When minimum wage goes up what do you think happens to the guy's wage who is earning 10 cents above minimum wage?
Some Tim Hortons Cancell Paid Breaks in Ont over wage hike
- Thread starter tay
- Start date
When minimum wage goes up what do you think happens to the guy's wage who is earning 10 cents above minimum wage?
Yes and no.
Other than income tax, take a look at your next pay cheque and add up the source deductions you pay. The employer has an obligation to meet similar/same costs on your behalf.
It adds-up super quick
SLM ought to weigh-in on this. She would have definitive answers
CPP is 4.95%, EI is 2.632%(for the employer). What else are you talking about?
I guess I wasn't clear, but I include those people in what I am talking about. Most "minimum wage" employers pay a lot, if not most, of their employees slightly above the actual minimum, but often not all that much.
Contributions to Prov (employment) taxes, healthcare premiums (where applicable), WCB, any benefits offered.
In the case of Tim Hortons and many other employers, what amounted to paid meal breaks and any and all costs that are associated with an employer's mandated, negotiated or offerings to attract and retain employees.
This isn't that hard.. Look into it at your own work place
EI & CPP are non-optional benefits required to be paid by all employers. They deduct some from the cheque but they have to add an employer contribution as well. It is % of salary, so if they salary goes up so do the contributions (to a cap).
Wynn is also going to add a forced pension deduction (tax) as well as an employer contribution to the wages if she gets back in as well.
ETA: I am not arguing against increasing minimum wage ... just recognizing there are costs involved. Quite frankly if you are working and not sucking welfare dollars you should be able to live on that wage.
Few people really refer to having EI and CPP at work as a "benefit". When I had my first job that paid minimum wage, I certainly didn't say that my job included "benefits".
They certainly don't add up to 20%-30% of the salary.
When I asked "Doesn't that assume that they are providing benefits", why didn't you just say "yes". Clearly when you refer to that 20%-30% number, you are referring to benefits above what is legally mandated by law.
I think it is pretty safe to assume that employers that are impacted by the minimum wage are more than likely providing very minimal, if any, benefits.
Yeah, it appears to be between ~1 and ~2 percent, based on overall payroll.
There is more than just EI/CPP that is mandated champ.
Look into it instead of perpetually spouting unsubstantiated points.
Ask the HR/payroll where you work and they can give you the definitive answer
Sure, I never disagreed that there was more than just EI/CPP. The point is that the mandated stuff is nowhere near 20%-30%. That figure that is often cited includes benefits on top of what is mandated, which likely isn't a common issue for minimum wage employers.
What part of 'look into it yourself ' don't you get?
Stop being a clown and take the HR person out for coffee and ask them.
All you're doing now is relating your limited personal experience into this and pretending it's the only definitive, factual answer.
Publicly traded businesses like Tim Horton's don't need to make a profit. They need to increase profits. There's only so much coffee and donuts you can sell to people. It's not about operating costs or minimum wage. Some Tim Horton's franchises in remote areas pay more than minimum wage. Their employees make way more than $11/hr for the company. Their business model is to squeeze as much out of their employees as possible and siphon it off to executives and shareholders.
The hotel is trying to recoup losses. Those were benefits that employees received from the employer. So because they aren't getting them now you think that stealing is justifiable?
The employees can go... others will take their place.
It is a bit different in situations like this.
Tim Horton's is a franchise. I believe that the money that goes back to Tim Hortons corporate is essentially a flat percentage of store revenues. So they wouldn't have a direct interest in wages, as that wouldn't directly affect their income.
It is the franchisees that would be most directly affected as they are the ones getting squeezed between the increasing wages and prices/franchise fees set by Tim Hortons.
How would it not affect corporate profits if they took a percentage? If Tim Horton's wants its 10% and revenue decreases, so does that 10%.
You might be confusing revenue and profits.
If the store does a million dollars in revenue and their cut is 17% of revenue, they get 170k regardless of how much profit the store makes after paying all of their expenses such as labor, supplies, etc.
Now, in the big picture, Tim Hortons does have an interesting in making sure that their stores are sustainable, so they have to make sure that their owners are making money, but their relationship to the front line employees and what they earn is pretty distant.