This is topic Pay rates for hourly concession, ticket, usher staff in forum Ground Level at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=5;t=001833

---

Posted by Tony Monje (Member # 2775) on 02-12-2007, 11:10 PM:
 
I am interested in getting some feedback on an issue that I have been noticing over the past year or so, probably longer. I start my hourly people at $5.75 per hour, .60 over the minimum wage of $5.15. I have been getting more and more applications for first-time workers (high school kids) who expect to start at $7, $8 or even higher per hour starting pays. The kids we do hire, who are responsible, show up to work on time, keep up with their schedule, and do at least the minimum expected of them, do get raises. Either .15 to .25 per, say, a six month period. I am hearing more complaints from some of my employees about what a hard job it is to work either concession or ushering, and they expect a higher wage for the job expected of them. I do not hesitate to give raises to the real go-getters, but they are few and far between. I of course, still have to strive to keep my payroll percentages in line. I would like to know what other independants are paying their hourly people, and if any of you are experiencing these same type of complaints.
 

---

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 02-12-2007, 11:57 PM:
 
You're lucky to be able to start out someone more than min. wage. Some locations rather start their people at sub-minimum wage due to that they are so cheap and rather fatten up their own wallet than spend a few extra sheckels to ensure quality personnel ... and they wonder why good help is hard to find and why their business operations have a very low level of work ethics and morale, yet blame the manager for all of it.

Problem is, that this new day generation is so material minded and fed with a silver spoon in their mouth that they put a high price on their heads when they don't know what work is all about and expect more than what reality can pay them.

All you can say is "you'll get the ones who'll enjoy the job and want to stay for the duration" and let the others who want to whine about what your pay is go out and let them find their 'pot of gold' that they've been taught to find.

You're just lucky that you're not in a circuit that has locations is two or more states where one state's payroll is a good $2.70/hr higher than the neighboring state who is still at $5.15/hr, and your theatre just happens to be in that higher paying state .... and you get tons of flak from home office on keeping payroll down and productivity on the continual upswing.
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 02-13-2007, 01:05 AM:
 
Better brace yourself, the Feds will probably have the minimum wage at $7.25 before the end of next year.
 

---

Posted by Christopher Crouch (Member # 3784) on 02-13-2007, 05:08 AM:
 
All the companies I've been involved with (greatly varying sizes/types) start off at minimum.

I too have noticed much higher wage expectations and experienced more frequent complaints, from new hires, over the past few years. I've also noticed a sharp decline in the overall quality of applicants and a weaker general work ethic, than in years past. For a time, I wrote it off to my falling in to the "back in my day" mindset (ie. I was remembering an idealized past). However, after beginning to hear the same concerns voiced by others, from a variety of businesses, I began to believe there was more to it.

I've noticed this issue being very much age/generation related.
 

---

Posted by Scott D. Neff (Member # 185) on 02-13-2007, 03:35 PM:
 
For me it was always an issue of what could the local fast food giant pay vs. us. If somebody could get paid more to do a much more specific job (ie. stand and assemble burgers) they usually do that instead.

When I started (1994) most of my co-workers took the theatre job over the burger job because it was almost the same pay to work in a cleaner, cooler and fun environment. Now that things aren't nearly as equal pay-wise, the cleaner, cooler fun environment doesn't win out.
 

---

Posted by Barry Floyd (Member # 385) on 02-13-2007, 05:12 PM:
 
We have in the past started all of our new hires at $5.50 an hour. After they've shown me they can work, and take some initiative to do things on their own rather than me or my wife having to tell them, we'll usually increase their wages and additional .25 cents per hour. If we have employees from the previous season return for the current year, we'll bump them up an additional .25 cents per hour.

What gets me with the new minimum wage going into effect is that if the new hires are going to get $7.25 per hour, in all fairness we will need to increase the existing employees pay rate accordingly. Since my boxoffice lady is already making more than $7.25 per hour, I would need to increase her hourly wage to a little more than $9.30 an hour. As the theatre owner who doesn't get a paycheck - but works 7 nights a week, I don't know of any position at my theatre that demands a salary of $9.30 an hour. In the three years since we've built and owned the theatre neither me or my wife have been able to draw a paycheck... so I can testify that the greedy theatre owners are not getting rich.

Like it has been stated in the other thread about minimum wage, all of the costs will end up being passed on to the consumer... ticket prices will go up and concessions will to.
 

---

Posted by John T. Hendrickson, Jr (Member # 849) on 02-13-2007, 05:17 PM:
 
New Jersey went to a minimum wage of $7.15/hr last October. That simply forced us to give idiots a raise. I like to think that one good employee making $9-10 hr. is worth two making the minimum.

Also remember that a rising tide lifts all boats. If you pay the newbees the minimum ( which you are forced to), your experienced employees will want more (and should get it). In the end, it all gets passed on to the customers in the form of more expensive movie tickets.
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 02-13-2007, 06:28 PM:
 
Yes, but the truth about raising the bottom is that as a percentage it means more to those at the bottom in buying power. Give a $2/hour raise to a $6/hour employee and they are 30% wealthier and can purchase more or have a better choice of what they do purchase. Give that same $2/hour (based on a 40 hour week ) to a CEO pulling in $5 million/year and they won't see any noticable improvement in income or buying power.

From the rising cost of goods...a $2/hour increase in all employees does not mean a significant increase in the cost of goods, necessarily. One has to look at the total increase in payroll, look at the added proft needed to offset that increase and then factor that into how much money is made per sale and then subdivide that into how much more profit is needed in each item in that typical sale. In theatres, this might translate into 10-cents in popcorn in sodas. Which will quickly turn into a quarter to make the till easier which means the theatre will most likely profit more, providing they don't already charge so much they are at the point of making people decide to not purchase concessions/tickets. When something like the national minimum wage is raised, it is more easy for the common person to understand such a small increase in the cost of goods. Easier than understanding how gas prices soar an extra $1/gallon in just a few weeks!
 

---

Posted by Martin Brooks (Member # 1269) on 02-13-2007, 07:59 PM:
 
More than half the States already have minimum wage laws that are higher than the Federal Government, so what the Feds do isn't all that relevant.

All the populous States except for Texas are in this category. Kansas is the only State with a minimum wage below that of the Federal government - $2.65 an hour (talk about cheap!) There are some southern states with no minimum wage law. I'm not sure if that means they have to pay the Federal rate or not.

Based on a 1966 minimum wage of $1.25, the 2006 minimum wage should have been $7.76, just to keep pace with inflation.
 

---

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 02-13-2007, 09:04 PM:
 

quote: Martin Brooks

---

All the populous States except for Texas are in this category. Kansas is the only State with a minimum wage below that of the Federal government - $2.65 an hour (talk about cheap!) There are some southern states with no minimum wage law. I'm not sure if that means they have to pay the Federal rate or not.

---

Any state that still has a state minimum wage law that is below federal minimum or no minimum wage law at all must follow the federal laws. The only time the state law over rides the feds is when the wage is higher than the federal minimum.

As far as I know when it comes to sub minimum that can only apply to jobs where tips are the normal thing like waiters and waitresses.
 

---

Posted by Jack Ondracek (Member # 1466) on 02-13-2007, 11:31 PM:
 
You guys need to move to Washington. We've been paying above $7 for years. This'll be the second year our new hires start at $8. You ought to see what the kids around here think they should be starting at!
 

---

Posted by Dustin Mitchell (Member # 372) on 02-14-2007, 12:48 AM:
 
As a note on Darryl's post, there is a different mininum wage for 'tipping' jobs, however, if the employee does not make up the difference in tips they must be paid $5.15/hour by their employee. So a waitress/waiter who gets stuck working a slow shift and only gets $1 in tips from one customer in an hour doesn't make $3.45 for that hour (federal tipping mininum is $2.35, I think), they get $5.15.

Mininum wage means mininum, this applies to salary people also. If your weekly salary was $515 in one week and you worked over 100 hours your employee would need to pay you extra to make your effective hourly wage at least $5.15.

And then it gets even more complicated if you are salary but eligible for overtime (being on salary does not mean automatic exemption from OT).....
 

---

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 02-14-2007, 07:43 AM:
 

quote: Steve Guttag

---

Yes, but the truth about raising the bottom is that as a percentage it means more to those at the bottom in buying power. Give a $2/hour raise to a $6/hour employee and they are 30% wealthier and can purchase more or have a better choice of what they do purchase

---

quote:

---

there is a different mininum wage for 'tipping' jobs,

---

quote:

---

You guys need to move to Washington. We've been paying above $7 for years. This'll be the second year our new hires start at $8. You ought to see what the kids around here think they should be starting at!

---

....Yes, and I'm finding out that your neighbors below you down in Oregon where the min wage is at $7.80, have or are getting the same attitude on what they think that they should be getting for what they do .. and it's getting to be sad thinking that these kids are getting the idea that they are going to control the employers on what they think they should get paid, or go find some something else that suits their fancy.

..remember the 1973 movie "Soylent Green"? with Heston and E.G. Robinson (his last movie) and a comment was made on how much it cost for a jar of strawberry jam, which was $225.00? Hate to say this, but those days are coming ....

-Monte
 

---

Posted by Jack Ondracek (Member # 1466) on 02-15-2007, 08:10 AM:
 
Soylent Green is people!
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 02-15-2007, 08:36 AM:
 
Lyle...you just demonstrated how news stories quote with accurately but misreport the story.

Didn't I note in my discussion that although the wage increases at the lower end of the scale...how this affects the cost of goods to offset it is not at the same rate since it is distributed across the sale. That is, a 30% increase the bottom wage does not result in a 30% increase in the cost to deliver goods. How the cost of labor factors into the cost of goods is a function of said product and is not idetical for all products.

In short, you over simplified.
 

---

Posted by John T. Hendrickson, Jr (Member # 849) on 02-16-2007, 08:59 PM:
 
Let's set up a hypothetical. You have a new employee hired at a minimum wage of $6.15/hr. You have an experienced employee making $8/hr. There is a difference of nearly 25% between to two.

Now comes an increase in the minimum wage, to $7.15/hr. The newbee has just become the benefactor of a windfall of over 16%. For doing what? Was there a 16% increase in productivity?Now the $8/hr employee looks at this and thinks: "This guy is making 85 cents an hour less than me, and for what?"

If you want to go by percentages, then the $8/hr employee should be raised to $9.28/hr just to stay even.

Steve Guttag said:

"the truth about raising the bottom is that as a percentage it means more to those at the bottom in buying power. Give a $2/hour raise to a $6/hour employee and they are 30% wealthier and can purchase more or have a better choice of what they do purchase."

Correct! So, percentage-wise, you have to increase the employees who make more. Now, you are talking about a serious rise in labor costs.

So, to quote Lyle Romer: " Which then leads to inflation and the buying power eventually ends up where it was to start and then minimum wage is increased again and then.............round and round we go"

And where does this leave theatre owners? Raising prices again. Sooner or later we reach the old economic tennant of the point of diminishing returns, where indeed, some customers will start to walk away.
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 02-17-2007, 10:04 AM:
 
John,

Bzzzzt wrong again...the minimum wage is there only raises the bottom to what should be the minimum. I'm not saying it is set accurately.

If one is paying less when the minimum is increased, the in effect the employer was underpaying those people. The "raise" as you called it was really just put them on the bottom. An employer does not HAVE to raise anyone else. That is their choice for any reason, merit, the aforementioned good will seeing as the bottom rung people just increased their buying power...etc.

Now if a company were to take your approach and raise everyone's income the same percentage right on up to the CEO/owner that may be making a million a year (nice wish for small time theatre owners)...then yes, it would beget inflation based on labor costs, which is only a portion of the cost of goods.

Generally, people being paid minimum wage are paid that because one couldn't be paid anything less. Those that don't make the minimum wage are already having their value expressed to some extent in monetary forms.
 

---

Posted by John T. Hendrickson, Jr (Member # 849) on 02-17-2007, 07:09 PM:
 
Steve-

I think we are engaged in some symantics here. My point is simply this:

NJ minimum wage just went from $6.15 to $7.15 per hour this past October. Naturally, we hire kids for floor work at the minimum to start. So, a new employee starts there at that rate.

As of this past October, my entry level operator who had just finished training was making $8. He looks at the newbe just beginning and thinks: "I'm in the booth with all this responsibility, and I'm making only 85 cents an hour more than the moron on the floor." If he walks, I'm out one booth operator and all that training I gave him goes up in smoke.

So, what do I do? That's what I mean by a rising tide lifts all boats. If I give the bottom man another 50 cents an hour, then the guy at $9 sees that and he wants more, too.

Yeh, I know- how do they know what the others guys are making? Although management tries to keep pay confidential, people talk and they find out.
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 02-17-2007, 09:24 PM:
 
Our minimum wage in Montana was $5.15 and just went to $6.15. (Everything's cheaper in Montana.) We start people for 90 days at the minimum, then they used to go to $5.50 and keep escalating over time until they hit a max of $7.25. When the new wage went into effect I had 3 new people at the minimum, and three more experienced people who were at $6.50, so I just couldn't raise the minimum people to $6.15 and not raise the others too. I know how I would feel if I were the higher-paid employees. Bottom line, everyone got a dollar an hour raise and our ticket prices went up to cover it. It was about a wash, on the average.

The worry here is, a yearly cost-of-living adjustment was also voted in so who knows what'll happen to the minimum as time goes on, especially if the fed minimum goes to $7.25.
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 02-17-2007, 09:49 PM:
 
John, yes a rising tide does raise all boats but it doesn't raise them all at the same rate, percentage wise. The closer to the bottom you are, the higher a percentage it is.

If say, you raise all employees by $2/hr to keep the spread (similar to Mike's example) then the bottom guy got a bigger percentage raise. The cost of living as a result of this increase did NOT raise the cost of goods by the same amount as the percentage of increase in pay and hence the people at the bottom end wind up with more buying power.

In other words, a 30% increase in minimum wage does not translate into a 30% inflation in the cost of goods and entertainment. It will inflate the cost for sure but the people at the bottom will find more dough in their pocket in the end to spend, which technically helps the economy providing that the increase in the cost of goods does not deter people from buying them.

However, it is way too simplistic and just plain wrong to say that increasing the minimum wage will cause the cost of goods to uniformly rise such to nullify the increase.
 

---

Posted by Mark Hajducki (Member # 1732) on 02-19-2007, 05:03 PM:
 
Not increasing rates of pay by inflation would result in people working for less in real terms year on year.

Assuming the minimum wage is also linked to inflation (although adjusted in stages) then an inflation linked pay scale would be linked to the minimum wage.

A system where all the salaries are linked (minimum wage times a set amount) would result in fixed links between each grade of employees' wages.

-----

The problem with inflation is there are many scales avaliable to measure it.

Not all staff will be affected in the same way by changes in the cost of living (for example somebody living with their parents will be relatively shielded from increases in rental or mortgage rates).

quote: John T. Hendrickson, Jr

---

That simply forced us to give idiots a raise.

---

quote: Steve Guttag

---

it is way too simplistic and just plain wrong to say that increasing the minimum wage will cause the cost of goods to uniformly rise such to nullify the increase.

---

quote: Steve Guttag

---

you must not have read my posting(s)...

---

Ahhh.... ok. Pardon my blinders!
 

---

Posted by Joel N. Weber II (Member # 3530) on 03-02-2007, 01:43 AM:
 
Many/most of the goods sold in the US aren't manufactured in the US, so the US minimum wage shouldn't affect the manufacturing cost of those goods.

However, some of those goods are sold in stores in the US that pay their employees the minimum wage, and the cost of paying those employees will go up somewhat.
 

---

Posted by Dustin Mitchell (Member # 372) on 03-02-2007, 02:00 AM:
 
Someone once told me that some union contracts have their pay rates tied to the minium wage, that is the contract stipulates they'll be paid x amount (percent or straight dollar amount I don't know) over mininum wage. Anyone know if this is true?
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 03-02-2007, 05:56 AM:
 
Since a union contract can be written in just about any way, I'm sure such a contract either exists or has existed though I've never personally seen one. All of the contracts I've been a part of (for projection) have had rigid pay schedules that specified the amount paid to the worker in any theatre under contract and also specified any increases that would automatically take affect. The rate of pay has always been on a separate page or schedule that is attached to the contract "and made part thereto" or some such verbage.
 

---

Posted by Dustin Mitchell (Member # 372) on 03-02-2007, 06:25 AM:
 
Thanks Steve. Whoever I heard this from (I can't remember who, just that I did and at the time it seemed credible) made it seem like this was a widespread practice. Apparantly not.
 

---

Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 03-02-2007, 11:25 AM:
 
Anything can be negotiated into or out of a labor contract as long as both parties agree to it. So I wouldn't be surprised if language tying contract wage rates to the federal or state minimum wage has been used in an agreement. Personally I've never seen that in any of the IATSE agreements I've worked under over the years.

I have seen contract language tying wages to the cost-of-living index though, which provides for wages to automatically rise with that index each year for the duration of the contract. That method was used by PATCO when I was in that group and seems to be a favorite with many of the other current federal employee unions.
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 03-02-2007, 12:51 PM:
 

quote: Joel N. Weber II

---

Many/most of the goods sold in the US aren't manufactured in the US, so the US minimum wage shouldn't affect the manufacturing cost of those goods.

---