Canadians Are Mad as Hell at Tim Hortons
vice.com
vice.com
Look at it this way, assume Tim Hortons thought they needed to pay $14 per hour to attract the type of help they needed. Previously if the minimum wage was $12, they could either pay $14 per hour, or add $2 an hour in benefits. If they were paying $12 + $2 in benefits, and the minimum wage goes to $14, they aren't going to raise their labor costs to $16 per hour, they don't need to in order to attract the types of employees they need.
Minimum wage benefits are also focused on those who need them the least. It causes companies to reduce hiring and jobs, and to invest more in automation. Those who lose jobs because of it are much more likely to be of color, in poverty, and single parents. Those who keep their jobs are much more likely to be middle class, more highly educated, or students still being supported by their parents.
Instead of a minimum wage, we should have government programs provide benefits to the working poor and single parents earning less than living wages. Without giving a dime to yuppie kids and yuppie spouses. That would make the job market far more robust and open, easier for everyone to find work, while doing far more to help the people we should be trying to help, all at a much lower overall cost.
Clearly the change increases their costs and lowers their profitablity. Whether they are billionaires doesn’t matter, it’s a business, not a charity. It’s easy to tell others they don’t need to make as much money, how would you feel if told the same?
When the reality is that this, and every other minimum wage increase in history is woefully out of date (they've been enjoying the benefits of it for years), woefully inadequate, or both.
If your business can't cope with an expected increase (TO parity, or in the direction thereof, lets not forget), that is entirely predictable, often years in advance, the flip side of the libertarian coin is that neither the government or its people owe you a business model or subsidies thereto (direct or indirect).
And when the anger is at businesses who report increasing nine and ten digit _profits_ and claim poverty when called on discontinuing benefits, I don't think that anger is unfounded.
> Instead of a minimum wage, we should have government programs provide benefits to the working poor and single parents earning less than living wages. Without giving a dime to yuppie kids and yuppie spouses. That would make the job market far more robust and open, easier for everyone to find work, while doing far more to help the people we should be trying to help, all at a much lower overall cost.
I agree, and recognizing that this is in Canada, not the US... "Good luck with that". Propose a universal income or an increase in government benefits to the poor and disenfranchised and watch many political heads explode.
That's where the minimum wage comes into account...
If your business can't succeed while paying people a living wage then you're business doesn't deserve to survive.
How much should the business pay the single mom working full time in the same job to support two children?
Which one does the business layoff when your minimum wage makes them cut expenses?
You believe in ageism?
The perception is the kid living with his parents can work any hours or schedule, and might get a college degree, and manage the store someday. And that middle aged single mom who has to leave early constantly for childcare ain’t likely to ever get more valuable.
I really try not to support Tim Hortons. Also their coffee sucks and their food is frozen garbage.
This is an interesting article on the "pennies matter" franchise of Dunkin Donuts, which falls into a similar target market: https://www.bostonglobe.com/magazine/2014/09/17/the-secret-w...
Most ppl go Tim Hortons for coffee, not donut.
Not good in all sense in terms of their PR.