Ontario Liberals Go After Small Business

[HiTempguy1]

http://business.financialpost.com/news/retail-marketing/tim-hortons-blasts-franchisees-cuts-to-paid-breaks-and-benefits-calling-them-reckless

Just crazy, a small business does something perfectly legitimate and has the Ontario gov come after them. On top of that, this quote best sums up how ludicrous this is:


Asked if it was hypocritical for the government to take this position since the Liberals cut benefits to some civil servants in 2014 to save $1.2 billion over five years, Duguid said this is a different circumstance.

“As an employer the government has a responsibility to the taxpayers who pay the bills,” he said. “(And) to ensure that the wages we pay to our workers are fair both to taxpayers and to those workers. I think we’d be hard pressed when we compare what our workers make to make any kind of a case to suggest that they’re underpaid.”

:facepalm: JFC

[dj_patm]

Perfectly legitimate sure but the optics are about as bad as it can be.

The employees should unionize. This is exactly where unions are good for the employees.

[JRSC00LUDE]

Bring on more self serve kiosks and mobile ordering, just eliminate the positions.

[dj_patm]

Bring on more self serve kiosks and mobile ordering, just eliminate the positions.

I don't think anyone on the staff at Tims is just specifically a cashier. Someone will have to deal with the front line regardless so technically you're just adding costs. You might save one position per shift at the expense of convenience and responsiveness?

If it was that easy, they would have done it by now.

[HiTempguy1]

Perfectly legitimate sure but the optics are about as bad as it can be.


Not really. I'd be willing to bet this makes zero difference in those two stores sales. So the optics are only bad if taken out of context, the context being the employees are paid the EXACT same wages as they were a week ago.

Edit-


The employees should unionize. This is exactly where unions are good for the employees.

And I fundamentally disagree. I am pro-union (for the most part), but this has zero to do with a union. At most, it would have gamed a negotiated contract that had become "void" by the minimum wage increase and the union would argue that their benefits should not change. End of the day, nothing stopping a business from laying off unionized employees as well, which would be the next step if costs per employee couldn't be decreased.

[dj_patm]

Not really. I'd be willing to bet this makes zero difference in those two stores sales. So the optics are only bad if taken out of context, the context being the employees are paid the EXACT same wages as they were a week ago.

Again the only recourse the employees have is to unionize.

Can't try and undercut sales or blast their employer or they lose their jobs.

[triplep]

If corporate is so upset about this, why wouldn't they reduce their royalty costs to the franchised stores.

I don't think a lot of people understand that even though they were only making $11.40 they had additional perks that effectively would have increased that wage (i.e. paid breaks, employee benefits etc). I wonder what the true wage would have been if these employees took this into consideration. All I see is that the owners are trying to put themselves back into the same position that they were prior to the minimum wage increase.

For context, given that Alberta minimum wage is going up as well, are you still going to tip your server 20% knowing that their salary increased? I'd say probably not, given that this was part of their wages that they earned.

[JRSC00LUDE]

If it was that easy, they would have done it by now.

Works great at McDonald's and will only continue to evolve, raising overhead via employee costs will only increase automation as the typical minimum wage STARTER jobs will be less and less attractive to offer.

EDIT - I saw an item today that I'm not sure how factual it is however, if it were, sure speaks to the real reason behind the increase imo - The government will take home more profit per month via taxation than the typical full time minimum wage employees will. How benevolent.

[tonytiger55]

Is Tim Hortons a small business? :nut:

[Tik-Tok]

Is Tim Hortons a small business? :nut:

To be fair, those two locations are franchisee's, not corporate owned. Although they are owned by the children of Tim Horton, and Ron Joyce (not that it matters in a legal sense).

[dj_patm]

Works great at McDonald's and will only continue to evolve, raising overhead via employee costs will only increase automation as the typical minimum wage STARTER jobs will be less and less attractive to offer.


Oh I'm sure it will, I'm just saying I don't think the savings are as large as people think. On an average shift there's probably two people working till at a fast food place? You can't get rid of both as you still need someone to help people order, fix mistakes and bring food out so you're really only getting rid of one position per shift. Also if you watch the ones at McDonalds, they're significantly slower than going to the till when there's a line (untrained customers entering orders vs. trained employees) so it's not exactly a 1:1 swap in terms of efficiency.

The real savings would be automating the actual making of the food.

[JRSC00LUDE]

Oh I'm sure it will, I'm just saying I don't think the savings are as large as people think. On an average shift there's probably two people working till at a fast food place? You can't get rid of both as you still need someone to help people order, fix mistakes and bring food out so you're really only getting rid of one position per shift. Also if you watch the ones at McDonalds, they're significantly slower than going to the till when there's a line (untrained customers entering orders vs. trained employees) so it's not exactly a 1:1 swap in terms of efficiency.

The real savings would be automating the actual making of the food.

Good points, especially regarding the making of it.

I listened to a call in show on an Ontario radio station this morning where, obviously, this is a larger talking point than it is here. One of the callers in did the rough math on staffing levels of a typical Tims and (assuming his numbers are relatively accurate) he had calculated a rough increase in annual overhead of about 60 K. Now there aren't many small businesses I am aware of that would take a 60 thousand dollar hit lightly, it should be recouped somewhere. In a franchise were you cannot change the pricing, where else is it supposed to come from? It has to come out of staffing.

It absolutely sickens me all the people who claim business owners should eat the cost, they make enough/don't deserve more/have no RIGHT to make more than their employees. It's disgusting.

[tonytiger55]

I would not classify Tim Hortons as a small business. No way…
Franchise owners may have it harder but its no way like how harder small business owners have it.

Franchise owners have everything laid out for them, they are almost guaranteeing people walking through the door. No marketing, product development, ….hell they dopnt have to worry about where they get their paper bags from. All that is taken care of. They just have to work with the bits in between. Which is what is happening above. Once they have made their money, they can sell it off and retire to the land of milk and honey. Tim Hortons makes millions, if its a issue then they can cut the royalty cost as stated above.

Small business owners have to deal with everything. The market is not flat, its up and down. Running a small business is not a right. It’s a privilege. If your shit at running it (Im getting the sense quite a few business owners are) and one has to face the possibility that you will go under. Some small business owners are just plan refusing to adapt and having winey hissy fits. Half the time I wonder how my clients stay in business with the bullshit decisions they make. I really do.
Some business owners are good. They adapt, introduce technology, have a actual business plan with processes that work, diversify etc.

Then you have the small business owners who are just plain shit at running their businesses.... not bad... not good... just SHIT. Absolute shit at running their business & crying like little bitches as they are failing to adapt to changing market conditions. Then this is hijacked into being a liberal/conservative issue. Possibly by a conservative leaders lame interpretation of being a conservative with a side parting haircut and no sideburns. I imagine them standing there calling out to the inept small business owners… ‘here here.. come my neglected child.. come forth and rest your head on my bosom. You are the forgotten ones by the nasty evil liberals.’ Fat Moob man looks over that the liberal leaders and shakes his fist.. ‘Look at what you have done to my forsaken child!’ Small business owner hides head inside moob mans chest weeps and shakes whilst glaring at the liberals.

This is not a liberal issue, or a conservative issue.
Its someone dictating indirectly what you should what to think and what liberalism is etc.

The issue at hand is the distribution of wealth and profits. Wages have not kept up with inflation.
If people don’t earn enough then they have less to spend at the smaller stores. Duh.
Hence they shop at places like Walmart. Small business profits go down.
The government has to regulate the distribution of wealth somehow.

[HiTempguy1]

I would not classify Tim Hortons as a small business. No way…
Franchise owners may have it harder but its no way like how harder small business owners have it.

We're talking about franchise owners. Did you even read the article?

Also, heavily structured/regulated franchises that must follow the parent companies rules are the worst. Almost any franchise owner I've talked to doesn't really see it as a source of wealth, but as a way to diversify and have fall back income.

And finally, no, the government does not need to regulate the distribution of wealth you crazy communist. Jesus christ :nuts:

[Xtrema]

Good points, especially regarding the making of it.

I listened to a call in show on an Ontario radio station this morning where, obviously, this is a larger talking point than it is here. One of the callers in did the rough math on staffing levels of a typical Tims and (assuming his numbers are relatively accurate) he had calculated a rough increase in annual overhead of about 60 K. Now there aren't many small businesses I am aware of that would take a 60 thousand dollar hit lightly, it should be recouped somewhere. In a franchise were you cannot change the pricing, where else is it supposed to come from? It has to come out of staffing.

It absolutely sickens me all the people who claim business owners should eat the cost, they make enough/don't deserve more/have no RIGHT to make more than their employees. It's disgusting.


Typical hours of Tim's 7am to 10pm with average of 6 staff at any given time. That's 90 man hours. $3/hr increase = $270/day. 363 days of operations a year, that's $98K incrase.

Typical Tim's clears $280K of profit. That's 1/3 off.

When you consider a lot of owners are starting out and may be in lower traffic locations, it could be a tough go if all your costs are increasing and the price is fixed by Corporate. And if you are a newb owner, the profit is your ROI and you need it to keep on expanding and buying more franchises.

Owning a Timmies is basically buying a $200K job with $1M.

Minimum wage will induce extra cost no doubt but that is suppose to increase prices to offset. If you eat out in most restaurant since Oct in Calgary, you should have already notices prices are up. This one is a special case where pricing control is by corporate and sounds like they won't allow increases in Ontario to deal with the new law.

On top of it, these owners probably want to make a political statement by enacting these changes to benefits. Not sure why this is a big deal, other fast food will enact difference prices on different jurisdictions. Just raise the prices.

In the end, everything will balance out eventually.

[dj_patm]

You're acting like the only way to recoup costs for a giant like Tim Hortons is through raising prices/cutting staff.

Fact of the matter is they'll use this as an excuse to squeeze everyone down the supply chain. Suppliers, Carriers, Staff and Customers will all take a hit and they'll report record earnings (which they will spend in order to ensure that their profit is down to "send a message"). Unchecked Capitalism at it's finest.

[max_boost]

To avoid giving the raise I just let ppl go lol

[JRSC00LUDE]

You're acting like the only way to recoup costs for a giant like Tim Hortons is through raising prices/cutting staff.

You're acting like that isn't the only way for an independent franchise Owner of a Tim Horton's to recoup the cost? On the raising prices, they're not allowed to. So staffing is the only overhead variable within their control.

[dj_patm]

You're acting like that isn't the only way for an independent franchise Owner of a Tim Horton's to recoup the cost? On the raising prices, they're not allowed to. So staffing is the only overhead variable within their control.

I know but the parent company can lower the costs for the franchisee's.

[Xtrema]

I know but the parent company can lower the costs for the franchisee's.

Again that is out of the franchisee's control. You have remember that rent and location is fixed you can't move. Cost of supply and franchise fee is fixed. Price of item is fixed and if corporate decided to do a 2 for 1 promo, you will have to honor it. So I don't see how owners/operators won't take it out of the only variable to them.

Who is to say this move of bad PR is their way to make it a nightmare for corporate so they will lower the fees on their end.


You're acting like the only way to recoup costs for a giant like Tim Hortons is through raising prices/cutting staff.

Stop saying giant Tim Hortons. Operators are SMBs. Their supplier is a giant.

The way I see it, if Tim Hortons doesn't want to help their franchisees, staff cost cutting is the only way to effective balance the shortfall. Of course, experience operators with 3 or more outlets can probably survive on less profit and has ability to cut less.

And it's simple business, if it's going to cost me more, I'm going to charge you more until I start losing market share.

[Masked Bandit]

I know but the parent company can lower the costs for the franchisee's.

Why would they? As a shareholder I wouldn't be too happy with that.

I don't know what the big deal is about minimum wage workers not getting paid breaks. Back when I work MW jobs as a kid I distinctly remember working 5.5 hours but only being paid for 5 because I had two unpaid 15 minute breaks. You don't work, you don't get paid. Pretty simple if you ask me.

[Xtrema]

I don't know what the big deal is about minimum wage workers not getting paid breaks. Back when I work MW jobs as a kid I distinctly remember working 5.5 hours but only being paid for 5 because I had two unpaid 15 minute breaks. You don't work, you don't get paid. Pretty simple if you ask me.

I would bet somewhere out there, some Tim's employee is pissed that Ontario store staff had paid breaks and health plans. :rofl:

[dj_patm]

Why would they? As a shareholder I wouldn't be too happy with that.

I don't know what the big deal is about minimum wage workers not getting paid breaks. Back when I work MW jobs as a kid I distinctly remember working 5.5 hours but only being paid for 5 because I had two unpaid 15 minute breaks. You don't work, you don't get paid. Pretty simple if you ask me.

Exactly. Hence the unchecked capitalism comment.

As for the breaks comment, the countries with the highest standard of living all have the highest amount of worker protections and rights but sure lets ignore that. I guess if you prefer to measure the success of an economy by how much money the top percentiles are able to accumulate vs the quality of life of the average person then you do you.

God forbid senior leadership takes a small haircut so their bottom rung employees can go to an appointment without having to worry about losing money from it. Gotta hoard all of the gold you can!



Stop saying giant Tim Hortons. Operators are SMBs. Their supplier is a giant.

The way I see it, if Tim Hortons doesn't want to help their franchisees, staff cost cutting is the only way to effective balance the shortfall. Of course, experience operators with 3 or more outlets can probably survive on less profit and has ability to cut less.

And it's simple business, if it's going to cost me more, I'm going to charge you more until I start losing market share.

And ideally, Care for the common good would play an impact on when that market share started to decrease, instead of just when it starts to hurt your bottom line personally.

Go ahead, label me a dirty communist!

[vengie]

Exactly. Hence the unchecked capitalism comment.

As for the breaks comment, the countries with the highest standard of living all have the highest amount of worker protections and rights but sure lets ignore that. I guess if you prefer to measure the success of an economy by how much money the top percentiles are able to accumulate vs the quality of life of the average person then you do you.

God forbid senior leadership takes a small haircut so their bottom rung employees can go to an appointment without having to worry about losing money from it. Gotta hoard all of the gold you can!



And ideally, Care for the common good would play an impact on when that market share started to decrease, instead of just when it starts to hurt your bottom line personally.

Go ahead, label me a dirty communist!


Take the risk, get the reward.

[suntan]

Exactly. Hence the unchecked capitalism comment.

As for the breaks comment, the countries with the highest standard of living all have the highest amount of worker protections and rights but sure lets ignore that. I guess if you prefer to measure the success of an economy by how much money the top percentiles are able to accumulate vs the quality of life of the average person then you do you.

They also have extreme ethnic homogeneity. Just sayin'

[Xtrema]

They also have extreme ethnic homogeneity. Just sayin'

Been to Denmark, has totally 0 problem with 6'+ blondes everywhere. :rofl:

[zhao]

To avoid giving the raise I just let ppl go lol

lolol. Keeping the Chinese business owner stereotypes alive I see. Minimum wage is also maximum wage!

Good thing they can rely on a very generous 8% tip rounded down to the nearest dollar from Chinese customers.

[tonytiger55]

We're talking about franchise owners. Did you even read the article?

Also, heavily structured/regulated franchises that must follow the parent companies rules are the worst. Almost any franchise owner I've talked to doesn't really see it as a source of wealth, but as a way to diversify and have fall back income.

And finally, no, the government does not need to regulate the distribution of wealth you crazy communist. Jesus christ :nuts:

Thats my point. Tim's is a Franchise, its not really a small business. You do know the difference between a small business and a Franchise?

The market is never flat. Its moving. When the market conditions change the small business owner has variables he can amend, suppliers, wholesalers, prices changes etc.

Franchise owners can't. The room for manoeuvre is very limited, but they get other benefits that small business owners would not. So when the market changes, franchise owners have to suck it up. But its ok, the money made over a length of time should even itself out. Thats part and parcel of going the franchise route. Risk rewards of either model. You cant pick one route, gain the rewards from it and then bitch about the negatives after. You knew that when you signed up. If not, one is a dumb shit.

Now the owner of the Timmys above is a prime example a shit business owner (or franchise owner I should say). Just because he can cut does not mean he should. (I liken it to putting down 5% down payment on a mortgage, just because you can does not mean you should.). All Timmys had to do was work out a plan to throw a extra chicken bone to the workers. But nooooo. Like a spoilt brat the owner cuts because he feels he is 'small business owner' which he is not. He is a franchise owner and the dumb fuck should know when he signed up for it the pros and cons vs a small business. Now we are in a scenario where you have potential workers going unionised. That is something you DON'T want. The ramifications are huge.. That dumb ass Timmys owner fucking it up for everyone.

In my job last year I figured out a way to cut a 4 hour process to 30minutes. I showed a colleague in Edmonton. Nope they refuse to change their processes etc Why..?, they are fucking unionised. I was like wtf...?!!! I can list other examples.. in short You do not want your workers unionised. Its a fucking pain and inefficient for both parties.

The spoiled brat is not generating profits either. Cutting and squeezing revenue has a detrimental effect on the business model on the long term. Your not really creating new wealth using that method. Anyone can do that. Where as creating new sales/new business is creating 'actual wealth'. There is a difference.

The government does need to have a level of regulation. If you don't big businesses will 'squeeze for profits' rather that have a business's that 'creates profits'. This effects good small business owners for no reason and the economy as a whole. There is no actual growth.

The whole liberal/communist argument is a piss poor excuse for shit business owners to run crying into the bosom of the opposition. Its all well and good for shit business owners to beat their meat with jubilation during the good times and then cry during the bad times. This is a free market, and she can be a bitch. One can't cherry pick the good times.. if you do she will surely come and fuck you in the ass and remind you what capitalism really is. We are seeing the effects of that. Hell I see it very day at work.

What really needs to happen is shit business owners need to be called out when the whole thing is being covered up/hijacked as a liberal/gov issue. Its a huge insult to small/medium business owners who do work dam hard.

[HiTempguy1]

Thats my point. Tim's is a Franchise, its not really a small business. You do know the difference between a small business and a Franchise?


I ask again, are you retarded? A person who owns a franchise IS a small business owner. JFC :facepalm:

Your grasp of economics and how the world works in general is beyond words.

[HiTempguy1]

http://business.financialpost.com/news/economy/most-ontarians-back-minimum-wage-hike-say-it-will-benefit-the-economy

I've found your people Tony...

Was pretty surprised by this. I thought it was a desperation move, doing what the Ontario Libs did. But everyone keeps liking what they are doing as they raise costs on people continuously. Even the borrowing of money into the future to allow lower prices of electricity out there now is beyond fucked for rational economic reasoning, but they are thrilled about it out there.

[hampstor]

IMHO, this legislation has nothing to do with hurting small businesses, or helping people who are low income.

It's an election year. Their numbers are incredibly low right now and they need to do something to raise them. This is purely political games.

So they resort to the the tried and tested approach of, 'tell people they are under attack, tell them who is to blame, decry the pacifists for inaction'. Specifically, the narrative is the rich are getting richer off of everyone else's backs, and if you don't support a minimum wage hike, then you clearly hate low income people. Why else would she specifically attack the franchise owned by Joyce/Horton and not the other franchisees who also did it?

It's also setting a trap for the PC party - if PC party says 'we are going to repeal it', then it plays into the narrative that they only want to make the rich, richer. It's a similar narrative here with the, 'if you are not in support of a carbon tax, you must be a climate change denier'.

The Liberal party is positioning themselves as 'fighting for the people' and the PC as 'fighting for the rich to get richer' in an election year. If they actually cared about this, they would've done it years ago and not wait until ~6 months before the election to do it. All political parties pull this same election season stunt to get quick wins with no regard for long term impacts.

[g-m]

Nobody understands how inflation works? Those people will have the same buying power in a few years

[rage2]

Nobody understands how inflation works? Those people will have the same buying power in a few years
Minimum wage people won't understand it haha.

[Seth1968]

IMHO, this legislation has nothing to do with hurting small businesses, or helping people who are low income. /snip /

:werd:

Many know this, but what can you do when the political system is fucked up as a whole?

[hampstor]

:werd:

Many know this, but what can you do when the political system is fucked up as a whole?

The political system is only fucked up because voters can be pandered to so easily. I don't get how people eat up political games so easily - are these the same people that TV commercials actually work on?

The big thing in politics right now is Trump and how crazy he is. People are eating that shit up - it's a gold mine for anyone centre/left of centre. Election campaigns in Canada for the next while will be have a heavy amount of "conservative = Trump" in it because I think it actually works (regardless of any amount of truth to it).

I don't get why people fall into these things so easily, but then again my identity is not defined by my political affiliation. I don't unfriend people because of how they vote.

[Seth1968]

The political system is only fucked up because voters can be pandered to so easily. I don't get how people eat up political games so easily - are these the same people that TV commercials actually work on?

Yes, the exact same people.

And that's why critical thinking is shunned in our political / educational system.

[bjstare]

The voting public is largely a bunch of uneducated and easily manipulated idiots. It's pretty depressing to think about.

(Just to be clear, when I say uneducated I don't mean post-sec necessarily... just uneducated in general. On taxes, economics, politicians, etc. They get all their info from the news and social media, which are probably the two worst sources)

[Seth1968]

The voting public is largely a bunch of uneducated and easily manipulated idiots. It's pretty depressing to think about.

(Just to be clear, when I say uneducated I don't mean post-sec necessarily.

Nor do I.

Critical thought or we are doomed.

That's what Jebus and the other old school sages tried to say.

[max_boost]

lolol. Keeping the Chinese business owner stereotypes alive I see. Minimum wage is also maximum wage!

Good thing they can rely on a very generous 8% tip rounded down to the nearest dollar from Chinese customers.
Basically.

Hours also getting cut. I have no life right now so I’ll work 18 hours and do all the pre post work myself LOL

I’m already telling customers to self serve themselves with drinks and water and you know what? They like it as if they feel they are VIP lol

Win win for me

[syscal]

What drives me nuts:


“At a time when CEOs are making record multi-million-dollar salaries, it is not too much to ask that workers be able to afford a decent standard of living — and that begins with raising the minimum hourly wage,” Unifor’s national president Jerry Dias said

The CEO's making multi-million-dollar salaries aren't typically the ones paying the min-wage employees. In this case the franchisee is paying that, and the big CEO makes the same wage. The business owner who is taking all the risk suffers. The government creates a Robin Hood type policy and the ignorant public (read, people that hate seeing others succeed) buy into it. In the end, the 1% still thrive and large corporations and franchises will go unscathed. TRUE small business owners like max_boost are the ones that take the hit.

[ExtraSlow]

You know what would help out "fairness" a lot? Just make it illegal to pay anyone more than say $500k a year in total compensation. Boom, no need to raise minimum wage if the disparity is smaller.