i wouldn't say it's working out their entire profit model, i'd say it's applying basic logic if this, then that if "employees taking time off without any noti

i wouldn't say it's working out their entire profit model, i'd say it's applying basic logic if this, then that if "employees taking time off without any notice (sick time) disrupts the schedule/store operations", then "the store will suffer financially" if "the store suffers financially", then "the loss needs to be made up elsewhere in order to be offset" if "the loss needs to be made up elsewhere", then "the money needs to come from somewhere" if "the money to offset the loss needs to come from somewhere", then "prices need to be increased" therefore, in order for ALL workers to be allowed to take SOME sick time off (time off without much notice) without retribution, prices need to be increased even further if prices need to be increased even further, you might alienate away even more of your existing or potential customer base (prices already very high for what they offer relative to their competition) if you alienate away more customers, you lose money therefore, you're asking the business to lose money at the expense of their dispensable/replaceable entry level jobs. i don't mean for that to sound as cold and heartless and immoral and rude as it does. i'm not some high level executive who only thinks in terms of MBA. i'm just trying to show perspective to both sides of the bargaining equation. imagine if the entire staff could call out sick whenever they wanted without consequence twice a week. the store would have to close down, wouldn't it? where's the balance? is the balance supposed to be exactly where it is now? you'd argue it needs to be more in favor of the worker, but you also admit to not putting much effort/thought into thinking of the business side, becasue you're arguing it's already too much in favor of the business side