5 ms·

Employees refuse to return to work as long as they’re getting extra $600/week.

34 points by RestlessMind 7y ago

RestlessMind 7y ago
http://archive.is/sm6Cy http://archive.is/sm6Cy
andymoe 7y ago
The solution to this is super simple. Offer 600+n where n increases until they agree to come back. Don’t have a viable business at those labor costs? Bummer.
- toomuchtodo 7y ago
  "Employees better compensated by unemployment benefits than minimum wage that hasn't been appropriately adjusted for inflation and cost of living by Congress and states." would've been a more appropriate title, but not as inflamatory.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - taude 7y ago
    It's not just the unemployment benefits, though, people are getting an extra $600/week ON TOP of their regular unemployment benefits. And that's what's making this situation a little different.
    - toomuchtodo 7y ago
      Thanks for pointing out that traditional state unemployment benefits alone are also insufficient for adequately cushioning citizens from job loss, and that federal intervention was required. Otherwise, your state unemployment benefits are going to be right around or somewhat above US poverty level guidelines for an individual. If you want people to stay home to not exacerbate a pandemic, you pay them to stay home.
- pb7 7y ago
  Simpler idea: stop paying the extra $600/week once deemed safe to return.
  - vkou 7y ago
    Is it safe to return? What makes it any safer today than it was a month ago, when we were seeing exponential growth all over the country? Most workplaces do not allow social distancing. Many minimum wage employees take transit to work, which does not allow social distancing. Many of them would be completely ruined by medical bills if they catch COVID-19 - even if they don't need to be hospitalized. A single doctor's visit can run you hundreds of dollars in this country. Many of them live with vulnerable people, who would die, if they catch it. Many of them are currently taking care of children. Are you ready to pay for their medical bills? Their transportation? For rebuilding their workplaces in a manner that allows social distancing? Are you going to watch their child while they are at work? If not, don't be in such a hurry to send them back to work.
    - pb7 7y ago
      >Is it safe to return? Nope and that's why the $600/week increase is already guaranteed to stay through at least July.
      - slenk 7y ago
        But who gets to decide when its safe? State governments are pushing to open back up (Georgia) when the public doesn't seem to want it.
        vkou 7y ago
        I would figure that the people who get to decide whether it is safe are doctors. Politicans can choose if they want to re-open, but they don't get to declare a re-opening safe. They aren't qualified to do that. Just because the Kremlin said that there was no radiation risk at Chernobyl didn't make it true. If I take my car to a mechanic, and he tells me that my brakes aren't working, I can drive away without choosing to pay for repairs. But I can't go around telling people that my brakes are fine.
- andymoe 7y ago
  Btw, the 1200 bucks they are sending folks once is basically a bit over federal minimum wage for a month of full time work.
econcon 7y ago
If were them, I'd not return too. Why would anyone take risk to permanently damaging their lungs for some money they'll not need to survive!? I've taken 2 year vacation and going to stay at my homestead
tmpz22 7y ago
It's called unemployment INSURANCE. Workers paid into this insurance through their state and federal taxes. The insurance is now fulfilling its end of the bargain. This content is pure clickbait and shameful.
- woofyman 7y ago
  The $600 is in addition to unemployment insurance
- hkmurakami 7y ago
  I believe the $600 was provided via the Take Responsibility for Workers and Families Act. (also known as "Phase 3") https://waysandmeans.house.gov/sites/democrats.waysandmeans.house.gov/files/documents/UC%20FAQ.pdf https://waysandmeans.house.gov/sites/democrats.waysandmeans....
- taude 7y ago
  The extra $600, though, is ON TOP of the typical unemployement benefits, from what I understand, so that a lot of people are making more than they would be if working.
s_m 7y ago
> I’d have to offer my cooks $25.40 an hour to match what the government is paying them not to work. So… why doesn't he offer them $25.40 an hour?
- drcross 7y ago
  Why would you work instead of not working if you're getting the same money anyway?
  - jld 7y ago
    It sounds like these companies have to account and compensate employees for the risk they're asking them to take. Long term health impacts, the risk of infecting loved ones at home, the risks of incurring thousands of dollars of uncovered hospital bills... all of these risks have real costs and I think it's fair to compensate employees who are willing take them in service of their corporations.
  - econcon 7y ago
    Honestly I'd stop working if I get shelter and food. I've no other material needs to keep myself working specially when there is huge risk of getting infected with Coronavirus which might damage my lungs or kill me. Offer me a million, I am not going out to get infected.
  - ac29 7y ago
    Because those extra government benefits wont last forever, and if you dont return to work, there might not be a job for you to return to.
  - s_m 7y ago
    He doesn't explain why he can't afford to pay his staff to work more than the unemployment benefits. He doesn't explain why he doesn't pay these chefs more than $26/hour. He doesn't even say "I can't afford to do it". He just says, "I’d have to offer my cooks $25.40 an hour to match what the government is paying them not to work" and expects the reader to comprehend his perspective - in other words, to be complicit in his exploitation.
aresant 7y ago
What an absolutely shit article. Here's the key quote "When we asked our employees to come back, almost all said, “No thanks.” If they return to work, they’ll have to take a pay cut." Or maybe the employees are concerned about, you know, the current worldwide pandemic and are in the 72% of Americans that would prefer to stay at home ‘until the doctors and public health officials say it is safe.’ (1) Or risk their health for <$600/week. (1) https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-poll/despite-scattered-protests-most-americans-support-shelter-in-place-reuters-ipsos-poll-shows-idUSKCN22336P https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-poll/despite...
- econcon 7y ago
  There are some countries in the world who don't have lockdown. I am wondering, what if US imports them to work in US as stopgap solution? Ofc, many of them might be infected but so can be employees sitting at home for now.
  - papermachete 7y ago
    They cannot as the President put immigration on halt.
- taude 7y ago
  The real argument is whether the restaurant is safe to open back up, and should be allowed to be opened back up. In hypothetical, if it's determined to be safe due passing pandemic, then of course the employees should have to go back to work at their prior jobs if it's an option. If they have a problem with the pay, they shouldn't be working there anyway. It doesn't really matter because that $600 extra per week will likely end before the restaurant industry recovers, and we'll all be arguing different things then.
sigmar 7y ago
How many of these employees saying "no" have to take care of elderly family members or children that are home from school? Seems mighty presumptive to assume their reason for not coming back, especially considering he moved to lay them off so quickly. Who would want to go back to working for someone that might change their mind again?
duxup 7y ago
If your employees don't want to come back, whose fault is that exactly? Who laid these people off again? I'm continuously aghast by the number of employers who don't see it as their job to make the job more attractive to employees.
- Nasrudith 7y ago
  Would anyone older care to confirm or deny a related observation? It seems the Great Recession shattered many employeer minds to become absurdly entitled to the detriment of even their own direct earnings let alone society. Things like demanding a pegasus-unicorn canidate after they consolidated two jobs into one with the exact oddball combination of skills and experience - and not just seeing it as a bonus target to ask for but holding out for months or years looking for them when they could have been making money by hiring two realistically available competent employees.
  - duxup 7y ago
    I feel like there is some sort of weird world now where in some companies "hiring someone" is sometimes held hostage / run by people who despite their job title, made it their job not to hire people. At least for me when I worked at a very large company hiring someone and getting the go ahead was this opaque system that went back and forth with recruiters and HR and involved a lot people who did not know anything about the job... Later on I was looking for work and found myself in recruiter hell or corporate HR hell talking to these people endlessly on the phone about jobs that they clearly did not understand in any way and wasted my time endlessly. By the time I got to talk to someone at a company that was technical... I finally understood what the job was in a few minutes, they knew who I was, and after a sensible interview they offered me the job. Side note, big company I worked for was broken up and I was told I should apply for my old job back. Mostly because I liked my coworkers I applied ... and never got a call back because I didn't have a CS degree (folks inside the company figured that one out), for a job that very much doesn't need a CS degree... and a job that I did for 15 years and my coworkers all wanted me back... That seemed to confirm my theory that hiring has sort of lost its way / gone off track in a lot of ways.
mikestew 7y ago
I'm amazed at the lack of shame in writing an article admitting that the wages one pays are less than government assistance. And the entitlement: "where's ma cheap laborz?!" And, of course, it's all about the business owner. Here's a thought: your workers have other shit going on, and working a hard, minimum wage job isn't high on the priority list right now. But, no, it's a personal slight to you, Kurt.
wonderwonder 7y ago
Summary: My furloughed employees refuse to take a pay cut and risk death so that I can reopen my business and make money. In the article it says his cooks start at $15 + $1 in tips. Currently with the extra $600 they are making $25.40 per hour. If he wants them to come back he is essentially asking them to gamble their guaranteed unemployment income on his business doing well in this time. On top of that he asking them to literally risk their lives. I see no reason that he should not take the additional financial and physical risk he is asking his employees to take into consideration when hiring them back. Offer them $30 an hour with a guaranteed minimum number of hours in writing. Labor in a very limited sector is a limited resource for once, employees should take advantage of it. Isn't that what capitalism is all about?
- scarface74 7y ago
  You’re right. Even if he did for some reason want to go back to work, what guarantee does he or the business have that people will show up? On my Facebook timeline (mostly people in GA) there seems to be a universal feeling from both my liberal friends and staunch Trump true believers that they aren’t going to take any chances when it comes to being in crowds.
  - taude 7y ago
    Agreed. The extra $600/week is going to run out long before the restaurant industry recovers.
- onlyrealcuzzo 7y ago
  One of the things I think that's interesting (a potential ticking time bomb) about the "forgivable small business loans", is that they have to have their payroll back to 100% and wages AT LEAST 80% by June for the money to be forgiven. Employees can refuse to return to work for fear of the virus and still get unemployment til later than that date. Feels like it's going to be awfully hard getting employees back to work at less than $25/hour. A lot of businesses could be stuck with loans when they thought they were getting "free" money.
  - 7y ago
chkaloon 7y ago
I've heard that is an ulterior motive for the Republican governor "open it up" push. Then they can blame closed businesses on straw men like this, when the real reason is workers fearing for their and their family's health.
- wonderwonder 7y ago
  Another reason is that the states run a very real risk of running out of unemployment funds. Mitch McConnell made clear today that he is fine the states going bankrupt over this as opposed to giving them federal funds. So its going to end up with no one getting unemployment, everyone out of work and the federal government sitting on its hands while blaming everyone else.
deepsun 7y ago
Market will fix this. Competitors will come in their place, paying more to workers and charging higher price. IMO, restaurants we're always a luxury, and only Americans could afford them everyday, at the expense of cheap labor. Glad to see it's fixing now.
sauwan 7y ago
I thought you couldn't collect unemployment unless your work has not offered you work?
JohnTHaller 7y ago
Never link to the WSJ Opinion section. It's where the 'Fox News affiliated' really shines through.
rabboRubble 7y ago
That restaurant owner who closed two days earlier than he needed out of the goodness of his heart? Yeah, the reason for that was there was a snowfall in Portland that kept people home earlier than the order would require. So yeah, he just avoided being open, paying staff for a day when nobody was going to be coming in anyway.

34 points by RestlessMind 7y ago

http://archive.is/sm6Cy http://archive.is/sm6Cy

The solution to this is super simple. Offer 600+n where n increases until they agree to come back. Don’t have a viable business at those labor costs? Bummer.

toomuchtodo 7y ago
"Employees better compensated by unemployment benefits than minimum wage that hasn't been appropriately adjusted for inflation and cost of living by Congress and states." would've been a more appropriate title, but not as inflamatory.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- taude 7y ago
  It's not just the unemployment benefits, though, people are getting an extra $600/week ON TOP of their regular unemployment benefits. And that's what's making this situation a little different.
  - toomuchtodo 7y ago
    Thanks for pointing out that traditional state unemployment benefits alone are also insufficient for adequately cushioning citizens from job loss, and that federal intervention was required. Otherwise, your state unemployment benefits are going to be right around or somewhat above US poverty level guidelines for an individual. If you want people to stay home to not exacerbate a pandemic, you pay them to stay home.
pb7 7y ago
Simpler idea: stop paying the extra $600/week once deemed safe to return.
- vkou 7y ago
  Is it safe to return? What makes it any safer today than it was a month ago, when we were seeing exponential growth all over the country? Most workplaces do not allow social distancing. Many minimum wage employees take transit to work, which does not allow social distancing. Many of them would be completely ruined by medical bills if they catch COVID-19 - even if they don't need to be hospitalized. A single doctor's visit can run you hundreds of dollars in this country. Many of them live with vulnerable people, who would die, if they catch it. Many of them are currently taking care of children. Are you ready to pay for their medical bills? Their transportation? For rebuilding their workplaces in a manner that allows social distancing? Are you going to watch their child while they are at work? If not, don't be in such a hurry to send them back to work.
  - pb7 7y ago
    >Is it safe to return? Nope and that's why the $600/week increase is already guaranteed to stay through at least July.
    - slenk 7y ago
      But who gets to decide when its safe? State governments are pushing to open back up (Georgia) when the public doesn't seem to want it.
      - vkou 7y ago
        I would figure that the people who get to decide whether it is safe are doctors. Politicans can choose if they want to re-open, but they don't get to declare a re-opening safe. They aren't qualified to do that. Just because the Kremlin said that there was no radiation risk at Chernobyl didn't make it true. If I take my car to a mechanic, and he tells me that my brakes aren't working, I can drive away without choosing to pay for repairs. But I can't go around telling people that my brakes are fine.
andymoe 7y ago
Btw, the 1200 bucks they are sending folks once is basically a bit over federal minimum wage for a month of full time work.

econcon 7y ago

If were them, I'd not return too. Why would anyone take risk to permanently damaging their lungs for some money they'll not need to survive!? I've taken 2 year vacation and going to stay at my homestead

tmpz22 7y ago

It's called unemployment INSURANCE. Workers paid into this insurance through their state and federal taxes. The insurance is now fulfilling its end of the bargain. This content is pure clickbait and shameful.

woofyman 7y ago
The $600 is in addition to unemployment insurance
hkmurakami 7y ago
I believe the $600 was provided via the Take Responsibility for Workers and Families Act. (also known as "Phase 3") https://waysandmeans.house.gov/sites/democrats.waysandmeans.house.gov/files/documents/UC%20FAQ.pdf https://waysandmeans.house.gov/sites/democrats.waysandmeans....
taude 7y ago
The extra $600, though, is ON TOP of the typical unemployement benefits, from what I understand, so that a lot of people are making more than they would be if working.

s_m 7y ago

> I’d have to offer my cooks $25.40 an hour to match what the government is paying them not to work. So… why doesn't he offer them $25.40 an hour?

drcross 7y ago
Why would you work instead of not working if you're getting the same money anyway?
- jld 7y ago
  It sounds like these companies have to account and compensate employees for the risk they're asking them to take. Long term health impacts, the risk of infecting loved ones at home, the risks of incurring thousands of dollars of uncovered hospital bills... all of these risks have real costs and I think it's fair to compensate employees who are willing take them in service of their corporations.
- econcon 7y ago
  Honestly I'd stop working if I get shelter and food. I've no other material needs to keep myself working specially when there is huge risk of getting infected with Coronavirus which might damage my lungs or kill me. Offer me a million, I am not going out to get infected.
- ac29 7y ago
  Because those extra government benefits wont last forever, and if you dont return to work, there might not be a job for you to return to.
- s_m 7y ago
  He doesn't explain why he can't afford to pay his staff to work more than the unemployment benefits. He doesn't explain why he doesn't pay these chefs more than $26/hour. He doesn't even say "I can't afford to do it". He just says, "I’d have to offer my cooks $25.40 an hour to match what the government is paying them not to work" and expects the reader to comprehend his perspective - in other words, to be complicit in his exploitation.

aresant 7y ago

What an absolutely shit article. Here's the key quote "When we asked our employees to come back, almost all said, “No thanks.” If they return to work, they’ll have to take a pay cut." Or maybe the employees are concerned about, you know, the current worldwide pandemic and are in the 72% of Americans that would prefer to stay at home ‘until the doctors and public health officials say it is safe.’ (1) Or risk their health for <$600/week. (1) https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-poll/despite-scattered-protests-most-americans-support-shelter-in-place-reuters-ipsos-poll-shows-idUSKCN22336P https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-poll/despite...

econcon 7y ago
There are some countries in the world who don't have lockdown. I am wondering, what if US imports them to work in US as stopgap solution? Ofc, many of them might be infected but so can be employees sitting at home for now.
- papermachete 7y ago
  They cannot as the President put immigration on halt.
taude 7y ago
The real argument is whether the restaurant is safe to open back up, and should be allowed to be opened back up. In hypothetical, if it's determined to be safe due passing pandemic, then of course the employees should have to go back to work at their prior jobs if it's an option. If they have a problem with the pay, they shouldn't be working there anyway. It doesn't really matter because that $600 extra per week will likely end before the restaurant industry recovers, and we'll all be arguing different things then.

sigmar 7y ago

How many of these employees saying "no" have to take care of elderly family members or children that are home from school? Seems mighty presumptive to assume their reason for not coming back, especially considering he moved to lay them off so quickly. Who would want to go back to working for someone that might change their mind again?

duxup 7y ago

If your employees don't want to come back, whose fault is that exactly? Who laid these people off again? I'm continuously aghast by the number of employers who don't see it as their job to make the job more attractive to employees.

Nasrudith 7y ago
Would anyone older care to confirm or deny a related observation? It seems the Great Recession shattered many employeer minds to become absurdly entitled to the detriment of even their own direct earnings let alone society. Things like demanding a pegasus-unicorn canidate after they consolidated two jobs into one with the exact oddball combination of skills and experience - and not just seeing it as a bonus target to ask for but holding out for months or years looking for them when they could have been making money by hiring two realistically available competent employees.
- duxup 7y ago
  I feel like there is some sort of weird world now where in some companies "hiring someone" is sometimes held hostage / run by people who despite their job title, made it their job not to hire people. At least for me when I worked at a very large company hiring someone and getting the go ahead was this opaque system that went back and forth with recruiters and HR and involved a lot people who did not know anything about the job... Later on I was looking for work and found myself in recruiter hell or corporate HR hell talking to these people endlessly on the phone about jobs that they clearly did not understand in any way and wasted my time endlessly. By the time I got to talk to someone at a company that was technical... I finally understood what the job was in a few minutes, they knew who I was, and after a sensible interview they offered me the job. Side note, big company I worked for was broken up and I was told I should apply for my old job back. Mostly because I liked my coworkers I applied ... and never got a call back because I didn't have a CS degree (folks inside the company figured that one out), for a job that very much doesn't need a CS degree... and a job that I did for 15 years and my coworkers all wanted me back... That seemed to confirm my theory that hiring has sort of lost its way / gone off track in a lot of ways.

mikestew 7y ago

I'm amazed at the lack of shame in writing an article admitting that the wages one pays are less than government assistance. And the entitlement: "where's ma cheap laborz?!" And, of course, it's all about the business owner. Here's a thought: your workers have other shit going on, and working a hard, minimum wage job isn't high on the priority list right now. But, no, it's a personal slight to you, Kurt.

wonderwonder 7y ago

Summary: My furloughed employees refuse to take a pay cut and risk death so that I can reopen my business and make money. In the article it says his cooks start at $15 + $1 in tips. Currently with the extra $600 they are making $25.40 per hour. If he wants them to come back he is essentially asking them to gamble their guaranteed unemployment income on his business doing well in this time. On top of that he asking them to literally risk their lives. I see no reason that he should not take the additional financial and physical risk he is asking his employees to take into consideration when hiring them back. Offer them $30 an hour with a guaranteed minimum number of hours in writing. Labor in a very limited sector is a limited resource for once, employees should take advantage of it. Isn't that what capitalism is all about?

scarface74 7y ago
You’re right. Even if he did for some reason want to go back to work, what guarantee does he or the business have that people will show up? On my Facebook timeline (mostly people in GA) there seems to be a universal feeling from both my liberal friends and staunch Trump true believers that they aren’t going to take any chances when it comes to being in crowds.
- taude 7y ago
  Agreed. The extra $600/week is going to run out long before the restaurant industry recovers.
onlyrealcuzzo 7y ago
One of the things I think that's interesting (a potential ticking time bomb) about the "forgivable small business loans", is that they have to have their payroll back to 100% and wages AT LEAST 80% by June for the money to be forgiven. Employees can refuse to return to work for fear of the virus and still get unemployment til later than that date. Feels like it's going to be awfully hard getting employees back to work at less than $25/hour. A lot of businesses could be stuck with loans when they thought they were getting "free" money.
- 7y ago

chkaloon 7y ago

I've heard that is an ulterior motive for the Republican governor "open it up" push. Then they can blame closed businesses on straw men like this, when the real reason is workers fearing for their and their family's health.

wonderwonder 7y ago
Another reason is that the states run a very real risk of running out of unemployment funds. Mitch McConnell made clear today that he is fine the states going bankrupt over this as opposed to giving them federal funds. So its going to end up with no one getting unemployment, everyone out of work and the federal government sitting on its hands while blaming everyone else.

deepsun 7y ago

Market will fix this. Competitors will come in their place, paying more to workers and charging higher price. IMO, restaurants we're always a luxury, and only Americans could afford them everyday, at the expense of cheap labor. Glad to see it's fixing now.

sauwan 7y ago

I thought you couldn't collect unemployment unless your work has not offered you work?

JohnTHaller 7y ago

Never link to the WSJ Opinion section. It's where the 'Fox News affiliated' really shines through.

rabboRubble 7y ago

That restaurant owner who closed two days earlier than he needed out of the goodness of his heart? Yeah, the reason for that was there was a snowfall in Portland that kept people home earlier than the order would require. So yeah, he just avoided being open, paying staff for a day when nobody was going to be coming in anyway.