> It found that wage increases have reduced fast food employment, shortened the hours worked, compelled fast food franchises to use more automation
The wage increase is the agent here? More correct to say that owners did these things in response.
The wage increase is the agent here? More correct to say that owners did these things in response.
Automating the order flow avoids even higher wages for good English speakers and kiosks drive higher margin via up sales. Automation of drink pouring reduces shrink. Eliminating cash reduces cash handling expenses and reduces refunds.
I have a friend who owns a few McDonalds in a high expense state. He bitches about marketing expense share and supply cost.
Ignoring the link in that chain wherein corporations chose to take various unnecessary and punative measures as retaliation against having to pay their workers more is intellectually dishonest, at best.
The owner of a restaurant who lays off waiters in order to spend less on salaries is not punishing the waiters. Nobody thinks that the waiters have broken any rules. The definition of “punitive” is that it is a punishment for breaking the rules. The waiters might think it’s unfair or niggardly, of course, but that’s not what “punitive” means. Pick a more appropriate word.
It's punishment for demanding better pay. That makes it punitive, whether the mechanism for negotiating that better pay is "we voted for (people who will vote for) a minimum wage increase" or "we formed a union so we can collectively bargain for a wage increase" or what have you.
> Pick a more appropriate word.
Okay, then:
- Retaliatory
- Self-serving
- Douchebaggish
Do those work better for you? Or are you going to find some other excuse to nitpick and distract from the core issue of employers being full of shit when they blame wage increases for "needing" to lay people off?
This is a business functioning as it should.