Elliott: It’s Thyme & Season For $15 Wage

Elliott has been called out on Facebook for urging one thing, while paying the legal minimum to his own employees. He doesn't have to wait for the law to change to do the right thing. After all, leadership should be about not just doing the legal and economically smart thing, but about doing the moral thing as well. That's why Dr. King advocated for sanitation workers to get a living wage decades ago.
His idea of pegging the minimum to the Cost of Living is a plus because we can't count on business owners to share the wealth and continue to increase wages, even when productivity and profits are up.
The top down mentality continues to act as though they are making a gift of their wage payments, but it's the workers who create the value and the owners who keep the profit.

This will be next.

After Winning a $15 Minimum Wage, Fast Food Workers Now Battle Unfair Firings.
Francis Gomez, 26, said she was fired without warning from a Taco Bell in Queens after she swore at a delivery driver who was harassing her.Its workers were the first to stage rallies demanding a minimum wage of $15 an hour. Then, they pressed for changes in the way national restaurant chains set their work schedules.Now, they are asking the City Council to shield them from being fired without a valid reason. That protection, the sort of job security that unions usually bargain for, would be a first for a city to provide to workers in a specific industry, labor law experts said.City Councilman Brad Lander said he planned to introduce a bill on Wednesday that would require fast-food businesses to show "just cause" for firing workers and give them a chance to appeal dismissals through arbitration.
Mr. Lander, a Democrat from Brooklyn, said he was responding to surveys of fast-food workers indicating that "there's a substantial percentage of employees that have been fired unfairly." One woman said she was fired from a Chipotle restaurant for not smiling enough.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/12/nyregion/fast-food-worker-firings.html

"We wouldn't have to rob Peter to pay Paul if we would just pay Paul," replied New Haven State Rep. and Labor and Public Employees Committee House Chair Robyn Porter.According to one estimate, she said, raising the minimum wage to $15 per hour would add over $1 billion per year to the paychecks of the lowest-wage works in the state."At the end of the day, businesses will benefit," she said. "Initially, some small businesses will take a hit. But the working people of this state have been taking a hit for decades. I think it time that we answer the call that we heard at the ballot box in November."

And when slick Ned Lamont tolls and High Taxes come into play.That $15 per hour will be more like $7.00 a hour.

What's hidden under the $15 minimum wage? Higher taxes.

At the end of the day, the proposed $15 per hour minimum wage is just another tax in a high-tax state.

http://www.business.rutgers.edu/business-insights/whats-hidden-under-15-minimum-wage-higher-taxes

I believe minimum wage workers need a raise but not to $15.

$15 is too much to swallow for businesses and its clients. Take a restaurant that has 10 employees working on average during the week. A $4.50 increase for a 40 hour week for 10 employees is a cost increase of $1800 per week. That's going to come out of the patrons check. For a small restaurant, for example, one with 50 customers per night, that's open 6 nights per week, that would add $6 to the bill for each customer ($12 for a couple). So, the restaurant needs more customers to spread the pain, but at those prices they'll probably get less, not more.

Minimum wage businesses struggle as it is to keep on the lights; don't make it harder. Remember, if the lights go out, those $15/hour employees dont have a job.

A few years ago, I saw President Obama give a speech @ CCSU, His point was that if you raise the minimum wage that the workers will end up buying things, And that helps the economy. I feel that $ 15.00/hour is a good rate.

The crux of the matter is whether a business (or non-profit) can pass through the increased labor cost to the consumer. If it's a health food store in Hamden like the Elliott's Thyme and Seasons, then yes, it can probably pass through the costs. But if it's a marginal business in a less affluent part of the state, say Torrington or Willimantic, then probably no, customers will likely seek an alternative. That company will have to hire fewer employees, reduce benefits, or go out of business.

Talk about unintended consequences — has anyone given a second thought to what $15 per hour will mean to low wage workers receiving TANF benefits?? $15 per hour will severely cut if not eliminate benefits worth thousands of dollars to the worker like Care4Kids, Food stamps, etc. For them, $15 per hour might leave them worse off.

I'm not so sure Thyme & Season can afford it either. He says he has 90 employees. 90 times 40 hours per week, times $4.50 is $16,200 per week. He has to pass that on to his customers, but his customers probably number in the hundreds every day, not the thousands like Stop & Shop and Shoprite. Much easier for them to pass on those costs than Thyme & Season. I'm surprised his employees are only paid at minimum. Figured his employees would be union by now.

@ jepadilla, you make a great point ...... $15 per hour will severely cut if not eliminate benefits worth thousands of dollars to the worker like Care4Kids, Food stamps, etc. For them, $15 per hour might leave them worse off.

My thoughts didn't factor in the points you made but you're probably correct. So give us $15/hr., adjust/modify the income levels for these benefits to allow eligibility. Who wouldn't want to live a comfortable life on someone else shoulder, this is the American Dream, right? To get all that you can get.

@jepadilla. Good point, Studies say that the livable wage for New Haven needs to be $27 an hour, something many white collar and union workers don't make. If the government raises the minimum wage would this end all housing, food and health insurance subsidies? How many workers question working extra hours for fear of phasing out of HUSKY? Will the extra money they have in pocket just go to the landlord? We can already see automation encroaching into those jobs and industries that the activists have targeted for low wages. Has anyone else seen or heard the Stop & Shop workers ad's against the autommatic check-out counters?

@missthenighthawks, NHNative & jepadilla: It's interesting to see so many commentators bemoan the fate of the workers and/ or the cost to the consumer, but no one even hints that maybe owners can get by with reduced profits. Why is that????
Wages have been flat for 50! years and people have either re-mortgaged homes (if they own one) or maxxed out on credit card debt to maintain a decent standard of living. Or they work "gigs" instead of steady jobs with benefits.

@Threefifths: Lamont's Tax & Tolls proposals are anti-working class. Tolls will be nothing more than an additional tax and will impact people just trying to visit relatives or go to a museum.
The Legislature should increase, not decrease, the Estate Tax which already has a multi-million dollar exclusion on inter-generational wealth transfer.

Read NICKLED AND DIMED by Ehrenreich. Read MAID, THE AMERICAN WAY OF POVERTY, or EVICTED. $15/HR is not enough really. In the 60's, $10/HR was considered a living wage.

PS When I had my law practice with a staff in the 1980s and 90s, $15 an hour was starting wage, with bump up to $20 in a few months. Generous time off policies (no sick leave; just health leave) and cash bonuses were included. I was the last one to get a check when cash flow was tight.

Ms. Kane: i think you missunderstand my earlier post regarding benefits. I for one am not indifferent to the plight of low wage workers, having been raised by one myself. And I agree wholeheartedly with your views on income disparities. The issue with $15 per hour for someone on benefits is that adjustments would have to be made in eligibility requirements, and for federal benefits like food stamps, that will be very difficult. People do not want to be on benefits the same way they don't choose to be poor. People are poor because of choices and circumstances. Sometimes its choices, more often then not, it's circumstances of which they have no control. I do not have a problem with paying for such benefits as a taxpayer when someone is working 2 or 3 jobs to make ends meet and is still struggling. I think that's an appropriate use of my tax dollars. Especially when rent and childcare can eat up your entire monthly income.
And unlike what "Somewhere in New Haven" believes, no one gets to live a comfortable life with food stamps and TANF — you just survive.

@jepadilla: my apologies for mis-interpreting your point re: the potential loss of benefits.
You are correct in pointing out the somewhat stiff income requirement for eligibility in many programs. All that will have to be addressed. There's no reason not to update the eligibility levels to something realistic. But our grassroots support is the only thing that will make it happen.

You have to laugh when a lawyer is admonishing everyone on fiscal policy. Think about the person who's awarded just compensation for a wrong and has to give a third of it away to their lawyer. Talk about a regressive tax.

My latest copy of my Shoreline Times newspaper has a huge, prominent advertisement for real estate: in Ocala, Florida. There are multiple large lot homes in the low seven figure ranges.
Personally, I know several people who couldn't afford such homes, but have nonetheless moved south for tax reasons. These folks generally have incomes in the low six figure range.
Connecticut is losing population, and, more importantly, losing taxable income and economic activity as folks with resources flee our high-tax, high-cost state.

Yes, missthenighthawks, let's think about it. Someone gets hurt and hires a lawyer. Pays nothing up front. The case doesn't settle and the lawyer spends $1,000 for file the lawsuit, etc.
3 years later, the client wants to settle and it's resolved for $7500. The lawyer gets $2,500 for his/her fee after spending 50 hours or so on filings, motions, depositions, pretrials, etc. excluding paralegal and secretarial time. That's $50/hr. If the case is lost or the client moves and drops the case, or incarcerated, or simply disapppears the lawyer gets no fee and loses the costs.
It happens more than you know..

Westville, Lawyers aren't the only ones who do a lot of work, often for nothing. What contractor out there doesn't bid dozens of jobs that they never get, often spending days working on the bid. Home builders, road builders, office builders, do it all the time; and when they get jobs its typically with less than 10% margin, which often gets eaten up by unexpected events.

We got way off base from the subject here. The point was that some people need to look in the mirror before they tell others they can do better.

No, missthenighthawks, you went off subject going out of your way to criticize someone's point simply because they were an atty. I was merely pointing out your lack of knowledge on it.

F.I.S.T. This 1978 movie directed by Norman Jewison starred Sylvester Stallone, the writer and star of Rocky, the Best Picture of 1977.Stallone played a Cleveland warehouse worker "Johnny Kovak" who becomes involved in the labor union leadership of the fictional "Federation of Inter-State Truckers."
Uber drivers might consider this method for fairness.

Interesting comments on how ALL these business owners are 'rich' and can afford to pay $15/ hour wages. While this may be true for larger corporations who have "record profits" and executives with extreme salaries, this is simply untrue for small business. The larger corporations will also simply normalize the increased wage across the company or automate processes while the small business may be unable to do so. The argument that increasing the wages will increase business traffic is also a fallacy as the increase in price will drive their customers to cheaper alternatives or do without that service. So if you want to say goodbye to small business go ahead increase the minimum wage. Last point is these small businesses take on MANY risks when they decide to open a business. If they do happen to make a profit and enjoy a lifestyle that others might deem lavish, do they not deserve it? Or are you willing to reimburse them for their losses when the business does not succeed as well

@Perspective. Your focus is on the small business owner; mine is on the workers. No matter how profitable a business may be, the workers are not entitled to a share of those profits. All a worker has is her/his time, skills, effort to use to make a living. There is no justification - in my mind at least - for not paying people a living wage, whether it is $15 or $27 an hour. For a small business owner to pay less is to have the worker subsidize the business. And why should workers subsidize a business when they have no ownership interest?

Perspective & Others- One thing I have noticed that is not mentioned here are the number of business owners who fail to be working on the premises once the business is up and running and profitable. I have seen it in Westville as well as hearing it from others who own, but no longer work at their small business establishment. My point is that there are a lot of small businesses that can afford an uptick in the minimum wage if the owner was more involved in the day-to-day operations. I do realize that this is not true of all small businesses, of which I am one.

@Patricia Kane. My focus is that if these businesses fail then both the owner and the worker will suffer. I understand and respect your view on the workers and a business can/should share the wealth (wage increases/bonuses,etc) when business is good but can they in turn lower the wages/increases when business is bad?? Shouldn't the owner be compensated for the risks they took (taking on enormous debt, more responsibility, exposure to lawsuits,etc) I'm sure you as a previous small business owner can appreciate as well there are very different businesses (size,financials,etc) so perhaps modifying the law to pertain to businesses over a certain number of employees or financial standing is warranted.

"Why should someone with some capital be valued more than someone who puts body and soul on the line, who sometimes ends up with job related disabilities or has to work 2-3 jobs to make ends meet? Where is the real risk?" We have law and regulations protecting workers rights to a safe working environment and the 'global' economy and 'additional' economic factors in the state of Connecticut and federal government have driven the necessity to work 2-3 jobs to maintain a living wage

" The system has to change because income inequality is greater than it was in the Gilded Age of US history." Income inequality exceeds the timeline and boundaries of US history and geography

@Perspective: Your circular reasoning (getting better paid may make the business go under) means workers should subsidize a business in which they only get the bare minimum.

@ Patricia- So why stop at a minimum wage? Why not implement a "standard wage" that everyone receives regardless of skill, background, role,etc. and every business is required to split any profits evenly with all the workers, but the losses are only the responsibility of the business owner. smh
Lastly (and I do mean lastly) not every business is a large corporation rolling in profits and avoiding paying taxes,etc. .Some are merely hardworking folks who decided to form their own business and are scraping by. (local shops and services) But I see your true resentment when you bring the white house occupant into your argument as well

@missingthenighthawks: Having been an employer, I know what's it's like to run a small business - in fact 2 of them. Slamming me for my opinion based on my profession is illogical.

@Perspective. The first part of your last comment makes no sense.

@ PatriciaKane

My point was that you are always slamming people based on generalities. You don't know Josh Elliotts situation but are happy to slam him for paying minimum wage. On the surface I would agree that his workers should be paid more if he's going to say everyone should be paying more, but maybe he cant. Maybe his business isn't as profitable as one would think. Also, all CEO's are not greedy, cruel people as you would insinuate. Many do share the wealth and many more arent in a position to. Your generalizations are no more illogical than mine.
I happen to believe the legal system is a capitalistic system that needs to benefit the clients more than the lawyers. The client gets two-thirds of compensation, while the attorney gets their often generous lifestyle. I don't see a lot of attorneys living on lower Dixwell. I believe the loser should pay legal costs so the client gets fully compensated.
It sounds like you were more generous than others but I'm sure your $20 per hour wasnt close to what you were making even though they worked as hard as you. Thus, my simple statement that some people should look in the mirror before telling everyone else they can do better.

@missingnighthawks: you will be disappointed to learn that I not only know Josh Elliott, but have corresponded with him on his advocating $15 an hour minimum wage while paying his own employees less. His business is profitable enough to allow him to spend substantial time in politics. He has choice.
As for generalizations, I've focused on the egregious actions of multi-nationals and tax escape artists whose names are in the headlines. But the issue remains the need for a living wage and if owners won't do the right thing on their own, then we can collectively change that decision via legislation.
As to your new topic and gripe about the legal profession, the average attorney is not wealthy. There have been studies reporting on the stress levels of the work that can cause depression and dependency on drugs and alcohol to try to cope. It was pointed out to me that people in advertising - who make far more than the average lawyer - never have to worry about grievances. More money, less liability. Which would you choose?
It would help to understand your defense of big business and your fantasy as to the average lawyer's lifestyle more if you revealed what kind of work YOU do or did.
There are plenty of things wrong with the legal system, but working in hope of recovering 1/3 of a recovery isn't one of them. It enables people to get legal services without having to pay up front. So people who can't afford a lawyer are able to get one.
And you have a problem with that?