It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by spinalremain
Thats their right of course.
Although I would think his clientelle would eat elsewhere due to the rising cost. Customers will eat where the owner isn't pouting and gouging prices. There are plenty of places who's ownership responsibly pay and benefit their employees without whining. There are businesses who do not put profit over employee well being and cost of living.
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
Nearly everyone who's looked at Wal-Mart's practices as an employer—its union busting, sex discrimination, low wages, and minimal benefits—has concluded that it's America's retail bad guy. By contrast, many who've examined the practices of Wal-Mart's competitor Costco—including New York Times labor reporter Steven Greenhouse in his recent book The Big Squeeze: Tough Times for the American Worker—conclude that it's the good guy. Costco CEO and founder Jim Sinegal repeatedly insists to Greenhouse that treating employees well is "good business."
It's not hard to make a case that Costco pays employees more. The most relevant comparison is between Costco and Sam's Club, Wal-Mart's membership warehouse, since both business models rely on membership fees for a large percentage of revenues. A Sam's Club employee starts at $10 and makes $12.50 after four and a half years. A new Costco employee, at $11 an hour, doesn't start out much better, but after four and a half years she makes $19.50 an hour. In addition to this, she receives something called an "extra check"—a bonus of more than $2,000 every six months. A cashier at Costco, after five years, makes about $40,000 a year. Health benefits are among the best in the industry, with workers paying only about 12 percent of their premiums out-of-pocket while Wal-Mart workers pay more than 40 percent
Some proponents of corporate generosity argue that better-paid workers are more productive. That may be the case here, since Costco's revenues per employee are about five times as high as Wal-Mart's
Wal-Mart’s legendary obsession with cost containment shows up in countless ways, including aggressive control of employee benefits and wages. Managing labor costs isn’t a crazy idea, of course. But stingy pay and benefits don’t necessarily translate into lower costs in the long run.
On the benefits side, 82% of Costco employees have health-insurance coverage, compared with less than half at Wal-Mart. And Costco workers pay just 8% of their health premiums, whereas Wal-Mart workers pay 33% of theirs. Ninety-one percent of Costco’s employees are covered by retirement plans, with the company contributing an annual average of $1,330 per employee, while 64 percent of employees at Sam’s Club are covered, with the company contributing an annual average of $747 per employee.
Costco’s practices are clearly more expensive, but they have an offsetting cost-containment effect: Turnover is unusually low, at 17% overall and just 6% after one year’s employment. In contrast, turnover at Wal-Mart is 44% a year’close to the industry average. In skilled and semi-skilled jobs, the fully loaded cost of replacing a worker who leaves (excluding lost productivity) is typically 1.5 to 2.5 times the worker’s annual salary
In return for its generous wages and benefits, Costco gets one of the most loyal and productive workforces in all of retailing’and, probably not coincidentally, the lowest shrinkage (employee theft) figures in the industry. While Sam’s Club and Costco generated $37 billion and $43 billion, respectively, in U.S. sales last year, Costco did it with 38% fewer employees—admittedly, in part by selling to higher-income shoppers and offering more high-end goods. As a result, Costco generated $21,805 in U.S. operating profit per hourly employee, compared with $11,615 at Sam’s Club. Costco’s stable, productive workforce more than offsets its higher costs.
Originally posted by NavyDoc
Originally posted by MidnightSunshine
reply to post by Raist
reply to post by Raist
I find it funny just how this thread is going. In this thread you see irony, hypocrites, and lovers of nanny state. It is like some cute jumbled up funny farm. That is why I am so happy the guy is doing this, it makes ATS more entertaining.
Originally posted by Legion2024
reply to post by Sissel
that is not telling you they are passing it on. At lest this guys is honest
Yes he is being honest, but he doesn't want his customers taking it out on him.... so he suggests that they compensate the extra tax on the bill with the amount they intend to tip.
So, from what I understand, the healthcare will be provided to the entire staff and not limited to the tipped employees.
It's just plain Shady.edit on 15-11-2012 by MidnightSunshine because: (no reason given)edit on 16-11-2012 by MidnightSunshine because: (no reason given)
This makes no sense. Why is it not shady for the government to force some people to cover other people's healthcare through taxation, but it is shady for this employer to do the exact same thing?
Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by defcon5
something to keep in mind is that while they may not be paying income taxes, they are paying payroll taxes.
Roughly, for every dollar you spend in taxes, your employer spends as well to employ you. It is nearly dollar for dollar between SS EE and SS ER (while MED EE and MED ER are always the same).
There are 5 taxes in the state of Texas related to payroll (FUTA, SUI, Medicare, SS, and FICA) that you pay every pay period. Only 3 include the employee (Medicare, SS, and FICA). I would imagine it is very similar in other states.edit on 16-11-2012 by bigfatfurrytexan because: (no reason given)
I’m 44 y/o, and I have been around long enough to see common sense. People have no problem cutting down my comments, but have a very difficult time answering them. Your 1 liners and dethklok character speaks volumes. Maybe you can answer my questions I’ve addressed, No?
Originally posted by VaterOrlaag
reply to post by Propulsion
How old are you?
Just wondering because your comical approach to posting is best reserved for cheap joints like GLP, etc.
Originally posted by mrnotobc
I wouldn't say it the way he is, but it's a fact of life all business's will raise their prices to cover the extra expense of Oboma care. I would just put on the menue a statement that all prices reflect a 5% increase to cover the cost of Oboma care.
Originally posted by dogstar23
. The vast majority of businesses in the US are either large employers who DO offer health coverage already, and will thus be unaffected, or small businesses who are not part of the mandate, but will benefit if they DO offer coverage.
Anyone who thinks this is a sky-is-falling scenario for US businesses knows very little about the situation.
Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by Grimpachi
The guy is an @ hole because the way he is doing this will hurt his employees tips because he is trying to make a statement. I will take my business elsewhere and business will follow that means jobs will follow.
So you want everyone to think he is just raising the cost to make a bigger profit or because of inflation when the exact cause of it is forced govt law, and so you are going to be the righteous one and say he is hurting his employees instead of taking the hit in his profit margin, and when people show you that he has to do it to stay afloat you insist this is all about his attitude and not about the core reason which is Obamacare. I am telling you, and others here too, that before long this will be the norm because everyone is in the same boat.
It seems to me the end result here is you are excusing Obamacare and being angry at people who have to do these things to stay afloat.
Do you think he wants to pass on the cost to customers and lose his customer base? Like others here said, when the customer base is gone, the employees will be out of a job.
Again, we come to you want someone to pay for it, but you won't do it yourself as a customer. I just would like you to acknowledge that Obamacare is the reason and not because he's a greedy evil guy, because when the guy down the street raises his cost and he doesn't explain it was due to Obamacare will you think oh this guy is really great he is paying for his employees healthcare I think I will enjoy paying the higher cost and by golly I will pay higher tips too...yah right! I bet you think that guy is ripping you off too because he is an evil greedy capitalist.edit on 16-11-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)
Well I wanted to know from the guy who wants the nanny state obamacare but won't patronize restaurants who tell them the rising cost of the meal will have to pay for the healthcare. I want to know why people want Obamacare but won't pull the cash out of their own pockets to pay. You see because the people who want Obamacare want someone else always to pick up the tab. When every restaurant has to do the same we will find Obamacare isn't so fun.