|
|
This topic comprises 4 pages: 1 2 3 4
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Starbucks workers go on strike!
|
Mike Spaeth
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1129
From: Marietta, GA
Registered: Jul 2000
|
posted 11-26-2005 03:58 PM
quote: David Buckley
Its interesting this discussion, as you guys are arguing about something happening in NZ with attitudes, values and from life experiences that are distinctly American.
Common sense is common sense regardless of where you reside.
quote: David Buckley
The interest to the USA from this storm in a teacup a universe away is that both Starbucks USA management and the fledgling union of American Starbucks workers (who was on telly here a few days back and spoke fairly ineloquently, so I guess he's new at his job) are interested in how this plays out.
Starbucks in NZ isnt the same as I'm ASSuming Starbucks is in the USA - I'm ASSuming USA Starbucks are either franchise stores or Starbucks owned stores. Here in NZ Starbucks is a brand run by a company called Restaurant Brands , who in addition to Starbucks also own the KFC and Pizza Hut stores nationwide.
There is (so the informed opinion goes) no question that Restaurant Brands could afford to pay their staff more, but obviosuly they dont want to. And of course Starbucks USA doesnt want their workers to have something achieved elsewhere to come back to haunt them back home...
Actually, in the United States, Starbucks is one of the most generous, employee-friendly employers. They even offer health insurance to part-time employees!
quote: Bruce Hansen
One thing to think about: it's the employees that do the work that brings in the money. It's the employees that should be making the money. The upper management pays the employees as little as possible, so they can give themselves multi million dollar raises. The employees are making the money that is paying the upper management, not the other way arround. Upper management does not do anything that directly brings in money.
What about the business owners that RISKED their own money in starting up a business? There are far more business that fail/lose money than are successful. Yet, when the successful business owner that risked his own money in a venture profits from it, he becomes the evil one. Most upper management did not START in upper management, but worked their way up. Damn then for their personal achievement/reward!
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Greg Mueller
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1687
From: Port Gamble, WA
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 11-26-2005 04:43 PM
"WRONG! Clinton proved this wrong some years ago, when the minimum wage was raised to get the economy started (and it worked). I remember, at that time I heard the whine about raising the minimum wage cauing companies to fire people, but that is NOT what happened. Companies had to hire MORE people, here is why: 3/4 of our economy is consumer spending. When you raise minimum wage it puts money into the hands of people who will spend it. This causes business to hire more people to fill those orders, which puts more money in the hands of consumers, and the economy grows. If you know about the "just in time" principal that business works on, business will not hire people to build product or provide services until there are orders. Where do the orders come from? Remember, 3/4 or our economy is consumer spending."
Nice try Bruce...
Are you saying that if minimum wages go up today that orders also increase today to cover their wages? Fraid not. There's that thing called "lag time". In case your business experience hasn't covered that one, things just don't happen instantly in the business world. Economic measures set in motion today take months or years to have effect. You are right about putting more money in the hands of consumers, that's what Bush's tax cut plan has done and it has worked. But it is a slow process.
When a small business with one or two employees is hit with a pay hike situation the money has to come from somewhere so something's got to give. Maybe orders will pickup in the future (maybe not) but you can't pay todays wages with wishes for future. So someone has to go and they do.
"One thing to think about: it's the employees that do the work that brings in the money. It's the employees that should be making the money. The upper management pays the employees as little as possible, so they can give themselves multi million dollar raises. The employees are making the money that is paying the upper management, not the other way arround. Upper management does not do anything that directly brings in money."
What a load of crap. Sounds like it came right out of "the little red book"
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Peter Berrett
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 602
From: Victoria, Australia
Registered: Nov 2000
|
posted 11-26-2005 06:03 PM
Hi again
It is interesting to note the attitudes towards workers that exist among some business owners in the US.
Here in Australia my experience is that fast food restaurant staff, be it McDonalds, KFC or elsewhere are generally well-trained, polite and well dressed. There are always one or two bad eggs in any bunch but by and large I have always been very impressed with the standard of service I get at fast food restaurants. By contrast there are some self-owned businesses (i.e a U-pick strawberry farm I visited recently) where the owner's customer skills were sadly lacking.
Take the Lunar drive-in at Dandenong as an example of a typical Aussie business employing young staff. The staff there are always polite and you can see that they work hard to earn their wages. They seem to enjoy what they do also. I am sure that they are not treated badly by their employer.
Now consider what would happen if there were no checks and balance on employer's power. Other less ethical cinema businesses might hire staff for less $per hour and undercut the Lunar. Before long the Lunar would need to cut its wages or go out of business. Faced with low wages many of the staff might quit or look or work elsewhere. Result - a situation much like seems to exist in the USA.
Minimum wages put a floor under wages and temper the antics of less ethical, exploitative employers. Faced with a minimum wage employees have the choice of who they will work for and they certainly will not stay with a boss who does not treat them well.
Why, if posts are to believed, do you get poor customer service in the USA while we get great customer service most of the time? Maybe its a cultural thing, I don't know. But then again we have so many different cultures in Oz that I don't think it can be explained away simply by that. Perhaps it is more due to the history of unionism in this country wherein staff have demanded, and gotten a level of respect for their work and for themselves as people and not let themselves be downtrodden. Building a culture of downtrodden, financially disadvantaged employees is not conducive to customer service or social harmony. When employees feel treated well they will be more inclined to treat their customers well.
Regards Peter
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jim Ziegler
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 753
From: West Hollywood, CA
Registered: Jul 99
|
posted 11-26-2005 08:07 PM
quote: Greg Mueller was the last to post
WRONG! Clinton proved this wrong some years ago, when the minimum wage was raised to get the economy started (and it worked). I remember, at that time I heard the whine about raising the minimum wage cauing companies to fire people, but that is NOT what happened. Companies had to hire MORE people, here is why: 3/4 of our economy is consumer spending. When you raise minimum wage it puts money into the hands of people who will spend it. This causes business to hire more people to fill those orders, which puts more money in the hands of consumers, and the economy grows. If you know about the "just in time" principal that business works on, business will not hire people to build product or provide services until there are orders. Where do the orders come from? Remember, 3/4 or our economy is consumer spending.
Um.. No..
The economy would have grown faster without a minimum wage increase. Minimum wages hikes are nothign more than inflation hikes. An employee may be making an extra $1 an hour, but when the price of everything goes up 50 cents, where does that leave him? Consumer spending may go up, but, the cost of labor, and, as a result, the cost of materials goes up as well. The net result is that consumers are spending more for the same item, but their savings has been devalued. By your logic, requiring a minimum wage of $100 an hour should cause an economic boom. It won't. It will cause a depression and economic collapse.
Really, for those of you backing higher minimum wages, how much is enough? $10? $20? $100? Why should someone with no skills earn even remotely close to someone that is skilled? If I can make the same amount being a french fry maker as a computer engineer, why waste time with all the schooling? How would a society of french fry makers survive in the global economy?
quote: Greg Mueller was the last to post
One thing to think about: it's the employees that do the work that brings in the money. It's the employees that should be making the money.
Its the investors who risk millions in starting the business. They are the ones who should be making the bulk of the money.
quote: Greg Mueller was the last to post
Upper management does not do anything that directly brings in money.
Other than start the business, buy the property, build the building, pay the taxes, pay for R and D, pay for advertising and marketing and incur millions of dollars in expenses and risk. Starbucks do not just grow up from the mud on thier own. Someone has to find the site, buy it, and pay for the building, the equipment, etc. before the first worker can make a cup of coffee.
quote: Bruce Hansen
And another by the way, I have been in business for myself for close to 20 years, and have done quite well, thank you.
How much are you paying your employees? Don't you think you can afford to pay them more? After all, you are doing quite well because of their hard work. Don't they deserve all the profits? After all, they made them, not you!
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aaron Mehocic
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 804
From: New Castle, PA, USA
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 11-26-2005 09:34 PM
I don't get everything back that I paid in during the year, but when the Federal government is taxing approximately $1000 on every $5000 earned, I'd hardly call that a tax cut.
Those people who founded our nation spent $50,000,000; 15,000 lives; and almost 10 years of war over a freakin penny. Now yesterday I heard the Interstate Highway fund will go bust by 2007 if anymore hybrids are sold (bullshit ... I know), nevertheless, what I wouldn't give to see a new generation of Hancocks, Jeffersons, and Franklins in this country.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 4 pages: 1 2 3 4
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|
Home
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic