It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Workers Win Fight For Living Wage, Then Lose Jobs

page: 3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 16 2014 @ 05:23 AM
reply to post by wildtimes

Your wrong on what wages will provide, and what qualifies you for food stamps. Before my husband got a job, and I was only making minimum wage we applied for food stamps and were turned down because I was making minimum wage. According to the state minimum wage was enough to support two people who were NOT on any kind of housing assistance.

Now that my husband is working, we have plenty and don't need any help... two people in a household both making minimum wage do just fine...AND can save money every paycheck. (as you know, I recently took an entire month off work and paid for a trip to texas, all on minimum wage)

I think the only time living would be a problem would be if there was daycare and more than one child in the household as well, OR if people want to live high on the hog, when their wages wont support it.
edit on 16-1-2014 by OpinionatedB because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 16 2014 @ 05:34 AM
I made a comfortable living while I was waiting tables and bartending. I only made $2.01 an hour. But, those "paychecks" were often for ZERO dollars...because, you're taxed on your declared tips.....

Now, my tips alone...back in the late 80's and early 90's.....paid enough to keep me in a my then wife through two degrees in college...etc....

The complaint of "a living wage" for wait staff is ABSOLUTE BS.....they make their money on tips, that's why the restaurant is allowed to pay less than the federally mandated minimum wage, because it is in ANTICIPATION of the tips the employee will earn...if you DO NOT earn at least minimum wage over a week with your tips and hourly wage combined, the restaurant has to make up the difference....

Convenient this wasn't reported.....

posted on Jan, 16 2014 @ 05:54 AM
reply to post by zeroBelief

Yea? what about McDonald and subways, and pizza huts ect.

I have seen pays vary according to other businesses or rather industries in an area doing well.

posted on Jan, 16 2014 @ 06:36 AM
reply to post by OpinionatedB

Your wrong on what wages will provide, and what qualifies you for food stamps. Before my husband got a job, and I was only making minimum wage we applied for food stamps and were turned down because I was making minimum wage. According to the state minimum wage was enough to support two people who were NOT on any kind of housing assistance.

According to the state.

If you thought it was enough, why did you apply for assistance? Remember also, that each state has its own 'parameters' for who qualifies, and who doesn't.

I'm not hammering on you, OpB, and I am aware that frugal living helps to make ends meet. For example, I shop only at thrift stores for clothing, bedding, home items, etc. - and that only rarely - maybe 3 or 4 times a year. Also, nearly ALL of my furniture is hand-me-downs, curbside finds, garage sale or flea-market/thrift shop items, etc. (And it's not IKEA junk, either - it's real wood furniture.) I buy what food is on sale, and store brands. I do spend on fresh fruits and vegs, and quality meat about once/twice per week (but almost always the 50% off "Reduced Price for Quick Sale", or else what is marked down that week). We have two tube-style tvs, one of which is a hand-me-down, the other about $90 bucks and is ten years old. The only "luxuries" we have are cable and internet, and two modest laptops.

We do "okay," and are able to set money aside also. We have health insurance through husband's employer.

Both of our cars are fully paid for - which not all min wage earners can say - how many can afford to finance even an older used car? Let alone buy a by-owner car outright? If they have a job and can find a dealership that will extend credit to "everybody with a job" - the interest is outrageously high - I know, I've had to use their services before. It's fortunate on one hand to be able to walk to work - or take the bus - but that isn't doable for everyone. (Especially in this city LOL! I remember figuring out how I could use the 'bus system' to get from the train station to my home - it would have taken 3 hours, and I still would have had to walk a half mile. To drive to the train station from my house is 20 minutes, tops!)

Yes, there are ways to scrimp and ways to make ends meet - but it's certainly NOT a luxurious lifestyle.

As you said - there are some who want to 'live high on the hog' and take advantage - but a family of four with 2 min wage earners is NOT going to make it - and if they have no insurance coverage from their employer - and one gets sick, well - back to square -100. Or taxpayers again - who subsidize the county hospitals that can't refuse service to anyone.

Aside from smart budgeting - what do you think about McD's policy of allowing/(forcing?) taxpayers to provide the balance of what is NEEDED for a family to survive, so that they can off-shore-haven their profits and provide for their "do-nothing-at-all" shareholders??

edit on 1/16/14 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 16 2014 @ 06:51 AM

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.

Probably didn't want to take a cut in profits more like it.

It's a a casino.

The food prices being raised was imo, nothing but a ploy to get around unfair dismissal suits after the arbitration had ordered them to pay a non-slavery wage..which they didn't like, so decided to raise the food prices to a cost level where they could justify closing down that part of the casino business, as unprofitable.

That's my opinion on what happened, because i can smell the stench of greed from here and i'm in the UK.

It would be interesting to see the yearly accounts for this ENTIRE business of 'The Resorts World Casino', do these have to be filed and are publicly accessible, like they are here in the UK?

I'd be surprised if they weren't raking in the profit but are too greedy to want to part with what amounts to still a low, but fairer wage for many of their staff.

How do restaurant staff, like waiters and waitresses become more productive anyway...stand over the people eating and tell them to eat up faster and get out maybe?

posted on Jan, 16 2014 @ 06:59 AM
reply to post by wildtimes

I dont think one minimum wage income is enough to support two people. That wasn't what I was saying. When it was only me and minimum wage, I paid all my bills and ate, even sent money to others from time to time.

When it was completely supporting two people, I was running short. (donated plasma to make it through that time) But... when two people are on minimum wage both of them, there is plenty for both to live, and even better than just one alone. (ie: you can then save money and eat out occasionally etc.)

As far as a car, no, you shouldn't finance a car anyway just to throw money away on interest. This is part of living within your means. While working, two people on minimum wage can save up for a car. And having a savings is important anyway for those times when bad things happen, like your car breaks down or other unforeseeable events. I spent a thousand dollars and did not have any income for a month, if I had saved that money instead, and worked instead of taking a month off, we would have plenty in the bank for a cheap car. (saw one the other day for 1,300.00 that was in good running condition)

We do the same as you, we are very frugal with our money (with the possible exception of what foods we eat, because lots of times I am in too much pain to cook much... but that goes to my disability) We buy clothes at thrift stores and sales.

But when you are frugal it is a good thing..Even when I had money I shopped at thrift stores for the kid's school clothes, and yes, this was even when I was a multi millionaire in my own right. (yes, lol... life does happen! hahaha... but when it does you just start again, perhaps better the second time, and with much more knowledge)

I don't think minimum wage is a bad income, its very low, but its doable, and it should never be forever for anyone... but as a place to start. I don't blame any CEO for rising to his position or having their money, nor do I feel like they should have to share with me.
edit on 16-1-2014 by OpinionatedB because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 16 2014 @ 07:06 AM

reply to post by EA006

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


Yup the insanely high price of food has gotten me thinking about all of this lately. It's not fair to the people who work fast food but what can we do? IMO it's the price of food that is the problem not the wages the employees get. Is this due to inflation? Things are getting very bad in the USA. I refuse to go out and eat because I will pay $15 minimum for a meal and then be expected to tip. Call me cheap but I own my house and vehicle. I am not a slave.

I miss fast food but my health is so much better because of it. However I would love to be able to go out with friends to a nice place and eat a good meal occasionally. Used to all the time. Now that I look back on it I think I wasted a heck of a lot of money. 3 of us could spend over 100 dollars in one meal and that was in 2002.

edit on 16-1-2014 by Pimpintology because: he is in need of coffee!

posted on Jan, 16 2014 @ 07:26 AM
I thought the living wage law only applied to businesses that took more than 1 million in subsidies. Either the owners are too cheap to switch their gains from that into paying their employees, or the government has regulated to a point that business is not profitable anymore unless you have a subsidy. (Which ironically are usually pushed through by lobbyists purposely doing so, so the companies without them will go under.)

It's one or the other though.

Paying out more to workers when you are getting a million in subs seems reasonable. Unless it goes over the total subsidy for the year.

posted on Jan, 16 2014 @ 07:45 AM
reply to post by Cabin

That is the reason why there must be uniform laws, at least when it comes to lower wages, otherwise there will always be some company who will start lowering the price of their products via exploiting their employees, which eventually leads to gaining signifcant market advantage compared to opponents, who pay their employees fairly.

Hey, Cabin -
excellent point.

I have a question - how much do McDonald's workers get paid there?

(The system you describe sounds ideal to me.
- I think American-based global enterprises are ripping off their own country - taking advantage of the setup - but abroad, do they have to follow the local laws?)

posted on Jan, 16 2014 @ 07:47 AM

reply to post by zeroBelief

Yea? what about McDonald and subways, and pizza huts ect.

I have seen pays vary according to other businesses or rather industries in an area doing well.

Unless you are specifically talking about a pizza hut restaurant, where they still have wait staff, you're talking about apples and oranges.

I am talking about wait staff, who take your order, and take care of your needs while you are in the restaurant, much like these casino workers.

The idea of tipping at a fast food restaurant is just plain silly.

Notice, I didn't say "when I worked at McDonalds"....I said, when I worked as a waiter and a bartender.....

posted on Jan, 16 2014 @ 07:53 AM
reply to post by zeroBelief

Yes, my brother was a bartender, and my then-boyfriend as a waiter and cook; I worked as a waiter and cocktail server -- all in the 80s, too - at a world class ski resort - and made good money.

It all depends on the clientele and the restaurant/bar/club prices, though. And of course, the quality of service.

A talented waiter/bartender can make GREAT MONEY.

People, if you're going to eat out or get drinks out, PLEASE TIP YOUR SERVER. Tipping IS NOT a City in China!!

posted on Jan, 16 2014 @ 08:01 AM

IF the rich don't want to pay a living wage. FINE,

don't let THEM make ANY profit..

And next hopefully people will find ways to destroy them. When 10 hungry unemployed people KNOW the rich guy has food. Hopefully they will take the rich out.

If everyone cant be rich then die fighting and making sure NOONE is.

Simple economics. I offer a product. I base the price on that product on several factors, including labor. If labor costs are high, then the product would price too high. If the product prices too high, tools like yourself will come and complain about how the wealthy are ripping you off with high prices.

Its good to demand change. But for the love of God, can't it be people who at least have a rudimentary understanding of simple economics?

posted on Jan, 16 2014 @ 08:02 AM


although all this should not come on the expense of the people working in the company, who make the company even possible.

Can you name a real company that does that?

Give me some details too, like the jobs being done what they pay now, what they should be paid instead...

I think if I worked for a company that did this I would look for a different you agree, or are we talking about a person whose greatest moment in life, and what will be their greatest accomplishment, was when they were hired as a shelf stocker at Wal-Mart.

edit on 15-1-2014 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)

And what is the reason that will be the high water mark of their life? Complete and total lack of anyway to improve their lot in life. I mean all had rich mommies and daddies to pay for our grad schools, or at least a trust fund we could use right?

It isn't like the chances of someone pulling themselves out of poverty in this time we live in is 1,000-1 or something......oh wait 1,000,000-1 you say.....nvm they were screwed from birth.

The truth is most rich people didn't earn it, they got lucky, or had money in their family already.

Sure there are Sam Walton's and Bill Gates out there, but they are 1 in a million, not very good odds for most. Your more likely to be born poor, work your ass off at least 50 hours a week your entire life, and die with less than it takes for an average funeral.

Btw the old " they can work for a better company if they want" line is just pathetic, there aren't any, and if there were, the job would already be filled.

How can you not see the obviousness of all of the already?

The rich do not need any more, time for them to start paying what their workers deserve, since the workers are the ones doing all actual profit making work, they make all the money possible, they deserve a decent cut of the proffits .

I mean how much does one honestly need? Are the rich truly so empty inside a billion is not enough? Walton family that was aimed at you btw.

posted on Jan, 16 2014 @ 08:06 AM
Not every menial job deserves a living wage. People need to go out and obtain skills that will make them more valuable to a business. Hundreds of millions of Americans make more than living wage. How is that possible with all the "evil greedy" businesses out there? Because the employees made themselves valuable. Carrying a tray of food doesn't cut it. Putting french fries into a bag doesn't cut it. Those are transitional jobs you work while you obtain new and more valuable skills.

posted on Jan, 16 2014 @ 08:21 AM
reply to post by jjkenobi

I am involved in the restaurant business. Our servers make more weekly than I do as an executive.

THat isn't true in all restaurants. I doubt a waiter at Jalisco's in Odessa makes as good money. Its all in who you service. The casino folks? I bet they were making cash by the double fist load.

posted on Jan, 16 2014 @ 08:23 AM
reply to post by xuenchen

A business that requires an unfair advantage built on illegal undercompensation of workers and a hidden government subsidy in the form of public assistance for the working poor SHOULD go out of business.

Let that market share be grabbed up by a better run business which can sustain itself without subsidy and that business will need new workers to serve its increased share of the market.

To say these workers are better off selling their lives for less than subsistence than to have to survive temporary unemployment until they find work that will actually support them is basically an argument for feudalism.

posted on Jan, 16 2014 @ 08:24 AM
reply to post by jjkenobi

You mentality is wrong.

How can you sit here and say that people dont deserve a living wage do you realize what your saying?

Jeez. I cant believe what i hear from people its completely unbelievable.

posted on Jan, 16 2014 @ 08:33 AM

reply to post by jjkenobi

You mentality is wrong.

How can you sit here and say that people dont deserve a living wage do you realize what your saying?

Jeez. I cant believe what i hear from people its completely unbelievable.

You misquote him. He said nothing about people, he said that some jobs don't deserve a "living wage". They don't. That is why they are typically filled by part timers and kids.

It isn't about people, its about the position, which carries value in the work it performs.

posted on Jan, 16 2014 @ 08:41 AM
it's not the wages that need to be raised...

it's the property taxes that keep going up that need to be lowered... my wife and I were just talking about this yesterday and she can remember that in N.E. Portland back in the early 80's she was paying 175.00/month for rent...they were brand new apartments.

now.. you couldn't touch them for less than 1000.00/month

here in Oregon.. Good Luck on trying to find a studio for less than 400 or even 500..anywhere.. why? Taxes....

posted on Jan, 16 2014 @ 08:42 AM
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

Yeah, but you've gotta know that not all business owners would have the same POV as you.

You say it's simple economics, and i agree.

The balance sheet of the business is what ought to be factored into wage considerations ultimately, not cost point per product, (lets say it's a meal), and profit or loss made on that meal / number of meals sold per hour and hourly costs of labor.

A lot of businesses run side enterprises at a loss and except that as good business practice if that sideline, like a restaurant inside of a casino in this story, brings in more trade to the part of the business that makes a lot of's a loss leader.

The place in this story knows this, and i suspect this is how the restaurant part of that setup was a service for casino patrons and a draw for new casino patrons.

The ultimate economics of this situation, would be to look at the overall profits being made by the business as a whole, not necessarily whether or not the restaurant was profitable as an individual enterprise, as it would have contributed to the profits of the place as a whole, even running at an apparent loss.

If we're talking about your setup, an individual restaurant business this probably wouldn't apply, unless you had i don't know, something like an attached take out service or Ice cream parlour attached and operated by you to draw in the restaurant patrons, but ran it at evens or a loss because it boosted your main profits, in any case, this is a casino with a restaurant.

top topics

<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in