Hacker News Reader

Comment by linuxftw | Hacker News Reader

Nice sentiment, but that will invite behavior to cut costs. If this doesn't apply to part time workers, some suppliers are likely to cut full time positions into part time positions.

This could also cost an employer (either real or perceived) productivity, and result in wage stagnation or lack of hiring new full time employees.

Additionally, and most importantly, full time employees will be fired and converted to 'contractors,' they'll fill their previous role for less money and benefits and not technically be 'employees.'

View on HN

Conversely, this is an invitation to renegotiate prices. If a client is going to require you to do something expensive, you calculate how much that's going to cost you, and pass that cost along to your customer. You can even tell them that's exactly what you're doing and what the numbers look like, and if your customer isn't terrible they'll appreciate the transparency.

Frankly, that's a potential PR win for MSFT, as well: "we're requiring our suppliers to do this, and it's increasing our costs by $X; we're putting our money where our mouth is & invite you to do the same".

How do renegotiate prices when Microsoft is not your only customer? Just increase the prices on Microsoft or on all your customers to pay for these benefits?

Large customers often demand bulk discounts seperate from the standard pricing plan. Usually it is lower but demanding extra standards can cause it to be higher if say tighter tolerances are demanded.

Entirely up to each business. You could spread the increase in costs out to all clients and hope that the increase on those that stay makes up for the decrease from those that leave. You could charge it all to MS who is likely your biggest customer. Or any combination in between. It's a calculation that each company would have to make for itself.

I have a friend who provides private security. Gov't and a few progressive clients have benefits and wage guarantees. He spins off a LLC to handle those contractual benefits. It's a bit of a headache for paperwork but stupider to leave the money on the table.

The fact that a given solution won't or can't solve all problems shouldn't prevent us from enacting it. Consequential problems can and should be addressed if and when they arise. We shouldn't let fear get in the way of doing the right thing.

And in a distant land, someone is advocating change to increase productivity and wage growth, and to have more full time employees. Then someone will respond with a comment with "Nice sentiment, but that will invite behavior to cut costs by slashing benefits like paid parental leave".

Thinking this way is falling for the "default effect" (sorry, I don't know the proper name).

Of course enacting this will have effects. That alone is not a problem.

Don't assume a default (i.e. the status quo). Examine both options, look at the pros and cons of each, and pick one. Don't frame it as "If we go this route, this is what will change." That's automatically making the status quo as the reference point. There's no good reason it should be one.

"This could also cost an employer (either real or perceived) productivity, and result in wage stagnation or lack of hiring new full time employees."

Why should I care about that more?

"Additionally, and most importantly, full time employees will be fired and converted to 'contractors,' they'll fill their previous role for less money and benefits and not technically be 'employees.'"

Then we need to punish that company extremely harshly, as much as we can.

I'm not convinced of any of that. What sources can you offer for studies into similar situations in the past?

Labor gets more expensive, less labor is purchased. It is fundamental. Even with cuts it can be hailed as a success because of survivorship bias.

You should ask for studies to support an idea rather than assume the idea is good because nobody cites studies contradicting it. Most people know in the back of their mind you can't just raise minimum wage to $100/hour and make everyone rich. It's just a matter of degree. There will be some marginal cost of raising the price of labor. Whether it is shorter hours, fewer employees, or one less company that was otherwise on the bubble.

McDonalds is a great example of this. Minimum wage is headed to $15/hr and they've replaced 80% of the front counter staff with self-order kiosks. Grocery stores can have one person running 4+ self-checkout counters at teh grocery store, and the "gig economy" is just companies skirting minimum wage and benefits via contractors. It's like my childhood paper route for 50 cents an hour all over again...

> McDonalds is a great example of this. Minimum wage is headed to $15/hr and they've replaced 80% of the front counter staff with self-order kiosks

The jobs in line against kiosks were already gone, and won’t come back, whatever you do to minimum wage.

> they've replaced 80% of the front counter staff with self-order kiosks

> replaced 80% of the front counter staff

Have you any credible source for that or any source at all?

Snopes has more info on a similar statement: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/mcdonalds-robot-cashiers/

> CLAIM

> McDonald's is planning to replace all the cashiers in their restaurants with robots by the end of 2020

>WHAT'S TRUE

>McDonald's announced plans to install self-order kiosks in eight or nine thousand stores in the next few years.

>WHAT'S FALSE

>McDonald's is not replacing cashiers with "robots," the chain is not eliminating all cashiers, self-serve kiosks are not a response to a proposed higher minimum wage.

Soon robot manufactuters will be lobbying to increase Minimum Wage as to protect their robots from unfaithful competition by humans.

> Labor gets more expensive, less labor is purchased. It is fundamental.

It's not fundamental. If you actually look at what happens in the real world more regulation does not lead to less labor, more often than not it's just the opposite, where regulation drives economic growth.

Fundamental like how objects fall at 9.8ms-2. Rarely true in the real world.

Reminds me of one counterintuitive historical point about labor - free workers are more productive than slaves despite overseers and long hours. The industrial revolution failed to take off in slave states early on despite the clear apparent advantage of unpaid factory workers. The two conditions are in no way equivalent of course but the point is incentives also matter and "worthless expenses" may be pivotal to success.

There may in fact be some indirect benefits resulting from this change including less distracted workers, lower turnover rate as talent feels less pushed into a "mommy" track or to seek more flexible workplaces, and increased desirability as a workplace to reduce recruiting costs and increase the magnitude of available talent.

One of Henry Ford's principles of paying his workers well wasn't just so they would tolerate his control freak nature but to gather the best talent. Relatedly petty annoyances of dress code and schedule were part of what caused the traitorous eight to depart for Silicon Valley.

While it may not pay off fully on the balance sheets it isn't a complete loss either. Potentially it could pay off long term.

> Labor gets more expensive, less labor is purchased. It is fundamental.

This is exactly correct. The laws of economics dictate that if you don't cut labor costs, your competitors will, and you will be out-competed on price.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com