3 ms·

I agree they may need to cut their prices. How would this email have been received if it had said: We are facing headwinds and may need to cut prices To stay

I agree they may need to cut their prices. How would this email have been received if it had said: We are facing headwinds and may need to cut prices To stay viable this means we need to cut costs One way to do this is offer lower starting wages. Though this wasn't viable in the recent past, it may be possible now. That's because our pool of workers are feeling pinched and may need to pick up extra jobs I understand he does not talk about the need to tighten the belt on prices in his email. But obviously all restaurants have been under pressure with COVID and inflation. It may be understood by the recipients that they need to cut costs wherever possible.

munk-a 5y ago
I think maybe workers would be receptive to this if it weren't for the fact that whenever there's plenty of cash going around it doesn't loosen the belts of workers - it just gets dumped into BS like stock buybacks. You can't ask for grace when you offer none.
MisterBastahrd 5y ago
Wages have been going up for restaurant staff, not down, because nobody wants such a high-stress, low-quality job. Offering lower starting wages will end up with reduced staff and burnout.
Traster 5y ago
The core line of logic "We can pay our workers less, because our workers are more desperate" never gets any better. It's one thing to say they're going to pay less because the business isn't viable at these levels of pay, but extending that to "so we're going to focus on who we can exploit" is where it crosses the line. Becuase if the reason you're cutting wages is that you can't afford them... well, let's start with that big fat juicy CEO bonus.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
ehnto 5y ago
> It may be understood by the recipients that they need to cut costs wherever possible. Except executive compensation, I suppose. It's also not an isolated event, just another moment in a trend of big corporate entities pushing wages in only one direction, down. No matter how you word it, it's starting to look a lot like: "We need to lower wages because no one can afford anything anymore because no one is paying high enough wages".

munk-a 5y ago

I think maybe workers would be receptive to this if it weren't for the fact that whenever there's plenty of cash going around it doesn't loosen the belts of workers - it just gets dumped into BS like stock buybacks. You can't ask for grace when you offer none.

MisterBastahrd 5y ago

Wages have been going up for restaurant staff, not down, because nobody wants such a high-stress, low-quality job. Offering lower starting wages will end up with reduced staff and burnout.

Traster 5y ago

The core line of logic "We can pay our workers less, because our workers are more desperate" never gets any better. It's one thing to say they're going to pay less because the business isn't viable at these levels of pay, but extending that to "so we're going to focus on who we can exploit" is where it crosses the line. Becuase if the reason you're cutting wages is that you can't afford them... well, let's start with that big fat juicy CEO bonus.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

ehnto 5y ago

> It may be understood by the recipients that they need to cut costs wherever possible. Except executive compensation, I suppose. It's also not an isolated event, just another moment in a trend of big corporate entities pushing wages in only one direction, down. No matter how you word it, it's starting to look a lot like: "We need to lower wages because no one can afford anything anymore because no one is paying high enough wages".