|
Post by mikegarrison on Sept 6, 2021 16:39:01 GMT -5
Shocking that restaurants can't hire people on at awful wages to get overworked. Yup.
|
|
|
Post by ilikewaffles on Sept 6, 2021 19:17:48 GMT -5
There isn't a single state set to extend benefits. Congress and the White House need to act now or tens of millions of people are going to get hurt. Perhaps getting a job will help ease their pain.
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Sept 6, 2021 23:32:54 GMT -5
Around us service industry is hurting bad. Shocking that restaurants can't hire people on at awful wages to get overworked. Even the fast casual places are only paying $11 or $12 an hour and are screaming nobody that wants to work. White collar jobs seem to be fine. There are not a lot of front of house/tipped employee restaurant jobs available in my area. Both my mother and sister work one of those jobs and had their hours reduced. Now, they've had the NOW HIRING sign up since pre-pandemic for a Full Time Cook and have never, ever took it down. Multiple years now. This is in a state that already cut off unemployment benefits, so, why can't they get people to work?! It's just a dumbfounding question..... Yes, hours reduction is a real thing - and one of the questions I have about all of these "HELP WANTED" signs. Many of the places that are now desperate were for years keeping all employees under FT hours to avoid paying full benefits or giving other worker protections. Are they still trying this? And how many of those people whose hours were suppressed have gone on to bigger and better things.
|
|
|
Post by ironhammer on Sept 6, 2021 23:44:40 GMT -5
There are not a lot of front of house/tipped employee restaurant jobs available in my area. Both my mother and sister work one of those jobs and had their hours reduced. Now, they've had the NOW HIRING sign up since pre-pandemic for a Full Time Cook and have never, ever took it down. Multiple years now. This is in a state that already cut off unemployment benefits, so, why can't they get people to work?! It's just a dumbfounding question..... Yes, hours reduction is a real thing - and one of the questions I have about all of these "HELP WANTED" signs. Many of the places that are now desperate were for years keeping all employees under FT hours to avoid paying full benefits or giving other worker protections. Are they still trying this? And how many of those people whose hours were suppressed have gone on to bigger and better things. Well, it comes down to something really simple in the end. If restaurants don't want to or can't "afford" paying their staff a living wage, then they won't have employees for their businesses and they will go out of business either way.
|
|
trojansc
Legend
All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2022, 2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017), All-VolleyTalk 2nd Team (2016), 2021, 2019 Fantasy League Champion, 2020 Fantasy League Runner Up, 2022 2nd Runner Up
Posts: 28,131
|
Post by trojansc on Sept 7, 2021 0:08:41 GMT -5
Yes, hours reduction is a real thing - and one of the questions I have about all of these "HELP WANTED" signs. Many of the places that are now desperate were for years keeping all employees under FT hours to avoid paying full benefits or giving other worker protections. Are they still trying this? And how many of those people whose hours were suppressed have gone on to bigger and better things. I don't know about what the current experience is for restaurants, but I can speak to my past experience when that whole Full-Time/28 hours/must pay health care thing went down in California. I was working for a large chain casual-restaurant at the time. We had a tougher time keeping consistent, back of the house workers who were making much less money than front of house, so we offered *some* of those employees full-time hours. They were even willing to pay those already overworked cooks a little bit of overtime just to send someone else home early if necessary. For front of house? Practically. I think we had about 60 front of house employees and only two were given FT status. Schedules were changed day-to-day and people were sent home early or stayed later in order to accommodate this. You had an 'in'-time, there was no 'out'-time. You could get sent home at 9pm or 1am. OK, restaurant people know that might not be unusual, but, the reasoning was different yet simple: Nobody could go over 28 hours. It was electronically tracked and alerted: anyone close would be sent home early. Restaurant too busy to send home people? No worries, we'll go on a wait and/or overwork the people that aren't at risk of going over 28 hours. We need you stay overtime today but then when tomorrow comes we'll work you for 3-4 hours and tell you not to bother coming in on Sunday anyways because you're too close to hours and we'd rather not risk it. For the record, I don't know if it's still 28 hours or something similar and I have no idea if it's state-by-state. That was just how it went down years back when it was first instituted. FOH staff was p*ssed even if they didn't care about the health care, it was affecting their money and a sh*tshow every day. Managers didn't like the practicality of it and were sad for their staff and also it was certainly unreasonable for running an effective business most of the time.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Sept 7, 2021 3:56:55 GMT -5
Yes, hours reduction is a real thing - and one of the questions I have about all of these "HELP WANTED" signs. Many of the places that are now desperate were for years keeping all employees under FT hours to avoid paying full benefits or giving other worker protections. Are they still trying this? And how many of those people whose hours were suppressed have gone on to bigger and better things. I don't know about what the current experience is for restaurants, but I can speak to my past experience when that whole Full-Time/28 hours/must pay health care thing went down in California. I was working for a large chain casual-restaurant at the time. We had a tougher time keeping consistent, back of the house workers who were making much less money than front of house, so we offered *some* of those employees full-time hours. They were even willing to pay those already overworked cooks a little bit of overtime just to send someone else home early if necessary. For front of house? Practically. I think we had about 60 front of house employees and only two were given FT status. Schedules were changed day-to-day and people were sent home early or stayed later in order to accommodate this. You had an 'in'-time, there was no 'out'-time. You could get sent home at 9pm or 1am. OK, restaurant people know that might not be unusual, but, the reasoning was different yet simple: Nobody could go over 28 hours. It was electronically tracked and alerted: anyone close would be sent home early. Restaurant too busy to send home people? No worries, we'll go on a wait and/or overwork the people that aren't at risk of going over 28 hours. We need you stay overtime today but then when tomorrow comes we'll work you for 3-4 hours and tell you not to bother coming in on Sunday anyways because you're too close to hours and we'd rather not risk it. For the record, I don't know if it's still 28 hours or something similar and I have no idea if it's state-by-state. That was just how it went down years back when it was first instituted. FOH staff was p*ssed even if they didn't care about the health care, it was affecting their money and a sh*tshow every day. Managers didn't like the practicality of it and were sad for their staff and also it was certainly unreasonable for running an effective business most of the time. All that because they didn't want to pay for healthcare for their workers? Just another reason why we have needed public healthcare for so long. Get it out of the workplace.
|
|
trojansc
Legend
All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2022, 2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017), All-VolleyTalk 2nd Team (2016), 2021, 2019 Fantasy League Champion, 2020 Fantasy League Runner Up, 2022 2nd Runner Up
Posts: 28,131
|
Post by trojansc on Sept 7, 2021 9:50:30 GMT -5
All that because they didn't want to pay for healthcare for their workers? Just another reason why we have needed public healthcare for so long. Get it out of the workplace. 100%. But yes, all that. Cali restaurants (among other states/big cities) are already salty they have to pay actual minimum wage instead of a $2.13 minimum federal tipped wage.
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Sept 7, 2021 11:33:11 GMT -5
All that because they didn't want to pay for healthcare for their workers? Just another reason why we have needed public healthcare for so long. Get it out of the workplace. 100%. But yes, all that. Cali restaurants (among other states/big cities) are already salty they have to pay actual minimum wage instead of a $2.13 minimum federal tipped wage. Curious, do they just include 18% gratuity on every check? That seems like the easy fix.
|
|
|
Post by mervinswerved on Sept 7, 2021 11:48:31 GMT -5
100%. But yes, all that. Cali restaurants (among other states/big cities) are already salty they have to pay actual minimum wage instead of a $2.13 minimum federal tipped wage. Curious, do they just include 18% gratuity on every check? That seems like the easy fix. Because it's a gratuity it wouldn't count towards the minimum wage. You might be thinking of a mandatory service charge. Legally not the same thing. Tips/gratuities cannot be taken by the employer whereas a service charge can be (typically done with banquets/events rather than restaurant dining). I suppose a mandatory service charge could then be directed to cover wages.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Sept 7, 2021 12:19:59 GMT -5
Tipping is such a bad custom.
Generally speaking, the cost of labor is included in the price of almost everything we buy, and payment of that labor comes from the employer. But with "tipped employees" the customers are supposed to directly pay for the labor of the employees -- but only if they feel like it?
Mandatory $15/hr laws are leading some restaurants to restructure their pricing and compensation and get rid of tipping, which is a good thing.
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Sept 7, 2021 13:39:05 GMT -5
Tipping is such a bad custom. Generally speaking, the cost of labor is included in the price of almost everything we buy, and payment of that labor comes from the employer. But with "tipped employees" the customers are supposed to directly pay for the labor of the employees -- but only if they feel like it? Mandatory $15/hr laws are leading some restaurants to restructure their pricing and compensation and get rid of tipping, which is a good thing. Could be. I bet the best servers and bartenders would lose money if tipping goes away.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Sept 7, 2021 13:40:18 GMT -5
Tipping is such a bad custom. Generally speaking, the cost of labor is included in the price of almost everything we buy, and payment of that labor comes from the employer. But with "tipped employees" the customers are supposed to directly pay for the labor of the employees -- but only if they feel like it? Mandatory $15/hr laws are leading some restaurants to restructure their pricing and compensation and get rid of tipping, which is a good thing. Could be. I bet the best servers and bartenders would lose money if tipping goes away. Not if their employers are smart. Stupid employers will refuse to pay their best employees, and will lose them. Smart employers will pay them. How do other industries reward their best employees? Do they expect their customers will pay them a bonus? Or do they just compensate them better?
|
|
|
Post by mervinswerved on Sept 7, 2021 13:46:20 GMT -5
Tipping is such a bad custom. Generally speaking, the cost of labor is included in the price of almost everything we buy, and payment of that labor comes from the employer. But with "tipped employees" the customers are supposed to directly pay for the labor of the employees -- but only if they feel like it? Mandatory $15/hr laws are leading some restaurants to restructure their pricing and compensation and get rid of tipping, which is a good thing. Could be. I bet the best servers and bartenders would lose money if tipping goes away. If that's true (which it's probably not), it would apply to about .5% of all serving and bartending jobs.
|
|
|
Post by AmeriCanvbdad on Sept 7, 2021 14:49:53 GMT -5
100%. But yes, all that. Cali restaurants (among other states/big cities) are already salty they have to pay actual minimum wage instead of a $2.13 minimum federal tipped wage. Curious, do they just include 18% gratuity on every check? That seems like the easy fix. The included gratuity actual causes me to spend less than I would normally. I tend to tip 20% (or more if service is REALLY good). Now I pay the 18% and leave it at that.
|
|
moody
Banned
Posts: 18,679
|
Post by moody on Sept 7, 2021 14:54:32 GMT -5
Curious, do they just include 18% gratuity on every check? That seems like the easy fix. The included gratuity actual causes me to spend less than I would normally. I tend to tip 20% (or more if service is REALLY good). Now I pay the 18% and leave it at that. Why? Why would you not add a tip if the service is really good?
|
|