Workers Win Fight For Living Wage, Then Lose Jobs

reply to post by xuenchen


I think this was just a way for the casino owner to dump the union restructure then reopen. I have never heard of a casino depending on making a killing on food anyway maybe the real greedy ones but aren't casino owners greedy anyway?

Their menus were pretty cheep I wonder what they raised them to?


Casino Queen

This being a casino makes me think this case will be the exception not the rule.

It also looks like the casino made their own competition on location.

reply to post by teslahowitzer


I would say generally in most Nordic nations, poverty is near to inexistent and social mobility relatively high. Wheter one is rich or poor, they are entitled to quality healthcare, as well as higher education, if they are smart enough to pass the admission tests. The social safety nets are very strong and if someone falls of the track, they are helped back up again to become productive members of society again.

A Norwegian friend of mine told me a local saying: " It is harder to be poor than become rich, but getting incredibly rich is near to impossible". The salaries are relatively high even for lower-level employees (burger flippers for example, earn roughly 16-24 dollars an hour (when taxes are considered in it is over 40 dollars spent an hour per employee). Generally unskilled employees earn wages starting from 20 dollars an hour there. Somewhat similar is also in other Nordic nations - Denmark,Sweden and Finland. The lower employees can live reasonably well, just not afford much extra stuff, still essential needs are met.

reply to post by Cabin


In the US Its incredibly hard to stand back up if you fall.

In the US we believe in eating the person under us to get ahead and look good for our fellow cannibalist.

I call our economy cannibalism not capitalism.

EA006
reply to post by xuenchen

 

175 x 40 hrs = 7000 hrs
$5 ph x 7000 = $35000
$12 x 7000 = $ 84000 all per week

Probably couldn't afford it.

But then you see something like this:
Resorts World Casino Hits New Record

Resorts World Casino generated a record $71.2 million in revenue during March, pumping $31.3 million into the state’s coffers, the Daily News has learned.

The revenue easily eclipsed the state’s previous high for a racetrack casino, a $59.8 million mark set by the same racino in July. “Everything is starting to click,” said Resorts World spokesman Stefan Friedman.

And that was in one month so I don't think that 50K a week (2.55M a year) difference would break the house even if they had kept prices the same.

reply to post by xuenchen


Just Desserts?

Ooops, sorry, no dessert. We're closed.

reply to post by Cabin


Holy crap, when does the next boat leave for this wonderland? and for the love of god, where is the immigration line? People, why the hell is this dump of a life in america still the most sought after???? BS may get you far in some places......If you cant make a living and support yourself YOU are doing something wrong, the sooner you get that the better you will be....Tell the next immigrant from bulgaria how bad your life is in america....

onequestion
The real problem is inflation not the living wage.

That's exactly right. Prices go up for employees - where does this money come from? It has to come through the consumer. When that happens it feeds inflation. Unless someone can show they are raking in the money and not passing some of that onto their staff it makes sense that a business nor consumers can support this kind of raise increase.

Too many people assume if you own a business your rich. Maybe some are but many aren't. It may be feast or famine for them - one month running on a loss while another doing fine. In a chain situation like this each business needs to support itself at minimum. One place can't hold another up long term. I personally believe them when they say it comes at a loss to meet this goal for this particular location. I at least believe them until I see a profit/loss statement that says otherwise.

reply to post by teslahowitzer


You can check the stats online. And the immigration line is long, that is something that can cause serious issues in the coming future.

About myself: I can survive easily myself and make a living. That is not a problem for myself. I just try to be emphatic towards people who can not.

About US: I am not American and having lived/worked there for a while, I personally do not see much reasons to go back, as I prefer the local culture. I pay my taxes to the government and receive the services I need, in US, I would just pay twice/three/often even more times as many to private pockets for exactly the same or even lower quality services and at the end there would be far more risks and worries about different possible outcomes out of my control(sudden disease, accident, loss of job etc).

The American Dream still exists for many, although I have also seen many going there and coming back soon, realising that it is just a dream. Everything depends on the person and also luck, although at the end I would say a smart person from a very poor family has far more opportinities in near to every EU country compared to US.

I did not mean anything in this post as insulting US - the cultures are very different, having raised here, I prefer the ways where everybody gets their fair share - stronger more and weaker less, but the weaker ones can live reasonably well - to the situation where strongest take it all and leave only the scraps for the weaker ones, who can barely survive from the salary.

reply to post by Cabin


understood, and well explained, In my lifetime I have been around the globe, the Navy makes you go places. But for the most part I see cultures simularities in many ways, but only in america do they reward lazy people. I have been looking for a supervisor with standard skills and the pay is north of 18 hr. You would have to see the applicants to buy it, 95% non american, and the american applicants are sad to say the least, show up reeking of beer, stoned, or the like. point is our culture is screwed. everyone wants the gold handed to them. work ethic is for immigrants. but basic start low level jobs are not a way of life and should not be long term stasis, but with this great rebound barry said we are in, hold out for the top spot. How much is a burger in these nordic countries?

Destinyone
reply to post by EA006

 

Exactly! And the customers wouldn't pay $8.00 for a hot dog. No one won in this debacle.

Des

That better be one fricken big hotdog for that price!

reply to post by Dianec

Dianec
Too many people assume if you own a business your rich. Maybe some are but many aren't.

The CEO of this company had a salary of $31.8 million as of 2008.

He is listed by Forbes as Malaysia’s third wealthiest man with a net worth over $6.6 BILLION.

I would imagine this situation is the very last thing on his mind.

Source: www.forbes.com...

reply to post by xuenchen


What a load of carp!

Tell me the casino was so broke it could not afford to run these extra prices! Who ever heard of a casino that was short of cash!? LOL

It is the disingenuous way in which they do their accounting which is behind this. Sure, perhaps the restaurant was running at a loss, but it was owned by the casino which I bet makes millions. By making this a separate entity to their central business they were able to reduce their tax burden, making huge savings, whilst the place was still doing business. Then once they had to pay their people a fair wage, they shut it down rather than pay back some of that additional profit.

This is what is wrong with the corporate world, especially in the USA. Greed before compassion - profit before people.

nothingwrong
reply to post by xuenchen

 

What a load of carp!

Tell me the casino was so broke it could not afford to run these extra prices! Who ever heard of a casino that was short of cash!? LOL

It doesn't say that the casino (the corporation) was broke. It says they couldn't sustain that particular line of business. My guess is you are fairly ignorant to the concept of profits and losses.

It is the disingenuous way in which they do their accounting which is behind this. Sure, perhaps the restaurant was running at a loss, but it was owned by the casino which I bet makes millions.

This is just as disingenuous in your logic. So because a certain line of business makes money, the casino should retain a portion in which is siphoning off the profits made from that other line, to sustain the money-losing venture?

By making this a separate entity to their central business they were able to reduce their tax burden, making huge savings, whilst the place was still doing business.

That was made possible by the very Government that seeks to step in and "save" these people from their plight...any losses written off are made possible by the Government, period.

Then once they had to pay their people a fair wage, they shut it down rather than pay back some of that additional profit.

What is a "fair" wage? Who decides it? When does it become unsustainable? The concept is contrary to the natural view of a market wage that adheres to the market forces and not the strong hand of government to determine what a private employer should pay.

This is what is wrong with the corporate world, especially in the USA. Greed before compassion - profit before people.

In part, I agree. In most, I disagree.

reply to post by Murgatroid


Exactly, it could just as easily be said the corporation was hurting from bloated executive salaries, but the fact of the matter is that it wasn't really "hurting" at all. Casino restaurants aren't designed to turn a profit; they're designed to keep people in the casino, and "unprofitable" subsidiaries are usually just a tax write-off for the parent corp. anyways. Do people really think lobster and steak at fast food prices is profitable? As such, the restaurant employees should enjoy some of the rewards (at least a living wage) of working for such a profitable corporation.

reply to post by ownbestenemy

Guess you missed my post.

With the latest figures, the Queens gaming hall, which opened in October 2011, generated $696 million in total revenue for its 2012-13 fiscal year, which ended in March.

I doubt they were hurting at all. Heck they handed over more then 30M to the state (just that month me thinks) when they could have just deducted the 200K increase to the employees as operational expenses.

daskakik
reply to post by ownbestenemy

 

Guess you missed my post.

With the latest figures, the Queens gaming hall, which opened in October 2011, generated $696 million in total revenue for its 2012-13 fiscal year, which ended in March.

I doubt they were hurting at all. Heck they handed over more then 30M to the state when they could have just deducted the 200K increase to the employees as operatinal expenses.

So? They made a profit, that is their goal after all. How much of that profit has been re-utilized back into the company in assets? Hiring personnel, new equipment, new research, new lines of businesses, etc?

By the way...revenue doesn't equal profit....just saying....

Post Script:
What point did I miss since I didn't even address you?

reply to post by ownbestenemy

We know that revenue doesn't equal profit but, when the previous record was 11.4M lower then what they did less than a year ago, 200K doesn't seem like alot.

They didn't seem to be in the red then so, what gives?

ETA: I didn't say point I said post.

Looks as though the restaurant shouldn't have increased its prices then in order to maintain their profit margin.

See this is the thing about business that gets me. Moreso the people who work for them.

When a business goes under, fires their staff or just closes why don't the workers start a new business?

Money and skill? any thoughts on that folks?

This is interesting. I've been thinking about it lately. Now, I'm no economist, but I do run a household with a balanced budget.
We live on one decent income, and share the burdens, a traditional situation. So, we are not "rich" - not in the 1%, by any means.

With that said, this is what it seems to me:
McDonalds is the example I'll use. They pay their staff minimum wage; not enough to live on, even with two earners in a household. That household earns little enough that they qualify for.....FOOD ASSISTANCE. McD's even tells them, "Don't eat this food - it's unhealthy; or, break your food up into smaller pieces. This isn't supposed to be a career."

Fine. But don't you see, people? The workers at McD's make it run - it is an incredibly profitable business; I'm not going to look up gross revenue or profits, since we all know that McD's is, and has been, lucrative for the owners. They have tax breaks, off-shore havens, all the Globe-trotting Corporate Personhood perks of every other major global corp.

But - guess who is SHORING UP those workers' wages enough that they can eat and have housing?
TAXPAYERS. McD's screws the system coming AND going. But no one wants to see that it is the taxpayers - the rest of the nation, we consumers - who are paying part of the "Wage" that means the workers can keep working there...

This is socialized corporatocracy, I guess. Nah, you don't have to pay them much - keep as much profit off-shore as you can, hide it away - the people who pay TAXES are the ones who have to bail out the employees that can't sustain their LIVES on this wage - but who cares!!???? Hahahahahaha!!!! Screw them! Screw the government, too!!

The private sector bitches and moans about "taxes" - while the working people struggle, and ALSO pay taxes to subsidize the employees of McDs.

Can someone please tell me how that is "clean business" - the taxpayers have to bail out racketeer banks, and ALSO the working poor - yet everyone who is a 'capitalist' wants to keep their money hidden away and not contribute their FAIR SHARE to the FAIR UPKEEP of their employees.

We are taxed when we earn it, and taxed when we spend it, and taxed when corporate "accountants" say 'screw them - the govt will bail them out - and bail US out, too!"

I don't know if I'm making sense or not. I just got out of bed - but I wish I'd never left Norway when I went there 19 years ago for a visit.