It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Starbucks Employees Petition Company To Stop Slashing Hours After Raising Wages

page: 18
13
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 4 2016 @ 07:53 PM
link   


I haven't read anyone saying stockholders/CEOs shouldn't get paid, I would imagine many have 401ks. I think workers need to get paid too. Ah, I see... pay them, just don't pay them what they and the Board agreed to, right? How kind of you.
a reply to: TheRedneck

Re-read, I said they should get paid.

When employees of Starbucks (any min wage worker really) gets sick and doesn't have/can't afford insurance it is an issue because it is attached to income, or lack there of. Someone picks up the tab, care to guess who?




posted on Jul, 4 2016 @ 07:57 PM
link   
a reply to: seasonal



When employees of Starbucks (any min wage worker really) gets sick and doesn't have/can't afford insurance it is an issue because it is attached to income, or lack there of. Someone picks up the tab, care to guess who?

The same people who pick it up if they don't have a job at all? You, me, Starbucks, Exxon?



edit on 7/4/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 4 2016 @ 07:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage
Yes, yes, lets all quit our jobs if there no longer is any advantages due to poor pay.



posted on Jul, 4 2016 @ 08:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: Phage
Yes, yes, lets all quit our jobs if there no longer is any advantages due to poor pay.

Go for it. Me, I would like to keep my home. And am willing to pay taxes as well.

There are advantages to low wages? Lower taxes, I guess.

edit on 7/4/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 4 2016 @ 08:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

GE, Exxon, 10 Other Major Corporations Paid Negative Tax Rate

www.motherjones.com... xon-10-other-major-corporations-paid-negative-tax-rate



posted on Jul, 4 2016 @ 08:03 PM
link   
a reply to: seasonal
Your link is to something about abortion.
But yeah, oil subsidies do suck. Are oil workers minimum wage?



edit on 7/4/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 4 2016 @ 08:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Guess you and I differ on who should pay for the essentials in life. I feel it should be each person paying for what we as a society accepts as a norm, not the all mighty Govt.

If I understand you, it is OK for the working poor to live with a constant stream of govt assistance due to low pay.?



posted on Jul, 4 2016 @ 08:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: seasonal
Your link is to something about abortion.
But yeah, oil subsidies do suck. Are oil workers minimum wage?




Well it was mother earth news, just sayin.



posted on Jul, 4 2016 @ 08:07 PM
link   
a reply to: seasonal


Just for fun, if the min wage was eliminated would you be OK with a 2.50$ an hour rate just because the company could fill the positions?

$2.50 an hour would seem to be a little too much shock to the market. But, believe it or not, the basic idea is sound.

Higher minimum wages mean less entry-level jobs. That has been the case every single time the minimum wage has been increased. That would indicate that lower minimum wages would do the opposite: create entry-level positions. That means workers are making less, but more of them are making something. A slightly lower wage would have a detrimental effect on companies, especially companies like Starbucks that sell non-essential services, because there would be less disposable income. That would lead to either business shrinkage or reduced prices. Suppliers would be forced into a choice of either dropping prices or losing sales to failed companies... I'm pretty sure they would cut prices wherever possible.

In short, a minimum wage cut of, say 10%, would actually cause Starbucks to trim some of it's own fat. That could easily come from reduced bonuses, because all companies would be looking at similar cuts. A CEO would have nowhere to go to continue earning his present wage.

All that would take time, however. No one happily agrees to a salary cut, even if they're already wealthy. During that time, some workers would be hurt, but others who are presently unemployed would be helped. Given time, prices would stabilize with wages to balance the economy.

A minimum wage hike would have the opposite effect. It would cost jobs, further slowing an already struggling economy. Less people able to buy goods means less demand, which results in fewer jobs/hours. And on and on and on. There is a breaking point to the economy, a point of no return. We don't know exactly where that point is (I'm honestly amazed it has survived this far) but we do know it is there... we have records from the Great Depression.

TheRedneck



posted on Jul, 4 2016 @ 08:11 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck
Where did you get those stats?



posted on Jul, 4 2016 @ 08:11 PM
link   
a reply to: seasonal

I feel it should be each person paying for what we as a society accepts as a norm, not the all mighty Govt.
As you pointed out, it is not the government who pays.


If I understand you, it is OK for the working poor to live with a constant stream of govt assistance due to low pay.?
Oh my. Quite the question. Allow me to rephrase it in less loaded terms.

Should companies be required to subsidize low skilled employees who produce low valued products at the expense of shareholder expectations? Should shareholders be forced to hold onto low performing investments?

edit on 7/4/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 4 2016 @ 08:12 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck


Yeah, perhaps it would be more cost effective to train monkeys to serve their coffee? You would get the same level of service, and the same incorrect or incoherent spellings on the cups as you do now. It cannot be too hard to train even a lower intelligence life-form to perform that duty.

That is my opinion, deal with it.



posted on Jul, 4 2016 @ 08:21 PM
link   
a reply to: seasonal

Re-read it yourself. You said this:

For all the anti and pro CEOs people, is there a valid reason for CEO pay to grow at such a high extent and not the pay of hourly employees? Productivity has grown, but it hasn't netted any gains in pay for workers.

Both the baristas and the CEO are being paid in accordance with the agreement they have with Starbucks. You indicate a desire for the CEO to be paid less so the workers can be paid more. In short, you advocate that the contract with the CEO be violated.


When employees of Starbucks (any min wage worker really) gets sick and doesn't have/can't afford insurance it is an issue because it is attached to income, or lack there of. Someone picks up the tab, care to guess who?

There are two variables in this equation: the amount of pay and the cost of living. You seem intent to ignore the latter as a variable.

In simpler terms, why not address the high cost of living instead of breaking contractual obligations?

TheRedneck

edit on 7/4/2016 by TheRedneck because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 4 2016 @ 08:24 PM
link   
a reply to: seasonal

Which stats?

TheRedneck



posted on Jul, 4 2016 @ 08:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Krakatoa

Are you comparing the baristas to monkeys?

That sounds... cruel...

TheRedneck



posted on Jul, 4 2016 @ 08:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Govt is a tax payer funded socialized system that is true.

Barring a mass break out of higher paying jobs a bunch of people are going to be left out of the America I grew up in.

As in a earlier post these are the only ways I see to handle this:

Well we have to be adults and figure what it cost to live.

If we hide our heads in the clouds and give false wages, then someone has to pay, hint: it is the tax payer.

3 ways

If some one is paid 25,000 year and cant afford food, and healthcare. Some one will pay that bill. Right now tax payer
And we can continue this, large corporations will definitely be lobbying for this.

OR

We no longer help people with out cash/insurance/general assistance and let them die/do self-gallbladder removals. Just an option and an ugly one.

OR

We require a livable wage and the businesses will have to actually attach a price to their product to cover that living wage. Every person pays their own way. This will also give the real cost of a product. Another option.

I wish it could be different, but I am a realist and see no other options. Continue on course (Tax payer abuse) or change.



posted on Jul, 4 2016 @ 08:33 PM
link   
a reply to: seasonal

Tell me, please.
How much is my out of pocket expense to "subsidize" companies which pay low skilled workers? How much does Starbucks get from me, for example. As opposed to how much say, the military gets? How would raising the minimum wage to $15 affect my tax burden compared to my cost of living otherwise?

I'm not a corporation. Nor, actually, do I own any stocks.

edit on 7/4/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 4 2016 @ 08:34 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Perhaps it is. Perhaps that is what is needed, honest cruelty? This is a job that anyone can do, and IMO, does not demand top dollar. It is not special, does not require special skills to do properly other than knowing how to flipping spell someone's name. And if unsure, admit that and ASK the customer how to spell it. My god, actually admitting you are wrong and asking for assistance. A novel concept I know.

Just really tired of the need to celebrate mediocrity, and now expecting more pay for a mediocre job? So, make a change, fire them and hire a trained monkey. How could it be worse? You might get the same level of work out of them.



posted on Jul, 4 2016 @ 08:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Krakatoa

OK, I get your point now. I agree in principle: people are better served to improve their pay by improving themseves. I just wouldn't go quite that far...

TheRedneck



posted on Jul, 4 2016 @ 08:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

The amount isn't important, it is the fact that min wage workers are tapping into the general assistance as a way of life. The system was a stop gap while someone is down on their luck. But like many govt programs it is abused, I guess by the min wage worker who refuses to do better.?




About 69 percent of all public-assistance benefits received by non-elderly families or individuals go to those who work





About 47 percent of all working recipients of public assistance work full time (at least 1,990 hours per year).





Nearly $53 billion of public-assistance money is paid annually to people who work full time, the EPI study reports


www.counterpunch.org...



new topics




 
13
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join