Ontario Liberals Go After Small Business

[HiTempguy1]

http://business.financialpost.com/ne...-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.”

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]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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-

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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?

[Tik-Tok]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Is Tim Hortons a small business?

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]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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.

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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.