As far as I can tell, it’s not “franchisees”, it’s a corporation that owns all the franchises. Looks like a political stunt to oppose the new $20 per hour law.
I’m not opposed to a livable wage. What I am against is this stupid idea. Little places are excluded. Basically only large chains are required to follow it even though most are franchises.
Bakers are excluded. It’s just stupid even if you agree with the intent
Again it’s the not understanding economics. Not understanding that the market is a signal conducting medium, and that its success depends on those signals propagating, and that price controls destroy the signal conduction.
One thing that I have learned over the past 50 years is that conservatism absolutely does not believe in the success of small businesses. Their only motivation is to see how much they can get by screwing people out of the most money. Always whining about the cost of things going up because employees need wages, they would rather see a business go under and employees lose jobs than to actually support the business and the employees and help the economy grow around them. I have yet to hear from a single conservative who knows how business and economics works.
Here’s something that maybe you don’t know about business… if you can’t pay enough to make it worth an employee’s time to show up for work then you are running a failed business. If you think that it’s your priority to pay as little as possible for the most profit, you are running a failed business. I can’t help but notice that out of all of my peers, the conservative ones were the ones who struggled in business the most, and usually went under pretty quickly. They do not survive on the merits of their value as a business. Instead they keep trying to squeeze an extra dime out by cutting throats and underpaying employees and they can’t figure out why they can never get ahead. Cooperation always beats competition every single time.
As little as possible, in a free market, is as little as someone will consent to, ie as little as someone considers it to still be the best way to spend their own time.
In a free market, not being able to offer enough wages to get labor is indeed a sign of a failed market.
In a market with price controls (including price controls on labor), there are people willing to work for less, ie people who consent to committing their time to that arrangement, who aren’t given that opportunity. They are forcibly separated from the economic relationships they would willingly engage in.
In the headline above, these pizza workers fall into that category. An economic arrangement that they found worthy of their own consent is being blocked from happening, and they are therefore forced to go find the next best option for them.
They’ve been forced down the economic ladder by the government. It’s an injustice. It’s a violation of their personal autonomy. It’s a violation of their rights. It’s fucking wrong.
What in the goddamn fuck does running a company have to do with it? You don’t run a company so you’re not smart enough to discuss it either are you? I run a company. I know what I’m talking about. Maybe you need to sit down.
Business (n): when two or more consenting adults agree to an economic trade
Anti-business (adj): Tending to prevent business from happening. As in: When the government forcibly broke the economic arrangements of those adults, it demonstrated its anti-business stance
I am aware. That financial release is from Yum Brands, which owns Pizza Hut. The franchise owners have to pay Yum Brands to be a franchisee.
None of which changes the fact that this event is a result of corporate greed. If Yum wasn’t so greedy, the franchize owners could afford it. So as a whole, as an entire organization they are quite capable of paying a $20 wage. But they aren’t, because of greed.
Umm… no. They couldn’t afford it and got rid of the employees. Businesses are not charities. If the employees created 20 dollars an hour in value, they would have been kept. They didn’t. So they will be let go. Laws have consequences
Right. And that is exactly why taxes need to be increased on the parent corporations back to the 90% level we had when Republicans weren’t greedy, self-obsessed paychopaths.
Yes, but the tax cuts were conditional upon actually contributing to society in providing jobs. That was the entire point. It is a much better system than letting someone amass an ord as much wealth as possible without contributing anything to to the society that gives them the freedom to do so. They wanted tax cuts they had to earn them. They weren’t just freely given and guaranteed in exchange for a pac donation. The system that we have now that conservatives keep defending is called corruption in any other Nation.
So you are fine with non minimum wage like Denmark? You are also fine with almost no full time workers like the McDonald’s in Denmark ? You’re also fine with those wages being taxed at a much higher rate on those workers?
No I do not. Try to address the actual problem instead of insults.
Y’all are incapable of understanding that franchises pay out to the parent company. The money the parent company gets has to come from somewhere. If you guys can’t understand that, then that’s on you.
Did I say all of the greed comes from this particular stock buyback? Did I say all of the greed comes from franchise fees? No. Try thinking it through.
Not sure he understand they’re not employees of Pizza Hut. They’re employees of the franchise. I also don’t think he understands how low margin food is. If an employee doesn’t generate enough value they are gone. It’s not a charity.
All franchises that wont pay living wages should lay off all their employees and then y’all can run around screaming again about how “nobody wants to work” because you can’t have your McCheese
Add comment