Thread: Minimum wage....

Originally Posted by surasak

Wages are mandated to go up so employers cut benefits.

That is against the law in most western civilised countries.

No wonder the US has such dire poverty among the poor.

Originally Posted by Lily

Originally Posted by surasak

Wages are mandated to go up so employers cut benefits.

That is against the law in most western civilised countries.

No wonder the US has such dire poverty among the poor.

My understanding that in most states if you are a full time employee then you get benefits, but part time do not, so they just hire 3 part time and lay off 2 full time then they get the same hours work done for less per hour wage and no cost for benefits..

Originally Posted by blackgang

My understanding that in most states if you are a full time employee then you get benefits, but part time do not, so they just hire 3 part time and lay off 2 full time then they get the same hours work done for less per hour wage and no cost for benefits..

But in countries with fair labour laws, you cannot do this either. If you work part time, you either get a higher rate of pay to compensate for the lack of benefits or get pro rata benefits, sometimes both.

I can't believe that the US cares so little for its workers that they have to rely on tips to earn a decent wage. The employer should pay workers, they should not have to rely on the generosity of customers to have a living wage.

There's no requirement that anyone get benefits whether full time or part time.

Typically, salaried employees may get benefits, but, with the ever increasing health care costs in this country, fewer and fewer companies offer this now.

The problem, Lily, is that Americans want their 99 cent triple cheeseburgers and $5 pizzas...they don't want to pay more, therefore, the owners really can't budge much on wages due to food costs (a typical pizza, for example, has about a 55%-60% food/labor cost....factor in overhead, advertising, royalties, etc. and there's not much margin). Years ago I managed a pizza shop and paid any employee who could deliver AND make pizzas AND answer the phones $1.15 higher than the minimum at the time (which was $3.35). By doing this I killed any chance of getting a bonus. So, all my employees made $4.50 per hour except one (because the length of time of employment was about the same for all, so, there was no difference in what I paid them).

Originally Posted by surasak

The problem, Lily, is that Americans want their 99 cent triple cheeseburgers and $5 pizzas...they don't want to pay more, therefore, the owners really can't budge much on wages due to food costs

Good point. The Walmart economy doesn't give much margin for improvment. That's when Unions becomes handy.

Did you know that Unionized workers on the docks, the ones operating the ports make an average of 100K USD per year ? it's a tough and risky job but still considered "blue collar" by some standards, and yet they make more than entry level engineers.

Longshoremen in the USA make more money than a bull can shit.it's closed off though.Unless yopu have an Auntie or Uncle working there..no chance for a job.Well, that's how it used to be.crane drivers can make up to 200K per year!!

The job is not that dangerous...

Originally Posted by Little Chuchok

crane drivers can make up to 200K per year!!

Yeah, these guys are making a killing. Hard work for sure

Originally Posted by Little Chuchok

The job is not that dangerous...

Well, they could fall under heavy winds, but I am sure the local Union representative are there to stop that from happening, so yeah, not that dangerous, but a bit more dangerous than a regular clerk job.

A good crane driver is worth his weight in gold to the Port company or stevedores.More boxes moved per hour = more money.Total fcuken rip off though.In NZ they are not allowed to work for more than a 5 hour stint.They then have to hve an hour break.poor wee things.

minimum wages in modern industrialised 'fair' countries, mean jack shit.

minimum wage in the uk, about £5.50 per hr
average rent in the south west £100 per week for a poor flat, council tax + exhorbitant gas and energy bills, would leave you with a couple of quid a month for food.

i have yet to see a country with a minimum wage you can possibly live on with any sort of dignity.

the only people i know that can survive on this are the immigrants that live ten or more to a small house.

That's why tax credits are a better solution.

Originally Posted by Wallace

Vote for the BNP do you? Britain would be a sad and desperate place without all the hard-working immigrants who have been coming to the UK for several hundred years. You won't make any friends on this forum with stupid comments like this. __________________

I am not racist at all - I even had a black friend once.


Like I said earlier, some immigration is a good thing for the host nation but when it starts putting locals out of work then it is not.

Originally Posted by Lily

Originally Posted by surasak

Wages are mandated to go up so employers cut benefits.

That is against the law in most western civilised countries.

No wonder the US has such dire poverty among the poor.

This may be a misunderstanding:
Is this the 'benefit' surasak was referring to?

As as result of raising the minimum wage the owner not only lowered the mileage reimbursement but also raised the delivery charge.

Mileage reimbursement should be part of your working contract if you use your own vehicle, and not subject to an arbitrary reduction.

^I agree.

It's extremely rare that anyone gets contracts in the U.S. any more. Most states are 'fire at will' states meaning that a worker is subject to termination at any time for just about any reason. Usually benefits even for salaried workers are not carved in stone any longer due to the massive cost of providing for retired workers.

It's bad enough that my employer cut the mileage rate but to also charge customers more for having their items delivered smacks of sleaze.

So, how did I respond? There's a special for some people (if they ask for it) and now I apply that to every customer. That's costing my employer easily a hundred dollars a day now and every one of us is doing it now. So, he was forced to pay an extra $3 a day and now it's costing him about $100 because he doesn't respect us (not even enough to tell us the mileage was being reduced; we stumbled upon it accidentally). Before January 1 we would not have applied the discount unless asked.

Don't fuck with the workers.

Most people get paid for a 9 to 5 job.Mileage only happens on very few jobs.If your boss is that much of a kunt to take money away,find somebody that is fair.

It's not just mileage and it's not just the place I'm working for a few months. Other places that gave employee discounts have dropped that as of January 1. Some places that gave free meals dropped that.

My point being that a poorly written law is worse than no law at all.

If the people writing the laws are so concerned about a minimum wage why not write the law to also forbid any derease in job benefits when the wage goes up?

If the government really cares then raise the tax credit and leave wages alone.

The irony, of course, is now the employer is losing more money since the workers aren't exactly caring how much customers get charged now.

Originally Posted by texpatriate

Speaking of unions.... I am currently working on a motion picture where we have been blackmailed to hire Teamsters to hang around the set,drive vehicles that don't exist, play cards and drink coffee. These Union thugs are making more money doing nothing than our director of photography is being paid to actually shoot the movie.The entire crew has had it wages cut to pay for these parasites.

And that will happen when your government does not look after all it's workers and moderate unionism is not part of workers lives.

Lots of unions will try to tip the scale in the balance of the empoyee, but if you have fair labour laws to begin with, this can be kept in check.

Don't you have labour awards, that have to be adhered to?

Even when we have contracts, they cannot stipulate anything less than the award rulings.

Don't you have a government department that oversees this?

Originally Posted by surasak

It's extremely rare that anyone gets contracts in the U.S. any more. Most states are 'fire at will' states meaning that a worker is subject to termination at any time for just about any reason.

...another area where it's time to catch up with the rest of the civilised world for the US.

Not likely to happen as someone pointed out....what should be a minimum wage for living in San Francisco should not be the same minimum wage in the middle of Kansas. This is why a U.S. minimum wage is a failure, and, why states really should stay out of it as well.

Originally Posted by surasak

....what should be a minimum wage for living in San Francisco should not be the same minimum wage in the middle of Kansas.

Noone suggested otherwise, but this doesn't mean minimum wage is a failure. Even in Thailand it varies from Changwat to Changwat, adjusted according to regional conditions.

What I meant to say was that "benefits" such as mileage reimbursement, which aren't a benefit but a compensation for costs and risks, need to be incorporated in a working contract, and thereby be protected. The amount doesn't require regulation, but the state does set taxfree allowances (in Europe) to encourage such "benefits" to stay within a reasonable bandwidth.
Of course, if there were such a thing as a workers organisation in your present occupation, arbitrary reduction or withdrawing of the agreed "benefit" would be subject to negotiations, whereas as an individual, you don't have much choice in the circumstances.

But I don't agree that your situation results as a causal effect from minimum wage rise, it looks more like your employer is simply taking advantage in an area where they can.

Originally Posted by stroller

What I meant to say was that "benefits" such as mileage reimbursement, which aren't a benefit but a compensation for costs and risks, need to be incorporated in a working contract, and thereby be protected. The amount doesn't require regulation, but the state does set taxfree allowances (in Europe) to encourage such "benefits" to stay within a reasonable bandwidth.
Of course, if there were such a thing as a workers organisation in your present occupation, arbitrary reduction or withdrawing of the agreed "benefit" would be subject to negotiations, whereas as an individual, you don't have much choice in the circumstances.

The other choice is to unionize, however, that in itself presents new challenges and the cost of having to fork over money to the union in a timely fashion.

Benefits generally are tax-exempt here in the states. The issue that should be addressed is this: the employer gets to deduct the full tax benefit of each mile we drive though we are not reimbursed that same amount. Currently the IRS allows a business to deduct 40 cents per mile driven as a business expense. We get about 21 cents of that, so, the IRS deduction is another form of income for the business owner. The problem is that under the law we cannot claim the 40 cents ourselves unless we are fully independent contractors (which, again, present a new set of challenges to meet).

But I don't agree that your situation results as a causal effect from minimum wage rise, it looks more like your employer is simply taking advantage in an area where they can.

My point is that businesses here won't simply absorb the increased cost of higher wages without either (a) raising costs to customers, (b) cutting benefits and/or hours of those employed, or (c) both (a) and (b).

Why not instead of a MW have a tax credit that gives people money even if they don't pay any tax and would target the exact income brackets that need the assistance?

The problem is that under the law we cannot claim the 40 cents ourselves unless we are fully independent contractors (which, again, present a new set of challenges to meet).

Then this again falls under the "Contract" that was mentioned earlier, If you are a sub contractor then you would need a contract where if you were an hourly wage earner then there is no need for a seperate contract. Even if you are a union member you can have a sub contractors contract and the union contract sets the perimeters.
There are members of your local union 701 of operating engineers in Portland Oregon that are sub contractors because they rent their shop trucks, welding machines and such equipment that is called for in the union contract with AGC to be furnished but is instead furnished by the employee at an hourly rate to the main contractor.
I know this is a fact because that is one of the locals that I retired from and recieve a pension check monthly from them.

More evidence that raising the MW hurts:

New wage boost puts squeeze on teenage workers across Arizona

The Employment Policies Institute in Washington, which opposed the recent increases, cited 2003 data by Federal Reserve economists showing a 10 percent increase caused a 2 percent to 3 percent decrease in employment.

It also cited comments by notedeconomist Milton Friedman, who maintained that high teen unemployment rates were largely the result of minimum-wage laws.

"After a wage hike, employers seek to take fewer chances on individuals with little education or experience," one institute researcher told lawmakers in 2004.

^ Bring back the African slavery system.
Every American can afford to have one..