Joyce, daughter of the late Tim Horton.
Following a provincial minimum wage hike to $14 per hour, the Tim Horton heirs claimed to have no choice by to slash paid breaks and benefits, before encouraging employees at their Coburg location to “explore their inheritanceoptions.” The counter staff was reportedly told to offset lost wages by checking if they are currently the heirs to other coffee chain fortunes, such as Starbucks or Country Style.
“Even in a pinch, inheriting the Coffee Time corporation would be worth something,” said Ron Joyce Jr. son of co-founder Ron Joyce.
The Joyces also emphasized the high income to work ratio of inheriting incredibly profitable businesses with established name brand and low overhead. “You don’t even have to sell good coffee or food,” added Joyce Jr.
“Also, if you just slap Canadian flags all over the place, the money just keeps rolling in with no effort required. So maybe try that and then you can pay for your own benefits,” continued the excited millionaire from the Florida mansion where he is currently wintering.
For those employees who really wanted to make it in today’s competitive workforce, the Joyces also recommended marrying someone with an even bigger inheritance than you have

 

[Aardvark154]

The cutback in benefits and paid breaks at their two locations, which came into effect Jan. 1, follow the rise in Ontario's minimum wage from $11.60 an hour to $14 this week. The couple also wrote that the changes come in anticipation of another $1 bump at the start of 2019.

So it actually has to do with economics and keeping the franchises in business rather than that they are for some reason just nasty mean-spirited people.


By the way read between the lines in the article, up until this point they had provided full dental benefits and paid breaks. So that they changed what was a very good deal into a more standard deal in the restaurant industry is now used to portray them as the new Simon Legree. Damned if they do, damned if they don't.

 

[james t kirk]

Well you can't have your cake and eat it too. (Or maybe your doughnuts.)

You can't force a company to increase payroll by 30 percent in one go and figure that the company will just need to suck it up.

Kathleen Wynne and her merry band of socialists just don't understand that. None of them have ever worked in the private sector and none of them have any sense of how hard it is to make a buck. One need only look at how they have run this province into the ground.

 

[doggee_01]

Well you can't have your cake and eat it too. (Or maybe your doughnuts.)

You can't force a company to increase payroll by 30 percent in one go and figure that the company will just need to suck it up.

Kathleen Wynne and her merry band of socialists just don't understand that. None of them have ever worked in the private sector and none of them have any sense of how hard it is to make a buck. One need only look at how they have run this province into the ground.

what he said!!!!

 

[doggee_01]

i don't know if it is true or not but i read somewhere that the increase in minimum wage across canada will cost about 60,000 jobs mostly in good old ontario the red

 

[Frankfooter]

i don't know if it is true or not but i read somewhere that the increase in minimum wage across canada will cost about 60,000 jobs mostly in good old ontario the red

Bank of Canada said that, but over the next two years. Which is about one months changes when you tally it all up.

 

[Big Sleazy]

Nobody in Government or Corporations should be allow to make any monetary policy until they can answer these two questions.

What is money and how is it created ?

Until you can answer those questions in ten words or less you are not qualified to be involved in monetary policy. Go back to Justin Trudeau's Grade 6 remedial Drama Class and start all over again.

 

[jcpro]

Of course the benefits and overtime go first. Next will come manpower adjustment. After everything is said and done, the people who are suppose to benefit from this will end up worse off. Unlike government, private sector does not have an ability to operate in the perpetual deficit.

 

[sempel]

I personally would like to see the full financials and economics that went into these decisions. Compared to Starbucks, Timothy's and Second Cup, Tim Horton's charges on the lower end for coffee and coffee drinks. So I'm thinking the most obvious option to handle the payroll increase is to bump up prices marginally. I'm also curious about the numbers as I'd really like to know how much money Tim Horton's was making before and what is expected after. I understand smaller ma/pop shop's that barely eke out a profit saying they will be hurt. But considering the price of a Tim Horton's franchise, it's clear the chain does very well and has plenty of new and loyal customers that continue to go there.

I worked at a company long time ago where employees paid half of the premiums for health/dental. Granted these are somewhat expected but not required to be provided by companies to its employees. Many companies do so as a non-monetary incentive to attract and retain employees. And I can also understand something like OT being reduced considering at some point employees are entitled to time and a half.

I'm curious though about the unpaid breaks. My impression was if you work say an 8 hour day, you are entitled to 2 15 min breaks that are paid and 30 min unpaid lunch, hence a 37.5 hour workweek. I'm also a little curious about why a person who works 3 hours requires a paid break, considering they are done after 3 hours. Curious about what the law states about consecutive hours worked.

 

[jeff5228]

I personally would like to see the full financials and economics that went into these decisions. Compared to Starbucks, Timothy's and Second Cup, Tim Horton's charges on the lower end for coffee and coffee drinks. So I'm thinking the most obvious option to handle the payroll increase is to bump up prices marginally. I'm also curious about the numbers as I'd really like to know how much money Tim Horton's was making before and what is expected after. I understand smaller ma/pop shop's that barely eke out a profit saying they will be hurt. But considering the price of a Tim Horton's franchise, it's clear the chain does very well and has plenty of new and loyal customers that continue to go there.

I worked at a company long time ago where employees paid half of the premiums for health/dental. Granted these are somewhat expected but not required to be provided by companies to its employees. Many companies do so as a non-monetary incentive to attract and retain employees. And I can also understand something like OT being reduced considering at some point employees are entitled to time and a half.

I'm curious though about the unpaid breaks. My impression was if you work say an 8 hour day, you are entitled to 2 15 min breaks that are paid and 30 min unpaid lunch, hence a 37.5 hour workweek. I'm also a little curious about why a person who works 3 hours requires a paid break, considering they are done after 3 hours. Curious about what the law states about consecutive hours worked.

All that is legally required in Ontario, is that after 5 hours work, you receive a 30 minute unpaid break.

 

[sempel]

All that is legally required in Ontario, is that after 5 hours work, you receive a 30 minute unpaid break.

Thanks.

So based on that, I think my point about the 3 hour workers having a paid break period is actually generous because it's not required by law.

 

[testing1]

I find it crazy how shocked people are about this and think they are so terrible for doing it even though they are reducing it in line with other business practices. No one is criticizing a business that only provides the legal minimum but instead a business that that had previously provided more than required and due to a dramatic increase in costs it is reducing those benefits to compensate is the one getting criticized.

 

[Aardvark154]

I find it crazy how shocked people are about this and think they are so terrible for doing it even though they are reducing it in line with other business practices. No one is criticizing a business that only provides the legal minimum but instead a business that that had previously provided more than required and due to a dramatic increase in costs it is reducing those benefits to compensate is the one getting criticized.

Indeed! (#3).

 

[Aardvark154]

As the saying of a number of decades ago ran something along the lines of "If you have a heart communism is a wonderful concept, however, if you have a brain there is no way you would ever support it."

 

[james t kirk]

I personally would like to see the full financials and economics that went into these decisions. Compared to Starbucks, Timothy's and Second Cup, Tim Horton's charges on the lower end for coffee and coffee drinks. So I'm thinking the most obvious option to handle the payroll increase is to bump up prices marginally. I'm also curious about the numbers as I'd really like to know how much money Tim Horton's was making before and what is expected after. I understand smaller ma/pop shop's that barely eke out a profit saying they will be hurt. But considering the price of a Tim Horton's franchise, it's clear the chain does very well and has plenty of new and loyal customers that continue to go there.

I worked at a company long time ago where employees paid half of the premiums for health/dental. Granted these are somewhat expected but not required to be provided by companies to its employees. Many companies do so as a non-monetary incentive to attract and retain employees. And I can also understand something like OT being reduced considering at some point employees are entitled to time and a half.

I'm curious though about the unpaid breaks. My impression was if you work say an 8 hour day, you are entitled to 2 15 min breaks that are paid and 30 min unpaid lunch, hence a 37.5 hour workweek. I'm also a little curious about why a person who works 3 hours requires a paid break, considering they are done after 3 hours. Curious about what the law states about consecutive hours worked.

A good friend owns a couple of Tims.

He put it this way, "Owning a Tims is like buying yourself a job that pays about 100 grand a year" and "in order to make any kind of money in Tims, you need to own more than one".

In other words, given all his investment capital wise, time, risk, thieving employees, nonstop HR issues, etc. at the end of the year, he makes about 100 grand a year out of the deal. It's not like the good old days when owning a Tims was really something. We are over-Timmed and there is a coffee shop on every corner, in every gas station and no-one goes out of their way to buy a coffee.

Now with all of the above, factor in a 30% increase in labour costs across the board. How do you think that impacts the owner of a Tim's franchise?

I'd love to see Wynne run a Tim Horton's franchise. I'd pay good money to see that idiot actually do something that generates wealth and see how she makes out dealing with regulations on top of regulations, etc.

 

[Smallcock]

I personally would like to see the full financials and economics that went into these decisions. Compared to Starbucks, Timothy's and Second Cup, Tim Horton's charges on the lower end for coffee and coffee drinks. So I'm thinking the most obvious option to handle the payroll increase is to bump up prices marginally. I'm also curious about the numbers as I'd really like to know how much money Tim Horton's was making before and what is expected after. I understand smaller ma/pop shop's that barely eke out a profit saying they will be hurt. But considering the price of a Tim Horton's franchise, it's clear the chain does very well and has plenty of new and loyal customers that continue to go there.

I worked at a company long time ago where employees paid half of the premiums for health/dental. Granted these are somewhat expected but not required to be provided by companies to its employees. Many companies do so as a non-monetary incentive to attract and retain employees. And I can also understand something like OT being reduced considering at some point employees are entitled to time and a half.

I'm curious though about the unpaid breaks. My impression was if you work say an 8 hour day, you are entitled to 2 15 min breaks that are paid and 30 min unpaid lunch, hence a 37.5 hour workweek. I'm also a little curious about why a person who works 3 hours requires a paid break, considering they are done after 3 hours. Curious about what the law states about consecutive hours worked.

Franchisees understand the optics of the situation which leads me to believe that the change in policy is one of necessity. As James points out, operating a business like Tim Horton's is tough. Margins are low, so profit is dependent on scale. Very difficult stuff.

 

[Occasionally]

I personally would like to see the full financials and economics that went into these decisions. Compared to Starbucks, Timothy's and Second Cup, Tim Horton's charges on the lower end for coffee and coffee drinks. So I'm thinking the most obvious option to handle the payroll increase is to bump up prices marginally. I'm also curious about the numbers as I'd really like to know how much money Tim Horton's was making before and what is expected after. I understand smaller ma/pop shop's that barely eke out a profit saying they will be hurt. But considering the price of a Tim Horton's franchise, it's clear the chain does very well and has plenty of new and loyal customers that continue to go there.

I worked at a company long time ago where employees paid half of the premiums for health/dental. Granted these are somewhat expected but not required to be provided by companies to its employees. Many companies do so as a non-monetary incentive to attract and retain employees. And I can also understand something like OT being reduced considering at some point employees are entitled to time and a half.

I'm curious though about the unpaid breaks. My impression was if you work say an 8 hour day, you are entitled to 2 15 min breaks that are paid and 30 min unpaid lunch, hence a 37.5 hour workweek. I'm also a little curious about why a person who works 3 hours requires a paid break, considering they are done after 3 hours. Curious about what the law states about consecutive hours worked.

I'm throwing a dart with these numbers for sake of discussion, but some Tim's have a million employees. Go there in the morning and there can be about 15 people back there cooking, cash, drive through.

What I don't know is what the avg Tim's wage is to start with (X), so the difference between X vs. $14/hr can be anything. For sake of argument, let's say the avg difference is $1/hr as the avg. Tim's clerk makes $13/hr.

- So you got 15 people at peak times, but for fun, let's say the avg number of employees working at any given time is 10
- Tim's can be open anywhere from 16-24 hours, let's say 16 hours
- You got to pay out $160 extra in wages (160 man hours x $1/hr)
- Multiply that by a year and you get..... $58,400 in extra wages for a store

Is $60,000 chump change? I don't know. I also guessed at some math for sake of fun.

You guys can do your own guesstimate using whatever variables and rates, but it comes down to:

- Avg # employees per Hour x A store's hours of operation x Avg Hourly Wage Difference per Hour vs. $14 x 365 days

 

[wazup]

I go to macs milk for 95c hot drinks. They have all kinds of chocolate type flavours I like. I just can't get them to bring it out to me.............yet.

 

[Polaris]

01/04/2018 07:21 EST

Tim Hortons Locations Owned By Founders' Kids Reduce Employee BenefitsThey've also cut back paid breaks.

Canadian Press

So what?

It is their business, it is their money. They can do anything they want with it.

What right does that idiot Wynne has to say in the matter?

That franchise should be a corporation. The shareholders of that corporation, appoint directors and executives to run that corporation. Who runs that corporation, is not someone appointed by the government or some other party.

Just what the hell is Wynne really saying?

That corporation laws don't do anything for the worker? What, is she going to do something for the worker?

How old is corporate law in this country? Isn't it as old as Canada itself.

Wynne is a complete loony tunes.

:apathy: