Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
if you dont like thee way the charge your bill dont eat ther .It is punishing your employees. They are holding up servers and saying...if you don't like the prices, take it out on the servers
How do you stay in business if that is the way you handle a fluctuating marketplace? When the price of food goes up, do you surcharge? When your rent or taxes go up, do you surcharge? When business is down in the offseason, do you surcharge? When a competitor opens up down the street, do you surcharge?
This is not about compensating for a new business cost. It is petty and vindictive against your customers and your employees
Not good business practice
It punishes employees by requiring them to help pay for a benefit to them? But it doesn't punish employees when they lose their jobs or their raises or have their hours cut because the government forced an unfunded mandate on their employers?
A bunch of drama to hurt Obama
It is no more than a normal fluctuation in operating expenses. To highlight...I am charging you more because of "Obama"...if you don't like it, take it out on my employees
It is petty and vindictive. The good employees will say screw this, I'm going elsewhere" the crappy employees will stick around to help him run his business
Obviously you lived a sheltered life.
Waitresses and the like don't get minimum wage because their income is based on tips. If they get stiffed on a tab, they just get stiffed. The employer has no obligation to make up for the tips they didn't receive.
BTW they must pay taxes on 15 percent of every tab they served whether they received a tip or not.
Don't like it? Don't become a watress.
actual you have that a bit wrong....
they are charged 8%..... and only on credit card charges. Because... you cant track cash. They are supposed to be honest about cash tips declare it.
waitresses become waitress here becasue they make money hand over fist.... They get minimum wage... pulse tips. It was not uncommon for a waitress in our place ( for the slow ones ) to walk out with 5-6 hundred bucks cash a every single night
Depends where you work. Wait staff does not get minimum wage in NY, but where the checks are inputted through a computer system, payment method doesn't matter - they're taxed on what the government assumes they were tipped. I was a cook in the 80's, and my waitresses showed me their "paychecks" that amounted to a bill they had to pay for working. The customer base was what we called the geriatric ward of Schenectady's social elite. The little old ladies tipped like it was 1944.
Now, if a tipped employee does not claim up to minimum wages in tips plus hourly wage, at least in NY, the business owner must increase their pay TO minimum wage. I'm not sure if that's the national standard.
It's to make a point!so you know WHY prices are being increased other than just increasing the price and saying nothing which most companies do
It's funny that other than sales tax they don't itemize all the other costs they pass onto you. I've never been to Denny's and seen a "coporate income tax surcharge" or a "FICA employer share surcharge".
Why do you think they chose this particular cost of business to itemize?
After lawsuit, Denny's restaurant chain buries its racist image | Lubbock Online | Lubbock Avalanche-Journal
Barb made that up to make herself feel better. She ran out of Pamprin.
And you think mom and pops with aren't going to have to increase costs to accommodate health care costs?
Barb made that up to make herself feel better. She ran out of Pamprin.
MOre liberal pro big labor propaganda.
Yeah, ok. Look at what big labor has done with the Hostess Co. he unions threw 18,500 workers under the bus. Brilliant!
I guess you missed this part:
Quote:
BCTGM members are well aware that as the company was preparing to file for bankruptcy earlier this year, the then CEO of Hostess was awarded a 300 percent raise (from approximately $750,000 to $2,550,000) and at least nine other top executives of the company received massive pay raises. One such executive received a pay increase from $500,000 to $900,000 and another received one taking his salary from $375,000 to $656,256.
Denny's already has had problems with how they treat their black customers, haven't they?Well....they can shove their breakfasts up their asses....Grand Slam style.
I usually eat locally when we go out anyway. We have a dozen Mom and Pops that serve better food thank Denny's ever will. Same with upper echelon restaurants.....Won't see me at Applebee's or Olive Garden anymore either.
Beer? we have one of the top ten brew pubs in the country about 25 minutes away....the only problem is that it's 25 minutes back home too. Coffee shops? same thing.
I'm so sick of corporate assholes running this country. They can't afford to absorb $.05/plate....or $.14/ pizza? Such bullshit, such ridiculous greed.
And you're right about the free advertising. They're thinking they are going to become the next Chick-fil-a and all these teabaggers are going to flood their restaurants and then not tip the people busting their asses to support their families.....the sad thing is.....they are probably right.
Yeah, in 1994, and Democrats were against Civil Rights.
It'd THEIR MONEY...What you flubs refuse to understand is the board OWNS the company. They invested THEIR money to keep the business alive.
MOre liberal pro big labor propaganda.
Yeah, ok. Look at what big labor has done with the Hostess Co. he unions threw 18,500 workers under the bus. Brilliant!
There's a whole thread on that here: http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...tcy-after-tripling-ceo-s-pay.html#post6360988
I guess you missed this part:
Quote:
BCTGM members are well aware that as the company was preparing to file for bankruptcy earlier this year, the then CEO of Hostess was awarded a 300 percent raise (from approximately $750,000 to $2,550,000) and at least nine other top executives of the company received massive pay raises. One such executive received a pay increase from $500,000 to $900,000 and another received one taking his salary from $375,000 to $656,256.
Denny's already has had problems with how they treat their black customers, haven't they?
Yeah, in 1994, and Democrats were against Civil Rights.
Northern Democrats supported Civil Rights, Southern Republicans opposed it
actual you have that a bit wrong....
they are charged 8%..... and only on credit card charges. Because... you cant track cash. They are supposed to be honest about cash tips declare it.
waitresses become waitress here becasue they make money hand over fist.... They get minimum wage... pulse tips. It was not uncommon for a waitress in our place ( for the slow ones ) to walk out with 5-6 hundred bucks cash a every single night
Depends where you work. Wait staff does not get minimum wage in NY, but where the checks are inputted through a computer system, payment method doesn't matter - they're taxed on what the government assumes they were tipped. I was a cook in the 80's, and my waitresses showed me their "paychecks" that amounted to a bill they had to pay for working. The customer base was what we called the geriatric ward of Schenectady's social elite. The little old ladies tipped like it was 1944.
Now, if a tipped employee does not claim up to minimum wages in tips plus hourly wage, at least in NY, the business owner must increase their pay TO minimum wage. I'm not sure if that's the national standard.
I bartended for 5 years. Yes, 8% is the standard. The waitstaff did not declare their cash tips. Only the tips on CC's and DC's.
And yes it depends on the type of establishment and the clientele regarding tips.
Mom and pop places patronized by lder people tend to see lower tip amounts.
As do places frequented by college kids. Also rural people tend to be lousy tippers as do minorities.
Quite frankly most demographic groups are ignorant or even resentful when it comes to tipping.
The worst tippers are "new money" rich people and yes, take is as you will, young black people.
I can go on with one story after another citing incidents where we got stiffed.
At the end of the day, you just bite your lip and move on. We have long memories. The "stiffs" are labeled for good. When they come back in, they get the short end of the stick. If they get pissed off an leave, we achieve our goal. We were so busy ,we did not have to worry about serving cheapskates.
Anyway, I believe you are correct in that if the server does not achieve a hourly rate that equals minimum wage, the establishment must make up the difference.
commie obamaturd.Greedy rich bastard.
Depends where you work. Wait staff does not get minimum wage in NY, but where the checks are inputted through a computer system, payment method doesn't matter - they're taxed on what the government assumes they were tipped. I was a cook in the 80's, and my waitresses showed me their "paychecks" that amounted to a bill they had to pay for working. The customer base was what we called the geriatric ward of Schenectady's social elite. The little old ladies tipped like it was 1944.
Now, if a tipped employee does not claim up to minimum wages in tips plus hourly wage, at least in NY, the business owner must increase their pay TO minimum wage. I'm not sure if that's the national standard.
I bartended for 5 years. Yes, 8% is the standard. The waitstaff did not declare their cash tips. Only the tips on CC's and DC's.
And yes it depends on the type of establishment and the clientele regarding tips.
Mom and pop places patronized by lder people tend to see lower tip amounts.
As do places frequented by college kids. Also rural people tend to be lousy tippers as do minorities.
Quite frankly most demographic groups are ignorant or even resentful when it comes to tipping.
The worst tippers are "new money" rich people and yes, take is as you will, young black people.
I can go on with one story after another citing incidents where we got stiffed.
At the end of the day, you just bite your lip and move on. We have long memories. The "stiffs" are labeled for good. When they come back in, they get the short end of the stick. If they get pissed off an leave, we achieve our goal. We were so busy ,we did not have to worry about serving cheapskates.
Anyway, I believe you are correct in that if the server does not achieve a hourly rate that equals minimum wage, the establishment must make up the difference.
It doesn't matter if they declare cash or not. Servers pay tax on 8% of their sales. Servers are supposed to earn 15%-20% of their sales in tips but the government has taken into account that their are some real cheapskate bastards out there who either shortchange or stiff the server entirely.
I earned $2.01 per hour when I waited tables in Philly. The only reason why I got that from the restaurant was to cover the taxes I owed on the 8% of my sales. Sometimes I got a paycheck for a few dollars, sometimes I owed money back to the restaurant each pay period.
I will never wait another table again as long as I live. If servers are walking out the door with 5-6 hundred dollars in their pockets, they have earned every penny they make.
It'd THEIR MONEY...What you flubs refuse to understand is the board OWNS the company. They invested THEIR money to keep the business alive.MOre liberal pro big labor propaganda.
Yeah, ok. Look at what big labor has done with the Hostess Co. he unions threw 18,500 workers under the bus. Brilliant!
There's a whole thread on that here: http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...tcy-after-tripling-ceo-s-pay.html#post6360988
I guess you missed this part:
Quote:
BCTGM members are well aware that as the company was preparing to file for bankruptcy earlier this year, the then CEO of Hostess was awarded a 300 percent raise (from approximately $750,000 to $2,550,000) and at least nine other top executives of the company received massive pay raises. One such executive received a pay increase from $500,000 to $900,000 and another received one taking his salary from $375,000 to $656,256.
If you want to argue the wage issue let's do that.
How many times have we discussed the absurd wages for unionized public employees?
There was a story in the NY post about suburban school superintendents being paid in excess of $500,000 per year PLUS benefits PLUS expense accounts. PLUS pension. PLUS bonuses.
In the private sector the money to pay people must be generated through profits. That's a dirty word to you libs.
Oh, would you mind sourcing these figures. You can't just pluck them off a message board.
It'd THEIR MONEY...What you flubs refuse to understand is the board OWNS the company. They invested THEIR money to keep the business alive.There's a whole thread on that here: http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...tcy-after-tripling-ceo-s-pay.html#post6360988
If you want to argue the wage issue let's do that.
How many times have we discussed the absurd wages for unionized public employees?
There was a story in the NY post about suburban school superintendents being paid in excess of $500,000 per year PLUS benefits PLUS expense accounts. PLUS pension. PLUS bonuses.
In the private sector the money to pay people must be generated through profits. That's a dirty word to you libs.
Oh, would you mind sourcing these figures. You can't just pluck them off a message board.
So when they ruin their own company, and blame it on someone else. It's suddenly that other guys fault.
How can you even possibly agree with such complete bullshit?
It'd THEIR MONEY...What you flubs refuse to understand is the board OWNS the company. They invested THEIR money to keep the business alive.
If you want to argue the wage issue let's do that.
How many times have we discussed the absurd wages for unionized public employees?
There was a story in the NY post about suburban school superintendents being paid in excess of $500,000 per year PLUS benefits PLUS expense accounts. PLUS pension. PLUS bonuses.
In the private sector the money to pay people must be generated through profits. That's a dirty word to you libs.
Oh, would you mind sourcing these figures. You can't just pluck them off a message board.
So when they ruin their own company, and blame it on someone else. It's suddenly that other guys fault.
How can you even possibly agree with such complete bullshit?
When they tell the other guy that they don't have the resources to weather a prolonged strike, and the other guy strikes anyway, yeah it is the union's fault if the business then closes down.
News flash. It is nobody's business but the business owner whether he or she manages it competently or incompetently. He has nothing to gain by mismanagement and everything to lose of his initial investment, time, and personal effort in starting it up in the first place. Everybody isn't cut out to own and run a business--it takes a certain mix of knowhow, intuition, talent, and temperament to do it and that's why not everybody can do it successfully--but those who are bear a huge burden and take a huge risk that is not shared by those who work for them.
The smart employee who wants to advance and get ahead will go to work for a good company with a future. Those who just want a paycheck any way they can get it don't concern themselves with the well being of the company--they just put in their time and go home and if the business fails, oh well. They just find another dead end job somewhere else.
But the employee owes the employer absolutely nothing more than he contracts with the employer to provide. The smart employee who wants to get ahead of course will go way above and beyond the minimum expectations, but he is not required or obligated to do so. It is almost always for his benefit that he does do so.
And the employer owes the employee absolutely nothing more than he contracts with the employee as wages and benefits when he hires the employee. The smart employer grooms and promotes people who deserve it when he can, but he is not required or obligated to do so. It is almost always for his benefit that he does do so.
So when they ruin their own company, and blame it on someone else. It's suddenly that other guys fault.
How can you even possibly agree with such complete bullshit?
When they tell the other guy that they don't have the resources to weather a prolonged strike, and the other guy strikes anyway, yeah it is the union's fault if the business then closes down.
News flash. It is nobody's business but the business owner whether he or she manages it competently or incompetently. He has nothing to gain by mismanagement and everything to lose of his initial investment, time, and personal effort in starting it up in the first place. Everybody isn't cut out to own and run a business--it takes a certain mix of knowhow, intuition, talent, and temperament to do it and that's why not everybody can do it successfully--but those who are bear a huge burden and take a huge risk that is not shared by those who work for them.
The smart employee who wants to advance and get ahead will go to work for a good company with a future. Those who just want a paycheck any way they can get it don't concern themselves with the well being of the company--they just put in their time and go home and if the business fails, oh well. They just find another dead end job somewhere else.
But the employee owes the employer absolutely nothing more than he contracts with the employer to provide. The smart employee who wants to get ahead of course will go way above and beyond the minimum expectations, but he is not required or obligated to do so. It is almost always for his benefit that he does do so.
And the employer owes the employee absolutely nothing more than he contracts with the employee as wages and benefits when he hires the employee. The smart employer grooms and promotes people who deserve it when he can, but he is not required or obligated to do so. It is almost always for his benefit that he does do so.
So it's ok for a floundering company to give massive bonus's and huge pay increases for their executives, while forcing the workers to take massive pay cuts.
I'm glad it went under, it deserved it. The workers can find other jobs. At least they stood up for themselves.
When they tell the other guy that they don't have the resources to weather a prolonged strike, and the other guy strikes anyway, yeah it is the union's fault if the business then closes down.
News flash. It is nobody's business but the business owner whether he or she manages it competently or incompetently. He has nothing to gain by mismanagement and everything to lose of his initial investment, time, and personal effort in starting it up in the first place. Everybody isn't cut out to own and run a business--it takes a certain mix of knowhow, intuition, talent, and temperament to do it and that's why not everybody can do it successfully--but those who are bear a huge burden and take a huge risk that is not shared by those who work for them.
The smart employee who wants to advance and get ahead will go to work for a good company with a future. Those who just want a paycheck any way they can get it don't concern themselves with the well being of the company--they just put in their time and go home and if the business fails, oh well. They just find another dead end job somewhere else.
But the employee owes the employer absolutely nothing more than he contracts with the employer to provide. The smart employee who wants to get ahead of course will go way above and beyond the minimum expectations, but he is not required or obligated to do so. It is almost always for his benefit that he does do so.
And the employer owes the employee absolutely nothing more than he contracts with the employee as wages and benefits when he hires the employee. The smart employer grooms and promotes people who deserve it when he can, but he is not required or obligated to do so. It is almost always for his benefit that he does do so.
So it's ok for a floundering company to give massive bonus's and huge pay increases for their executives, while forcing the workers to take massive pay cuts.
I'm glad it went under, it deserved it. The workers can find other jobs. At least they stood up for themselves.
It is OK for anybody in any circumstance to use the money they earned or ethically acquired any way they choose to use it. The employer is obligated to pay the employee what he contracts with the employee to pay. Nothing more. Nothing less. And if what the employer offers is less than the employee is willing to work for, it is the employee's prerogative to accept it or not. And if a union is unwilling to negotiate a contract satisfactory to the employer and instead goes on strike, and the business closes, well maybe they stood up for themselves. But the employer at least leaves with enough of his own money so that he can support himself instead of agreeing to a contract that will only put him into more of a deficit condition.
The employees are left with no jobs at all.
So who won?
So it's ok for a floundering company to give massive bonus's and huge pay increases for their executives, while forcing the workers to take massive pay cuts.
I'm glad it went under, it deserved it. The workers can find other jobs. At least they stood up for themselves.
It is OK for anybody in any circumstance to use the money they earned or ethically acquired any way they choose to use it. The employer is obligated to pay the employee what he contracts with the employee to pay. Nothing more. Nothing less. And if what the employer offers is less than the employee is willing to work for, it is the employee's prerogative to accept it or not. And if a union is unwilling to negotiate a contract satisfactory to the employer and instead goes on strike, and the business closes, well maybe they stood up for themselves. But the employer at least leaves with enough of his own money so that he can support himself instead of agreeing to a contract that will only put him into more of a deficit condition.
The employees are left with no jobs at all.
So who won?
Pathetic, you hold someone else's money over the rights of a human being. At least I know where the conservative platform really lies.
Also, are you really sure you want to assume that those workers will never find a job again?
It is OK for anybody in any circumstance to use the money they earned or ethically acquired any way they choose to use it. The employer is obligated to pay the employee what he contracts with the employee to pay. Nothing more. Nothing less. And if what the employer offers is less than the employee is willing to work for, it is the employee's prerogative to accept it or not. And if a union is unwilling to negotiate a contract satisfactory to the employer and instead goes on strike, and the business closes, well maybe they stood up for themselves. But the employer at least leaves with enough of his own money so that he can support himself instead of agreeing to a contract that will only put him into more of a deficit condition.
The employees are left with no jobs at all.
So who won?
Pathetic, you hold someone else's money over the rights of a human being. At least I know where the conservative platform really lies.
Also, are you really sure you want to assume that those workers will never find a job again?
I hold the right to use my own money the way I choose to use it short of violating the rights of somebody else. The employer did not fire the employees. He was not willing to pay what they demanded. That is absolutely 100% his right and if it is not, then none of us own anything or are entitled to use anything we have as we choose to us it. The fact that those people are out of work is their doing, not the employers. The employer was perfectly willing to keep the plant open and try to work out of their shaky financial condition. The union was not willing to concede anything. So the plant closes. And the people are out of work. It was THEIR choice, not the employer.
And if those workers will never find a job again, then maybe there is more of a problem with this shitty economy that should be addressed than our leadership wants to admit, or maybe those people simply aren't qualified to hold a job? At any rate, I never want you or anybody else to have the right to tell me that you or that somebody else has a right to demand what I have legally, honestly, and ethically earned or acquired.
But if you are of the ilk who thinks they have the right to demand what I have, I imagine you earn more than I do. I am going to need to replace my 17-year-old Subaru one of these days. Please buy me one and have it delivered. I would like another red one.
I hold the right to use my own money the way I choose to use it short of violating the rights of somebody else.
