Most Americans want to work, they don't want hand outs.

[bannination]

A Part-Time Life, as Hours Shrink and Shift

Give them the hours and they'll work `em.

"Handouts" are not the problem here.

[billy.pilgrim]

did you hear about the fla guy who owns 50+ dennys. he plans to cut all employees back to less than 30 hours or charge a surtax for obamacare on each ticket, along with the note that you can pay the additional surcharge and deduct in from the servers tip.

[Colonel Taylor]

did you hear about the fla guy who owns 50+ dennys. he plans to cut all employees back to less than 30 hours or charge a surtax for obamacare on each ticket, along with the note that you can pay the additional surcharge and deduct in from the servers tip.

I think it's already started at Chick-fil-A. I take a group of kids their for breakfast one day per week if they do good in school, no back sliding on grades or trouble. Well today was most likely our last day there. In the morning there is NEVER more then one older gentleman working the counter, must be the manager. WE waited 20 minutes just to get to him then 10 more just to get our order. The drive thru line was around 3/4 of the building. If they can't hire a few more min. wage employees they don't need us. Told the kids next time someplace else.

[rstrong]

Socialized medicine has had an effect on jobs here in Canada.

Just ask GM Canada, which lobbies to keep the universal healthcare system here to keep costs down.

"GM Canada’s CEO Michael Grimaldi sent a letter co-signed by Canadian Autoworkers Union president Buzz Hargrave to a Crown Commission considering reforms of Canada’s 35-year-old national health program that said, “The public healthcare system significantly reduces total labour costs for automobile manufacturing firms, compared to their cost of equivalent private insurance services purchased by U.S.-based automakers.” That letter also said it was “vitally important that the publicly funded healthcare system be preserved and renewed, on the existing principles of universality, accessibility, portability, comprehensiveness and public administration,” ... CEOs of the Canadian units of Ford and DaimlerChrysler wrote similar encomiums endorsing the national health system."

Monthly health-coverage costs for Canadian employers average about $50; health-insurance costs for US employers average $552. The costs for GM of building a midsize car in Canada are $1,400 less than building the identical car in the United States.

And no, we Canadians don't pay more taxes because of this. Not only do we pay 47% less, we pay less taxes for the same standard of health care.

Toyota moved a plant from the US to Canada for the same reason.

Granted, our system is more like the public option that Obama originally campaigned on, rather than - when he didn't have the votes in Congress for the public option - the 15 years of Repulican healthcare policy that became ObamaCare" instead. But the point still stands. Regardless of the Dennys guy's version of ranting about Republican myths to an empty chair, a better health care system is better for employers and results in more jobs.

[homerfobe]

Give them the hours and they'll work `em.
"Handouts" are not the problem here.

Yeah right. Most Americans want to work? Wrong Dude.
Most Americans want the money coming in as long as they don't have to work for it. No problem with handouts either.

Read the 'WalMart' and 'Jobless Numbers' threads.

[bannination]

Give them the hours and they'll work `em.
"Handouts" are not the problem here.

Yeah right. Most Americans want to work? Wrong Dude.
Most Americans want the money coming in as long as they don't have to work for it. No problem with handouts either.

Read the 'WalMart' and 'Jobless Numbers' threads.

Walmart is on of the biggest offenders of cutting hours and or making you work hours you can't in order to try and make you quit when you "make too much".

Your point is.....?

[homerfobe]

Your point is.....?

Work on your comprehension and get back to me, maybe you'll get the point.

[k9nanny]

Saving by using p/t help is nothing new.
Obamacare" is simply the latest excuse. I worked for a department store when I laid out of college one semester, and p/t was 39.5 hours. When I worked for a restaurant a few years ago, p/t meant working at the manager's pleasure. One could be scheduled for 6 hours and be sent home after three, or one of the druggies could be having an "off" day, and if called, you'd best be there.

And how about the plants (GE comes to mind) that get workers through temp agencies?

Even the giants, AT&T for example, have been laying off employees and cutting hours since way before 2007, and the remaining numbers are expected to work an increased load with decreased benefits.

Granted, worker abuse, no doubt, has worsened with technology, outsourcing, insufficient "fixed" income. The greedy bastards have perfected their methods.

[homerfobe]

I know where you're coming from. Several years ago, many large companies, mostly retail giants, began cutting their workforce hours back, then replacing those that quit with part-timers. They may schedule them, as you stated, 39.5 hours one week, then maybe 16 the next, and continually bounce them up and down on their hours.

Because they are hired in as part time, they don't qualify for full benefit packages like a full timer would, even though they may be working some full time schedules.

When the unions began infiltrating retail work forces, the only ones who benefitted were the unions.

[bannination]

When the unions began infiltrating retail work forces, the only ones who benefitted were the unions.

Do you have any evidence of this we could read about?

[homerfobe]

When the unions began infiltrating retail work forces, the only ones who benefitted were the unions.

Do you have any evidence of this we could read about?

No, I don't. I was a union lackey for a number of years before I saw what being done out of the limelight.

I could write you a book.

[Cannonpointer]

THAT IS A FANTASTIC VIDEO.

[Roland Deschain]

A Part-Time Life, as Hours Shrink and Shift

Give them the hours and they'll work `em.

"Handouts" are not the problem here.

Yeah but only if you pay them $15 an hour for flipping burgers and the first few posts in this thread are evidence as to exactly why that will NOT work!

[Crock Hunter]

.
Interesting.. Pathetic.. Infuriating..

What If Your Income Grew As Fast As the 1 Percent's? Calculator. .. .. .

Let the "Trickle Down" apologists begin. ... .

[Roland Deschain]

So dumb, socialist worker, these are fast food employees that are already working and a minimum wage increase has never harmed the economy.

True, they were working....until some walked out demanding an increase. Also true, an increase has never harmed the economy. However, I'd like to find a point in history where that increase was over 100%. If you think that giving a Hardees burger flipper $15 an hour will not result in fewer workers, more modernization, and higher prices I got some ocean front property to sell you.

[Roland Deschain]

No one thinks that the minimum wage will be $15 an hour anytime soon and the only realistic federal proposals are for just over $10 an hour. A minimum wage increase will boost the economy immediately since low wage workers spend their income rather than stashing it in The Caymans like Mitten.

Well that is right there close to a 50% increase and again if you think that upping the wages of burger flippers and the like to "just over $10 and hour" will not result in fewer workers, more modernization, and higher prices you really need to look at this property I've got for sale. The metric is simple...you want higher pay, better yourself and EARN it....don't just demand that the government dictate to your employer that they give it to you.

[Roland Deschain]

The nationwide minimum wage level is $7.25 per hour. An increase to "just over $10 an hour", the Obama proposal, would be just over a 37.9% increase, not "close to a 50% increase". You fail arithmetic, again.

As you admit, "an increase has never harmed the economy". Your dire, corporate-shill predictions about the latest efforts are historically unsupported dogma. It's funny when you argue with yourself.

You want decent pay and recession-proof job security? Get a government dictated job like Roland Deschain's, one that doesn't require even basic arithmetic competency but does allow blogging from "work". Not that I have a problem with government dictates, minimum wages increases have always improved America and the lot of Americans.

Whew, I'm sure glad the wise sage fixed that. Last I checked 37.9% is a hell of lot closer to 50% than 5 or 10%...my apologies for rounding. So, tell us oh wise ass.....when was the last time minimum wage was raised more than one dollar. Now, you are talking about a 37.9% increase on the most basic of unskilled jobs and are dumb enough to think that will not have a ripple effect. I've got ocean front property AND a bridge to sell your stupid ass!

[O Really]

So, tell us oh wise ass.....when was the last time minimum wage was raised more than one dollar. ...

That would be in the amendments of 2007, when the minimum was raised from $5.85 to $7.25. The increase did not go into effect all at once, but the increase was passed on one bill. That is what is being proposed here, not an all at once tomorrow increase to $10 (although I'm sure many would like that), but a bill that raises the minimum to $10.

[O Really]

The last time minimum wage was raised more than one dollar was in 2007-2009 when it went from $5.15 according to Wiki ("$5.85" was after the first step increase, O Really) to $7.25, a 40.8% increase. .

You are correct. I was in error. Does my dick fall off for having admitted it?

[Roland Deschain]

Less than 40% to "close to a 50% increase" is not "rounding". You fail English, too.

The last time minimum wage was raised more than one dollar was in 2007-2009 when it went from $5.15 according to Wiki ("$5.85" was after the first step increase, O Really) to $7.25, a 40.8% increase. You fail Recent History and Basic Research skills, too, Roland Deschain. We don't know if any new increase will be all at once or stepped like that one.

No one has mentioned "5 or 10%" as a comparison. You're adorable when trying to cover for your screw ups.

Plus, the percentage increase (now proposed to be less than last time) is more important when calculating impacts than your "more than one dollar" silliness. You fail Economics, too.

We're still well below the adjusted dollar minimum wage of the 1950s to 1970s before cons decided to transfer so much of our national wealth to the uber-rich.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Histo ... reases.svg
Your Chicken Little, corporate-shill predictions of dire effects have no real world evidentiary basis.

I'm not surprised that your stupid ass bought lousy property that you now can't unload. You are that gullible.

OK so both of you liberal shills are going to argue semantics knowing that minimum wage has never increased more than a dollar in any one step. The fact that an amendment a created the path for a SERIES OF STEPS was not a $2.20 single increase.
http://www.thedigeratilife.com/blog/fed ... e-history/
Ya'll keep patting yourselves on the back thinking you are so smart when in this case you are being intentionally deceptive...oh wait..that is typical of a liberal.