Workers Win Fight For Living Wage, Then Lose Jobs

reply to post by Komodo


That's a good point.

Taxes being raised higher and higher don't help.

It's a circular tactic too, as what the city takes in in raised taxes, they're probably paying out again in subsidies or benefits, when they could have just frozen taxes and kept people in work earning a fair wage.

MysterX
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 profit...it's a loss leader.

The place in this story knows this, and i suspect this is how the restaurant part of that setup was viewed..as 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.

i would agree since this is what we were told during my short stay in a culinary basics 101 class taught by a chef who used to work at a few high dollar casino's in LV ...and I quote, "restaurants aren't pushed into making huge profits, they're there as a service to the gambling patrons but, difficult to manage due to food cost expectations" it's definitely an oxymoron..

the odds are best at the tables for making money...

now.. $5/hr wages....that's like 1980's wages..~! I went to $7/hr in 1995 ! LOL .. I think they could have made it with 9/hr

MysterX
reply to post by Komodo

 

That's a good point.

Taxes being raised higher and higher don't help.

It's a circular tactic too, as what the city takes in in raised taxes, they're probably paying out again in subsidies or benefits, when they could have just frozen taxes and kept people in work earning a fair wage.

exactly ..

what' i'm saying

reply to post by xuenchen


I think this statement offered by someone commenting on the source article pretty much sums it up;

Ronald J. Ward • 12 hours ago
Resorts World, a sister company of Malaysian owned Genting Group that operates a network of casinos and resorts in Britain and Asia, came into the city promising good paying jobs in return for being allowed to operate a gambling casino.

And after record revenues, they reneged on their promise.

And while 175 slave wage paying jobs may have been lost, another 1100 are now working at a living wage as a result of the arbitrager’s ruling as 1375 employees saw their wages double.

As far as I’m concerned, they can either pay up or get the hell back to their own country to make their money.

And
it kinda pisses me off that these foreigners come into our towns and
makes huge profits and workers like me subsidize their workers because
they’d rather send their profits back overseas.

On top of that, I still haven't seen any documentation whatsoever that this particular establishment was actually losing money.

You will often find that when an establishment like this one is shut down, (especially one located inside of a much larger business scheme like a casino) it may not be because the business was actually losing money. A lot of the time, it's because someone has decided that "more" profit could be generated using that space to market a different product.

In other words, the actual "loss" they were talking about was really just the difference between their current profit margin and the projected profit margins of the new venture chosen to occupy the space.

My dad was a shrimper for many years and as a teenager, I would work as his deck-hand. Well, I can't tell you the number of times he would go on about how we "lost" money on days that we actually did pretty good. What he was actually saying was, if we had just moved over to the spot where other boats did even better, we would have made more. The difference between what we actually made vs. what we might have made, (had we moved) being the "loss" he was speaking of.

I have no proof one way or the other, but based on the past track record of the parent company, I'd just bet money that we're not talking about an actual loss here. Just not as much profit as some would like.

reply to post by MysterX


well, at the end of the day if you cannot operate your restaurant on the revenues you have, then your model needs to change. That is the purpose of the businessman (and why he can make so much money): he creates the framework for successful business.

I work for a guy that is like a god in my industry. Now, if at no other time, do I realize how important his kind of genius is to folks like me.

reply to post by Flatfish


that loss your dad spoke of is, in regular parlance, "money on the table". it isn't a loss...it is more a lost opportunity. Your dad was right, except he didn't really lose it because he didn't have it.

A smart man would see the opportunity there and take advantage of it. Which I am sure he did, if he was a shrimper for any length of time.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


You don't say whether your firm is privately or publicly owned. I think, from my limited/novice opinion on matters of "public trading", that 'going public' is the problem.

It becomes more about the 'shareholders' than the actual 'stakeholders' (the EMPLOYEES, without whom the business would not operate AT ALL - let alone at a multi-billion-dollar profit which is then divied up to the shareholders).

I understand how "Wall Street" works - and with tech nowadays, it's a monster of its own - and the WORKING people are the ones who suffer for it, while the day-traders and speculators get uber-rich.

Sucks.

In My Opinion.

bigfatfurrytexan
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.

I beat on this drum a lot, I can't argue at all with what you said here though.

These servers were probably making bank already, I have never seen a poor server in a casino.

Not like I have been to a lot, but everyone I have been to the " help" was rather well paid in tips alone.

wildtimes
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

 

You don't say whether your firm is privately or publicly owned. I think, from my limited/novice opinion on matters of "public trading", that 'going public' is the problem.

It becomes more about the 'shareholders' than the actual 'stakeholders' (the EMPLOYEES, without whom the business would not operate AT ALL - let alone at a multi-billion-dollar profit which is then divied up to the shareholders).

I understand how "Wall Street" works - and with tech nowadays, it's a monster of its own - and the WORKING people are the ones who suffer for it, while the day-traders and speculators get uber-rich.

Sucks.

In My Opinion.

we are a privately owned small corporation (LLC). We utilize corporate business models, but small company people values.

reply to post by xuenchen

Have you ever thought that there are actually jobs out there that can not be paid a living wage because the actual job doesn't provide enough income to the business to justify it

Then it is time for the company to figure out how it CAN stay in business without exploitation of its workers or it can go OUT of business. The current situation is intolerable and unacceptable.

th3dudeabides
reply to post by xuenchen

 

Have you ever thought that there are actually jobs out there that can not be paid a living wage because the actual job doesn't provide enough income to the business to justify it

Then it is time for the company to figure out how it CAN stay in business without exploitation of its workers or it can go OUT of business. The current situation is intolerable and unacceptable.

Agreed!!!

It should be criminal for a company to pay to little for their workers to live without the tax payers subsidizing them.

" I am a millionaire, but the .gov provides my company with hundreds of thousands/millions a year so my workers can eat, this means more profit in my pocket!!!"

True story swear to God........very pathetic.

reply to post by MysterX


When I say "restaurant", i oversimplify. "Resort" would be more appropriate. We have several business units in the corporate entity. We will open another restaurant across the street this year, and another a block away in 2015 (along with stuff like arcades, movie theaters, etc).

th3dudeabides
Then it is time for the company to figure out how it CAN stay in business without exploitation of its workers or it can go OUT of business. The current situation is intolerable and unacceptable.

You are 100% correct, that the current situation is intolerable and unacceptable.

Unfortunately, you are 100% incorrect as to where the problems stem from.

As long as people are willing to pay large sums for non necessities and peanuts for necessities, intolerable and unacceptable will hold true.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but if companies are operating on a deficit due to people not wanting to buy, say, an $8 dollar burger, that means the extra wage money would have to be constantly coming out of the owner's savings, right?

EllaMarina
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but if companies are operating on a deficit due to people not wanting to buy, say, an $8 dollar burger, that means the extra wage money would have to be constantly coming out of the owner's savings, right?

edit on 16-1-2014 by EllaMarina because: (no reason given)

Not entirely accurate there.

The owner can and does write it off of their taxes. Only the workers lose as their pay and or hours are cut, which is the case 90% of the time.

The rich almost always win in business, it is the worker that loses in almost every instance.

For example they show up and work today, and show up tomorrow to be fired or laid off with no notice, because the owner knew for months this was coming, protected his fortune against it, but couldn't be bothered to let his minimum wage workers know so they could prepare as well, as they might find another job and not keep filling his already swollen bank account.

Much better to screw the already hard off, than ever see a single cent of the rich guys fortune ever " be at risk".

Who cares if the workers homes cars and kids future is also at risk, only the rich guys " investment" matters after all.

HanzHenry
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.

Spoken like a true Marxist. Well done! If we can't earn our way, we'll demand what we want instead of working for it. WHen that doesn't work, we'll destroy stuff. Nice.

oblvion

EllaMarina
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but if companies are operating on a deficit due to people not wanting to buy, say, an $8 dollar burger, that means the extra wage money would have to be constantly coming out of the owner's savings, right?

edit on 16-1-2014 by EllaMarina because: (no reason given)

Not entirely accurate there.

The owner can and does write it off of their taxes. Only the workers lose as their pay and or hours are cut, which is the case 90% of the time.

The rich almost always win in business, it is the worker that loses in almost every instance.

For example they show up and work today, and show up tomorrow to be fired or laid off with no notice, because the owner knew for months this was coming, protected his fortune against it, but couldn't be bothered to let his minimum wage workers know so they could prepare as well, as they might find another job and not keep filling his already swollen bank account.

Much better to screw the already hard off, than ever see a single cent of the rich guys fortune ever " be at risk".

Who cares if the workers homes cars and kids future is also at risk, only the rich guys " investment" matters after all.

edit on 16-1-2014 by oblvion because: (no reason given)

Your response is laughably inaccurate.
2nd.

I dont know how it is in the USA but in the UK what the point of being paid if you cant live off it? You may as well just go throw yourself off a bridge.

I mean on uk minimum (not sure if its the same as in US) but in certain areas you just cant afford food, transport and shelter on the minimum the cost of just basic living is just too high.

Now I get that some jobs are not meant to be career jobs and just for students.
Thats great and slugging it out in a crap grease filled job for little pay never did me any harm at uni.
BUT
The problem is that because of the finicial collapse and shortage of REAL jobs people who have familys and repsonsibility now find themselfs with only these jobs avalible.

What im saying is rather than trying to make these entry jobs pay more, we should try and get more advanaced jobs back.

NavyDoc

HanzHenry
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.

Spoken like a true Marxist. Well done! If we can't earn our way, we'll demand what we want instead of working for it. WHen that doesn't work, we'll destroy stuff. Nice.

Us tax payers are paying his profits through the welfare his workers require to stay living and working, all so he can buy another Mercedes he doesn't need and another home he can't even use most of the time, oh ya, don't forget more diamonds for his leather skinned wife, tanning beds have a cost, have to distract away from her leathery skin with ice, this is far more important than people working full time feeding their children after all.

I mean, he is doing all the hard work, screwing secretary, playing golf with the mayor...etc etc


Not like these worthless workers are doing ALL of the work and producing all of the profits or something.

I mean all they are doing is creating and selling all the products and or services while he sits on his fat arse making all the money, shoot they deserve even less.....worthless ingrates.

Having read the article and reviewed the posts, the following can be stated:

This is not surprising or unexpected. What all did the employees and union think was going to happen, that it would be business as usual, that they would keep going as if it was a natural order of things?

This is not surprising; as I have seen such happen before in different industries and sectors of the country. One of the things that I do recall is Petco Park in San Diego. Oh it was a very pretty ball park, brand new and ultimately one where the major league ball franchise playing there would be happy with. But there was a problem with the entire deal and it reeked to the core. First the public got sacked with the bill to build it, and then the prices for the concessions, were very high. No one wanted to purchase any beer or hot dogs from the concession stands at all. And who could blame them, with a 10 dollar hot dog or a 15 dollar beer?

The owners of the restaurant have a bottom line that they have to meet to make the costs of doing business. There is the cost of the food, and the fixtures and the utilities. Then there is the cost for the insurance, and the cost of labor. And labor is one of the highest part of doing any business. They were working well within the law.

The union that got involved saw only dollar signs in their eyes, going in to make grand speeches and promises, well it delivered and there were consequences for those decisions and wants. People tend to forget one small detail about business, and that is that most businesses are there to make money. Not to be charitable. And as sad as it is, that often means that such is on the backs of those who make minimum wage, and it is not easy. If the business starts to fail or there is a drop in revenue, then they have to make the decisions on what to cut and what to close down, or lose everything.

If the economy was going good, and the business was booming, then this would be a story of something that was terribly wrong on the part of the business. But right now, who has the spare money to go and spend at a casino? After all if there are no customers, then business slows down and ultimately decisions have to be made as to either close out that which is dragging the rest down or go all of the way down. And there is one more little detail that is not seen or mentioned, seems like the parent company is in a bit of financial problems with other parts of its operation. Combined with the fact that it is not based in the USA, but rather out of Malaysia.