[Mrs G]

This is not right, servers should have had a raise a looooong time ago!! Hopefully they will get one soon!!!!

Rebecca Williams has waited tables, on and off, for 30 years. A lot has changed since her first stint in the business ended in the early 1990s. Restaurants now tout their commitment to local and organic fare. Diners eagerly pass and poke at tapas-style small plates. Chefs at brick-and-mortar restaurants now compete with a growing legion of food trucks. But one thing that's remained consistent in all that time is Williams' paycheck.


My link

[Inspector Callahan]

She waits tables for 30 years but she has a degree. Her choice. Just another poor, poor me article.

[zoocrew]

What the legislation effectively did was give the food industry a cost of living raise but kept servers at the poverty level. These are people that do an incredible job but have no retirement and no health insurance. So for the lower meals, we have taken advantage of a class of people. I think everyone agrees that servers have a choice whether to work in the industry or not, but what we should also recognize is that these people don't deserve to be taken advantage of by the law when everyone else gets a minimum wage. The targeting of one class of people is wrong, IMHO.

[Thoughts]

I've read quite a bit of old books about restaurants from the 40's, 50's and the 60's where it wasn't unusual for the waiters to have been at an establishment for 15 or 20 years and were very well compensated by their employer, plus tips. Now the food industry is considered the trash pit of the career world. People today think if you work for the restaurant business and your not the owner or some star chef, you must be a loser. A good waiter or line cook is hard to come by these days because of the low pay and lack of respect and that's a real shame. It's probably why we don't have better restaurants in this country...

[jsbeagle]

Servers are also the only occupation to rely on gratuity.
End gratuity and pay them the same minimum wage as everybody else.


As to minimum wage, not much has been made of the fact that the minimum wage rate was raised just before the economy went south and people started losing their jobs. There is definitely a connection between the government forcing employers to pay people more than the free market determines they are worth, and lots of people losing their jobs at the same time.

[Starr & Dru's Nana]

Minimum wage for servers is the same as it is for everyone else--$7.25 an hour. Restaurants (and bars and other establishments that qualify as "restaurants") only have to pay $2.13 an hour of that. HOWEVER, if the tips don't make up the difference between $2.13 an hour and $7.25 an hour (or whatever minimum wage is at the time), the restaurant HAS to pay minimum wage regardless.

[Inspector Callahan]

jsbeagle, on 03 June 2012 - 07:28 PM, said:

As to minimum wage, not much has been made of the fact that the minimum wage rate was raised just before the economy went south and people started losing their jobs. There is definitely a connection between the government forcing employers to pay people more than the free market determines they are worth, and lots of people losing their jobs at the same time.

Exactly right. Minimum wage laws are just more government interference in the marketplace and actually cost people jobs.

[i_have3dogs]

zoocrew, on 03 June 2012 - 06:53 PM, said:

What the legislation effectively did was give the food industry a cost of living raise but kept servers at the poverty level. These are people that do an incredible job but have no retirement and no health insurance. So for the lower meals, we have taken advantage of a class of people. I think everyone agrees that servers have a choice whether to work in the industry or not, but what we should also recognize is that these people don't deserve to be taken advantage of by the law when everyone else gets a minimum wage. The targeting of one class of people is wrong, IMHO.

They do get minimum wage, if their tips don't equal to minimum wage. If they make over minimum, then they are getting paid better. Try to understand what you are talking about before you go on about something you clearly don't understand.

[Mrs G]

Starr & Dru, on 03 June 2012 - 07:51 PM, said:

Minimum wage for servers is the same as it is for everyone else--$7.25 an hour. Restaurants (and bars and other establishments that qualify as "restaurants") only have to pay $2.13 an hour of that. HOWEVER, if the tips don't make up the difference between $2.13 an hour and $7.25 an hour (or whatever minimum wage is at the time), the restaurant HAS to pay minimum wage regardless.

Yes, that is true but, IF the servers "don't" make enough tips and the Employer has to pay them "minimum wages", they will see them as a "not so good server" and they will NOT have a job at that restaurant for very long!!!! I was a server for about 8 yrs and I have seen this quite a few times. Still, servers do not any insurance or very poor insurance coverage, if they do have it. Servers need better pay AND better benefits!!!

[Starr & Dru's Nana]

To say servers aren't paid at least minimum wage is incorrect. They ARE paid minimum wage. I've seen servers who occasionally didn't make enough in tips to cover minimum wage stay in the job for a long time. Someone who works part-time and at a slow time of the day might not make $7.25/hour. Not necessarily because they aren't a good server either. Could just be their scheduled shift.

When my daughter took a job at Huddle House they told her that she wouldn't make much money (barely minimum wage) because the tips weren't good on the third shift. Two weeks into it, the other servers were asking how she made so much money when they couldn't.

Some do have health insurance. It depends on where they work and what is offered. I've known several servers at "breakfast" places who made over $700 a week AND had health insurance. Waffle House used to offer health insurance that covered you from day one of your employment and most franchisees paid for it. They still offer it (or did about a year ago) but you had to pay for it. My SIL worked with a woman who worked at Waffle House JUST to have insurance. She brought home practically nothing after paying for her insurance. Not unlike working as a bus driver or in food service in the school system.

Mrs G, on 03 June 2012 - 08:30 PM, said:

Yes, that is true but, IF the servers "don't" make enough tips and the Employer has to pay them "minimum wages", they will see them as a "not so good server" and they will NOT have a job at that restaurant for very long!!!! I was a server for about 8 yrs and I have seen this quite a few times. Still, servers do not any insurance or very poor insurance coverage, if they do have it. Servers need better pay AND better benefits!!!

[kim404]

Starr & Dru, on 03 June 2012 - 07:51 PM, said:

Minimum wage for servers is the same as it is for everyone else--$7.25 an hour. Restaurants (and bars and other establishments that qualify as "restaurants") only have to pay $2.13 an hour of that. HOWEVER, if the tips don't make up the difference between $2.13 an hour and $7.25 an hour (or whatever minimum wage is at the time), the restaurant HAS to pay minimum wage regardless.

Hence the problem of some companies not believing the server that they only made said amount of money. Been on that end also. One restaurant customers dropped off so bad I was only making no more than $20 a day in tips plus my $3.07 an hour wage and was working 35 hours a week. Making my pay $5.92 an hour. Well corporate said I must not be doing my job proficiently and fired me. Which in Ga they had every right to. Anyway bottom line is, yes you are supposed to be compensated up to minimum wage but you have to keep very careful records on hours worked and also make sure you have claimed enough tips for the day or days worked. Sad but true. To anyone reading this good luck on getting your employer to actuall pay you that much as a server.

[kim404]

Starr & Dru, on 03 June 2012 - 08:40 PM, said:

To say servers aren't paid at least minimum wage is incorrect. They ARE paid minimum wage. I've seen servers who occasionally didn't make enough in tips to cover minimum wage stay in the job for a long time. Someone who works part-time and at a slow time of the day might not make $7.25/hour. Not necessarily because they aren't a good server either. Could just be their scheduled shift.

When my daughter took a job at Huddle House they told her that she wouldn't make much money (barely minimum wage) because the tips weren't good on the third shift. Two weeks into it, the other servers were asking how she made so much money when they couldn't.

Some do have health insurance. It depends on where they work and what is offered. I've known several servers at "breakfast" places who made over $700 a week AND had health insurance. Waffle House used to offer health insurance that covered you from day one of your employment and most franchisees paid for it. They still offer it (or did about a year ago) but you had to pay for it. My SIL worked with a woman who worked at Waffle House JUST to have insurance. She brought home practically nothing after paying for her insurance. Not unlike working as a bus driver or in food service in the school system.

Sorry to inform you. I worked at Waffle House on average 26 years and they are and i say are the worst company to work for. The insurance does cost an arm and a leg and for the money you pay the worst ever. So dont let whoever told your sister in law about how great it is lied. If it was so great they would have better quality people working and running it. Waffle House is a joke and treat their employees like crap. And that is the place I lost my job at and several others along side me for the same reason. They are the only company that still pays their cooks minimum wage whether they have been there 5 months or 20 years.

[Starr & Dru's Nana]

It was my son in law, not my sister in law. Sorry. SIL could be either.

That IS the reason the woman worked there. Crappy insurance or great, apparently it was worth it to her. I can't remember what her other job was but it didn't even offer insurance, crappy or otherwise. Her other job was in the daytime, so she needed something at night and something that offered insurance. That left out anything with the school system, which is generally the best job for someone who needs little income but insurance.

My SIL actually worked there twice. Depending on which store he was at there might be good management. And depending on the manager at the time, there might be good management. He had one really good manager. Once that manager left the store went downhill. He was there as cook when he last worked there and I think he made above minimum wage. I've seen his paystubs but it's been a while. I think he made $8 an hour as cook but I know it was higher than minimum even if it wasn't $8. Though, as I said, it has been awhile. He's been gone from there well over a year.

My daughter loved Huddle House. Great management, great co-workers. She says that sometimes she wished she had stayed. She'd be a district manager or higher by now. She was up for assistant manager position when she left (to get married).

kim404, on 03 June 2012 - 09:03 PM, said:

Sorry to inform you. I worked at Waffle House on average 26 years and they are and i say are the worst company to work for. The insurance does cost an arm and a leg and for the money you pay the worst ever. So dont let whoever told your sister in law about how great it is lied. If it was so great they would have better quality people working and running it. Waffle House is a joke and treat their employees like crap. And that is the place I lost my job at and several others along side me for the same reason. They are the only company that still pays their cooks minimum wage whether they have been there 5 months or 20 years.

[kim404]

Starr & Dru, on 03 June 2012 - 09:26 PM, said:

It was my son in law, not my sister in law. Sorry. SIL could be either.

That IS the reason the woman worked there. Crappy insurance or great, apparently it was worth it to her. I can't remember what her other job was but it didn't even offer insurance, crappy or otherwise. Her other job was in the daytime, so she needed something at night and something that offered insurance. That left out anything with the school system, which is generally the best job for someone who needs little income but insurance.

My SIL actually worked there twice. Depending on which store he was at there might be good management. And depending on the manager at the time, there might be good management. He had one really good manager. Once that manager left the store went downhill. He was there as cook when he last worked there and I think he made above minimum wage. I've seen his paystubs but it's been a while. I think he made $8 an hour as cook but I know it was higher than minimum even if it wasn't $8. Though, as I said, it has been awhile. He's been gone from there well over a year.

My daughter loved Huddle House. Great management, great co-workers. She says that sometimes she wished she had stayed. She'd be a district manager or higher by now. She was up for assistant manager position when she left (to get married).

Yea that is the problem they get a handful of good management who care about the employees and do whatever they can to do right by them. well they dont last long at that store and once they leave the whole store falls apart. So their answer open another store 5 miles down the road. Employees are very dispensible to them. And he got lucky as far as the pay goes. All i ever heard from cooks was fussing about the pay versus work they had to do. And very few last long enough to use the insurance so waffle house makes even more money. They have their own insurance company through BCBS. Dont know much about Huddle House but heard they are better to work for.

[Nice Green]

A few thoughts:

One could very well be a server for 30 years and end up making good money at the end of it all. Just because you start your career at Waffle House doesn't mean you can't clean yourself up at the end of your late-night shift and head over to Denny's to apply for a server job there, then use that job to springboard to Cracker Barrel, and so on (not to necessarily say that Waffle House < Denny's < Cracker Barrel, but just using this scenario as an example). Keep doing that, and you could very well end up at a restaurant where 15% of the check is decent money, and where the clientele is going to be more apt to not stiff you even if you do a fine job.

We'd consider servers in this country to be more or less unskilled labor, and for such a job in a cheap restaurant, they pretty much might be. So minimum wage is a fair wage for those at that level. But as you get to finer restaurants, servers need to know more—what's in a dish, how is it prepared, what wine pairs well with what dish, etc.—a server has to know the menu and what goes into it versus much less knowledge (and less knowledge needed) at your Waffle Houses and similar restaurants.

You know, we could very well have restaurants where you'd just tell a cook what you'd want him/her to prepare for you. I mean, why do we need servers to serve as middlemen anyway? (And you can see this strategy somewhat at fast-food restaurants, where workers are going to have several duties). But again, at finer restaurants, you expect servers to have a bit more knowledge in their field.

And of course, no one is forcing these people to remain in these jobs. If the pay is no good and no one's giving you good health insurance, head elsewhere. Hey, being a trash collector may be a smelly job, but I bet the pay is nice. Being a cop may be more dangerous than your current fast-food career, but the starting pay may be nice (and the retirement likely nicer).

[mrnn]

jsbeagle, on 03 June 2012 - 07:28 PM, said:

As to minimum wage, not much has been made of the fact that the minimum wage rate was raised just before the economy went south and people started losing their jobs.

There's a reason that not much has been made of that fact coincidence.


mrnn

[DonBrownJr]

You guys are certainly looking at the wrong side of this. The people being taken advantage of are the employers, not the employees. Minimum wage laws do not help the employer but give the unskilled/untrained an advantage to make more than they are worth. If someone plans on making a career out of being a server, then they have the opportunity to improve their skills and get better jobs, just like every other insustry.

As others stated, there is a hierarchy in the food service industry and good servers at decent restaurants can make a lot of money. The OP and most of the complainers in the thread are really looking at the bottom rung of the ladder. For the most part, these servers are required to have no skills other than being able to read/write (sometimes), and not be a total clutz. This means that for every position there are hundreds or thousands of people qualified. That should drive the cost of hiring down, but the government interferes and says that their pay is a set level. So instead of hiring five servers to cover a shift, the employer will only hire three. Now that we're adding the requirements of Obamacare, you'll probably see one of them let go, and only two servers working to take care of what five shoud be doing.

This is why you have seen service in the last 20 years take a nose dive. Restaurant owners would rather have the 5 servers doing a better job, but the cost can't be justified. Better service equals more satisfied customers, satisfied customers mean better tips, more turnover per table, so more income for the servers and the business. This applies to all businesses that hire the un/low skilled worker. I have never had a minimum wage position, so maybe I'm way off base, but even in high school, I did construction type jobs that required more than just physical labor and paid more than that. Of course the first few years of starting my own business, I didn't make as much as minimum wage if you look at the hours put in a week!

I would like to add that both of my children did work as servers and other positions in the food insustry. After their initial training, they never made minimum. You get out of a position what you put into it.

This post has been edited by DonBrownJr: 04 June 2012 - 10:52 AM

[Starr & Dru's Nana]

I like it when someone gets it.

I have found that more often than not, you get what you pay for when you hire an employee. Pay minimum wage and you'll likely get a marginal employee. Once they get some experience under their belt, they're our the door to a BETTER job. There is a reason that the good places to work pay well and have no trouble hiring or keeping employees OR growing the business.

When we had our business and were trying desperately to find someone to work for us we couldn't find anyone. Everyone who wanted to work for us expected huge bucks but had no clue what a wrench was or what PPE was and had no willingness to learn. We didn't want someone who got paid, and was worth, minimum wage. We needed skilled craftsmen (or craftswomen). We were willing to pay big money for someone with the skills we require. People heard how much we were paying and wanted to come to work for us but then had a deer-in-the-headlights look when we told them they would be traveling 4-5 days out of every week, working sometimes 18 hours a day, might go a month without getting out of the office and had 2-3 days of reports to do after every trip. All they wanted was a paycheck and not a career. Seems that is the way a lot of people are.

You're right. Good servers at decent (or even not so decent) restaurants make a lot of money. The figure I quoted earlier ($700 a week plus company paid insurance) was at a "breakfast" type of restaurant and that information came from servers and owner alike. They (the owners) believed in taking care of their employees. They had essentially the same servers and cooks the entire 4 or 5 years we ate there. When they closed that restaurant and opened a different type of restaurant in a different location, they took most of the staff with them. My daughter made great tips at Huddle House when everybody else told her not to expect anything to speak of because they weren't making any. Two weeks into the job, the other employees came to her and asked why she was making $75-100 a night in tips when they might make $20. I guess a smiling face and a helpful attitude goes a long way when you're working for tips. Be surly and make people feel like you're doing them a favor to bring a refill on their coffee and you probably won't get much tip.

DonBrownJr, on 04 June 2012 - 10:05 AM, said:

You guys are certainly looking at the wrong side of this. The people being taken advantage of are the employers, not the employees. Minimum wage laws do not help the employer but give the unskilled/untrained an advantage to make more than they are worth. If someone plans on making a career out of being a server, then they have the opportunity to improve their skills and get better jobs, just like every other insustry.

As others stated, there is a hierarchy in the food service industry and good servers at decent restaurants can make a lot of money. The OP and most of the complainers in the thread are really looking at the bottom rung of the ladder. For the most part, these servers are required to have no skills other than being able to read/write (sometimes), and not be a total clutz. This means that for every position there are hundreds or thousands of people qualified. That should drive the cost of hiring down, but the government interferes and says that their pay is a set level. So instead of hiring five servers to cover a shift, the employer will only hire three. Now that we're adding the requirements of Obamacare, you'll probably see one of them let go, and only two servers working to take care of what five shoud be doing.

This is why you have seen service in the last 20 years take a nose dive. Restaurant owners would rather have the 5 servers doing a better job, but the cost can't be justified. Better service equals more satisfied customers, satisfied customers mean better tips, more turnover per table, so more income for the servers and the business. This applies to all businesses that hire the un/low skilled worker.

I have never had a minimum wage position, so maybe I'm way off base, but even in high school, I did construction type jobs that required more than just physical labor and paid more than that. Of course the first few years of starting my own business, I didn't make as much as minimum wage if you look at the hours put in a week!

[momof 3]

Thoughts, on 03 June 2012 - 07:10 PM, said:

I've read quite a bit of old books about restaurants from the 40's, 50's and the 60's where it wasn't unusual for the waiters to have been at an establishment for 15 or 20 years and were very well compensated by their employer, plus tips. Now the food industry is considered the trash pit of the career world. People today think if you work for the restaurant business and your not the owner or some star chef, you must be a loser. A good waiter or line cook is hard to come by these days because of the low pay and lack of respect and that's a real shame. It's probably why we don't have better restaurants in this country...

Darn GOOD post!!!! +10

[mrnn]

DonBrownJr, on 04 June 2012 - 10:05 AM, said:

You guys are certainly looking at the wrong side of this. The people being taken advantage of are the employers, not the employees. Minimum wage laws do not help the employer but give the unskilled/untrained an advantage to make more than they are worth. If someone plans on making a career out of being a server, then they have the opportunity to improve their skills and get better jobs, just like every other insustry.

As others stated, there is a hierarchy in the food service industry and good servers at decent restaurants can make a lot of money. The OP and most of the complainers in the thread are really looking at the bottom rung of the ladder. For the most part, these servers are required to have no skills other than being able to read/write (sometimes), and not be a total clutz. This means that for every position there are hundreds or thousands of people qualified. That should drive the cost of hiring down, but the government interferes and says that their pay is a set level. So instead of hiring five servers to cover a shift, the employer will only hire three. Now that we're adding the requirements of Obamacare, you'll probably see one of them let go, and only two servers working to take care of what five shoud be doing.

This is why you have seen service in the last 20 years take a nose dive. Restaurant owners would rather have the 5 servers doing a better job, but the cost can't be justified. Better service equals more satisfied customers, satisfied customers mean better tips, more turnover per table, so more income for the servers and the business. This applies to all businesses that hire the un/low skilled worker. I have never had a minimum wage position, so maybe I'm way off base, but even in high school, I did construction type jobs that required more than just physical labor and paid more than that. Of course the first few years of starting my own business, I didn't make as much as minimum wage if you look at the hours put in a week!

I would like to add that both of my children did work as servers and other positions in the food insustry. After their initial training, they never made minimum. You get out of a position what you put into it.

Let me guess, you don't like welfare programs either?

The fact is that no matter what we do we will have unskilled labor that still needs a way to earn a living. If left to employers without a minimum wage, unskilled workers would not make wages to support themselves, much less a family. This pushes them to the welfare rolls, which you're also against. So what's your answer? Let them starve in the streets?


mrnn

[DonBrownJr]

mrnn, on 04 June 2012 - 10:58 AM, said:

Let me guess, you don't like welfare programs either?

The fact is that no matter what we do we will have unskilled labor that still needs a way to earn a living. If left to employers without a minimum wage, unskilled workers would not make wages to support themselves, much less a family. This pushes them to the welfare rolls, which you're also against. So what's your answer? Let them starve in the streets?

mrnn

You are correct, I don't agree with the "welfare programs" as we administer them now. I do not include unemployment or social security in the "welfare" category as some do. They were for the most part earned, and not free money.

As they are administered now, the programs are self-perpetuating the "poor". If you can sit at home and make more than you can working, why wouldn't you? If you make more by having additional children, and have someone take care of their needs too, why not? If there are requirments added to the programs that make you get more skill training or education in order to collect a check, people would soon be able to earn more than what is provided by the government. Of course, you will never see these requirements because those that collect free benefits won't vote for anyone who will stop them. The really sad thing is that we are approaching over 50% of the people in the country receiving some type of free benefit. When that happens, it will never change, and you will see our great country go the way of other empires. It cannot sustain itself.

There is not a quick solution to the problem, because it has been perpetuated to long already. One way to slow the government bleeding through these programs is to stop them from being so easy to qualify for, and stop them from being all or none. I beleive in assistance, not free rides. If someone is physically/mentally able to work, they should be required to work. We would then provide them assistance to some derived minimum standard of living. I don't believe that minimum should include big screen tv's, cable, cell phones, new cars, etc. I also believe there should be drug screenings to collect any benefits. Fathers should be held responsible for their children, and single mothers should be required to work with daycare provided.

Where do these jobs come from in our current economy? That is a great question, but another issue all together. Part of it goes back to the original problem of government intervention in hampering the free-market economy from doing what it does best.

[mrshoward]

Per supporters wishes, a law is passed tomorrrow that
mandates all servers are paid a wage of $8.00 an hour:


What happens to the food service labor market ? ? ?

What happens to the local restaurant industry ? ? ?

[Starr & Dru's Nana]

I hate to break this to you, but you can't support yourself, much less a family, on minimum wage. If only one person in the family is working and that is a minimum wage job, the family still most likely qualifies for assistance either in the way of food stamps or Medicaid or both.

Minimum wage was NOT set up to be the way you support a family. It was set up to be a springboard to bigger and better.

mrnn, on 04 June 2012 - 10:58 AM, said:

Let me guess, you don't like welfare programs either?

The fact is that no matter what we do we will have unskilled labor that still needs a way to earn a living. If left to employers without a minimum wage, unskilled workers would not make wages to support themselves, much less a family. This pushes them to the welfare rolls, which you're also against. So what's your answer? Let them starve in the streets?


mrnn

[Starr & Dru's Nana]

In response to the highlighted part, this IS a requirement for TANF. I think that is the new name for "welfare". In order to receive this, one must attend classes for 8 hours a day, 5 days a week for 3 out of EVERY 4 weeks. You must attend for TWO MONTHS before you get your first check. You have to provide your own transportation (it is not provided for you but thankfully if you live where the bus runs, you can get there). They do not provide child care.

I agree 1000% with your statement about fathers needing to be held accountable for their children. Yes, yes and yes!! I also agree with your last statement.

DonBrownJr, on 04 June 2012 - 11:39 AM, said:

You are correct, I don't agree with the "welfare programs" as we administer them now. I do not include unemployment or social security in the "welfare" category as some do. They were for the most part earned, and not free money.

As they are administered now, the programs are self-perpetuating the "poor". If you can sit at home and make more than you can working, why wouldn't you? If you make more by having additional children, and have someone take care of their needs too, why not? If there are requirments added to the programs that make you get more skill training or education in order to collect a check, people would soon be able to earn more than what is provided by the government. Of course, you will never see these requirements because those that collect free benefits won't vote for anyone who will stop them. The really sad thing is that we are approaching over 50% of the people in the country receiving some type of free benefit. When that happens, it will never change, and you will see our great country go the way of other empires. It cannot sustain itself.

There is not a quick solution to the problem, because it has been perpetuated to long already. One way to slow the government bleeding through these programs is to stop them from being so easy to qualify for, and stop them from being all or none. I beleive in assistance, not free rides. If someone is physically/mentally able to work, they should be required to work. We would then provide them assistance to some derived minimum standard of living. I don't believe that minimum should include big screen tv's, cable, cell phones, new cars, etc. I also believe there should be drug screenings to collect any benefits. Fathers should be held responsible for their children, and single mothers should be required to work with daycare provided.

Where do these jobs come from in our current economy? That is a great question, but another issue all together. Part of it goes back to the original problem of government intervention in hampering the free-market economy from doing what it does best.

[Starr & Dru's Nana]

Some states have higher minimum wage for servers than does Georgia. Florida for instance has a base minimum wage of $4.65 an hour for servers with the overall minimum wage being $7.67. Again, the server MUST be paid minimum wage regardless of what the employer has to pay.

Quite frankly, having spent a good deal of time in Florida in years past and this year as well, I have seen NO difference.

mrshoward, on 04 June 2012 - 12:51 PM, said:

Per supporters wishes, a law is passed tomorrrow that
mandates all servers are paid a wage of $8.00 an hour:


What happens to the food service labor market ? ? ?

What happens to the local restaurant industry ? ? ?

[mrnn]

Starr & Dru, on 04 June 2012 - 01:17 PM, said:

I hate to break this to you, but you can't support yourself, much less a family, on minimum wage.

Which is precisely why it baffles me that people would pretend that it's unfair for businesses to be mandated to pay employees minimum wage because it's somehow prohibitively expensive. Minimum wage is what, like $8 an hour? Surely, as you said, not enough to live on. So anti-minimum wage folks think it would be fair to pay unskilled workers even less?!? Who in the hell do you guys (I include you loosely) think are going to take these jobs?


Here's another way for all you pseudo-capitalists to look at minimum wage....what if it actually helps businesses by setting an artificial base of what's "fair" pay that, considering the paltry amount, is not a living wage and actually well below market value?


mrnn

This post has been edited by mrnn: 04 June 2012 - 01:34 PM

[mrnn]

DonBrownJr, on 04 June 2012 - 11:39 AM, said:

You are correct, I don't agree with the "welfare programs" as we administer them now. I do not include unemployment or social security in the "welfare" category as some do. They were for the most part earned, and not free money.

As they are administered now, the programs are self-perpetuating the "poor". If you can sit at home and make more than you can working, why wouldn't you? If you make more by having additional children, and have someone take care of their needs too, why not? If there are requirments added to the programs that make you get more skill training or education in order to collect a check, people would soon be able to earn more than what is provided by the government. Of course, you will never see these requirements because those that collect free benefits won't vote for anyone who will stop them. The really sad thing is that we are approaching over 50% of the people in the country receiving some type of free benefit. When that happens, it will never change, and you will see our great country go the way of other empires. It cannot sustain itself.

There is not a quick solution to the problem, because it has been perpetuated to long already. One way to slow the government bleeding through these programs is to stop them from being so easy to qualify for, and stop them from being all or none. I beleive in assistance, not free rides. If someone is physically/mentally able to work, they should be required to work. We would then provide them assistance to some derived minimum standard of living. I don't believe that minimum should include big screen tv's, cable, cell phones, new cars, etc. I also believe there should be drug screenings to collect any benefits. Fathers should be held responsible for their children, and single mothers should be required to work with daycare provided.

Where do these jobs come from in our current economy? That is a great question, but another issue all together. Part of it goes back to the original problem of government intervention in hampering the free-market economy from doing what it does best.

Generational welfare and the current construct of welfare programs are issues, on that much we certainly agree.

My point to you was that you believe that it's anti-capitalistic for employers to be mandated to pay a minimum wage...your opinion is obviously that wages would drop precipitously for unskilled labor if that mandate were lifted. Fair enough (though I disagree, to an extent). So you think taxpayers, via welfare, should subsidize employers' wage cuts for working Americans? And that's your idea of capitalism?!?

ETA: I believe capitalism is the greatest system on Earth...I really do. But I'm also not a fan of pretending it's a perfect system. Regulation is necessary. Welfare is necessary. Capitalism, in its purest form, would leave you with starving people dying in the streets (see 19th century America).


mrnn

This post has been edited by mrnn: 04 June 2012 - 01:34 PM

[SOLO]

So no more tipping ?

[LPPT]

Minimum wage without benefits is what has allowed restaurant and retail to proliferate to being almost 1/4 of this countries economy. 1/4 of the population of this country is in survival mode, add 10% unemployment, welfare, disability, and retirement.

That plan seems to be working out really well, maybe Walmart can start importing consumers to keep our economy moving, because lord knows we have a serious shortage of them.
It is a myth that lower employee wages are better for business and the economy, a myth on paper, we are living the reality and it sucks.

[zoocrew]

DonBrownJr, on 04 June 2012 - 11:39 AM, said:

You are correct, I don't agree with the "welfare programs" as we administer them now. I do not include unemployment or social security in the "welfare" category as some do. They were for the most part earned, and not free money.

As they are administered now, the programs are self-perpetuating the "poor". If you can sit at home and make more than you can working, why wouldn't you? If you make more by having additional children, and have someone take care of their needs too, why not? If there are requirments added to the programs that make you get more skill training or education in order to collect a check, people would soon be able to earn more than what is provided by the government. Of course, you will never see these requirements because those that collect free benefits won't vote for anyone who will stop them. The really sad thing is that we are approaching over 50% of the people in the country receiving some type of free benefit. When that happens, it will never change, and you will see our great country go the way of other empires. It cannot sustain itself.

There is not a quick solution to the problem, because it has been perpetuated to long already. One way to slow the government bleeding through these programs is to stop them from being so easy to qualify for, and stop them from being all or none. I beleive in assistance, not free rides. If someone is physically/mentally able to work, they should be required to work. We would then provide them assistance to some derived minimum standard of living. I don't believe that minimum should include big screen tv's, cable, cell phones, new cars, etc. I also believe there should be drug screenings to collect any benefits. Fathers should be held responsible for their children, and single mothers should be required to work with daycare provided.

Where do these jobs come from in our current economy? That is a great question, but another issue all together. Part of it goes back to the original problem of government intervention in hampering the free-market economy from doing what it does best.

We already have work/training requirements on welfare.

There are already laws about fathers supporting their kids and garnishing wages or face jail time if the support is not paid.

There is no way someone can earn more on "welfare" than they can working even a minimum wage job.

[zoocrew]

i_have3dogs, on 03 June 2012 - 08:14 PM, said:

They do get minimum wage, if their tips don't equal to minimum wage. If they make over minimum, then they are getting paid better. Try to understand what you are talking about before you go on about something you clearly don't understand.

I think you totally misread what I said. Let me post it again.

Quote

What the legislation effectively did was give the food industry a cost of living raise but kept servers at the poverty level. These are people that do an incredible job but have no retirement and no health insurance. So for the lower meals, we have taken advantage of a class of people. I think everyone agrees that servers have a choice whether to work in the industry or not, but what we should also recognize is that these people don't deserve to be taken advantage of by the law when everyone else gets a minimum wage. The targeting of one class of people is wrong, IMHO.

I didn't say servers don't make minimum wage. What I did say is that it is unfair for the law to single out a certain class of people to be treated differently. The law, in effect, treats servers' wages different than it does cooks' wages or even a plumber, for the sole and arbitrary rational that tips are given? That is terrible unfair. Tips should be for their service above and beyond minimum wage. Just because they receive tips is not a reason to lower their minimum salary levels and have tips make up the difference.

[scjr]

mrnn, on 04 June 2012 - 01:31 PM, said:

Generational welfare and the current construct of welfare programs are issues, on that much we certainly agree.

My point to you was that you believe that it's anti-capitalistic for employers to be mandated to pay a minimum wage...your opinion is obviously that wages would drop precipitously for unskilled labor if that mandate were lifted. Fair enough (though I disagree, to an extent). So you think taxpayers, via welfare, should subsidize employers' wage cuts for working Americans? And that's your idea of capitalism?!?

ETA: I believe capitalism is the greatest system on Earth...I really do. But I'm also not a fan of pretending it's a perfect system. Regulation is necessary. Welfare is necessary. Capitalism, in its purest form, would leave you with starving people dying in the streets (see 19th century America).


mrnn

Best post in this thread. Hyper capitalism run amok is destructive. The last few years as an example.

[Thoughts]

mrnn, on 04 June 2012 - 01:31 PM, said:

ETA: I believe capitalism is the greatest system on Earth...I really do. But I'm also not a fan of pretending it's a perfect system. Regulation is necessary. Welfare is necessary. Capitalism, in its purest form, would leave you with starving people dying in the streets (see 19th century America).


mrnn

Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it...