Skip to main content

Red Robin Fires Bus Boys In Response to Minimum Wage Hikes

In December, I blogged about the minimum wage hikes starting on December 31, 2017, as all areas across New York State move towards a $15.00/hour minimum wage over the next few years. And as of January 1, 2018, minimum wages went up in 18 states and 20 cities across the country.

For most businesses, and especially small businesses, their greatest cost is labor--paying workers. So if state and local governments force business owners to pay their workers more, the businesses can either (1) raise prices (and risk losing customers/sales); (2) cut back workers' hours (which could hurt productivity and reduce revenue); or (3) simply get rid of people and make the remaining workers do more.

Smart people on both sides of the issue disagree about the effect minimum wage hikes will have on jobs. Supporters say there has been no real impact on jobs in areas that have raised minimum wages. But critics say that the "fight for 15" will end up hurting the very people it was meant to help--minimum wage workers in low-skill jobs. Instead of making $9.00/hour, you'll have no job at all.

Yesterday, Red Robin announced that in response to the new minimum wage hikes, it is firing bus boys in 570 of its restaurants.

But someone has to bus the tables. Sounds like the waiters and waitresses will be doing more work. Will this be a trend as 2018 moves ahead?




Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Being Fired for Things an Employee Did On Their Own Time, Outside of Work: Legal or Not?

New York is an "at will" employment state, meaning that, in the absence of a contract, you can be fired at any time, for any reason, or for no reason at all, unless the reason is based on something like age, race, religion, disability, etc. (just a handful of categories). (Government employees have more protections than private-sector employees, such as First Amendment protections.) One of the few exceptions to the at-will employment rule is New York Labor Law §201-d. The statute is lengthy and has lots of caveats and qualifiers and defenses (for the employer). But the gist of § 201-d is that an employee can't be disciplined or fired (or not hired) for something they do on their own time, away from work, that is legal, and that is not against the employer's interests.  The statute and the reported cases mostly deal with "recreational" and "political" activities, and the cases can turn on whether something was a "recreational activity...
Post a Comment
Read more

Insurance Companies Trying to Gag Superstorm Sandy Victims?

As reported in several news articles ( this one  is free), in the aftermath of superstorm Sandy, engineering firms were hired by insurance companies to inspect the homes of people making claims for flood damage.  There have been allegations that two of the engineering firms, U.S. Forensic out of Louisiana, and GEB HiRise out of Uniondale, forged property damage reports in order to deny claims. The NY State Attorney General is investigating those allegations and wants to talk to the homeowners.  At the same time, there are about 1,800 lawsuits in federal court involving the insurance coverage claims. A three-judge panel is trying to expedite resolution of the cases.  Last week it was revealed that one of the insurance companies, The Standard Fire Insurance Company, which is a subsidiary of Travelers Insurance, drafted language in a settlement document saying that any homeowner who accepts a payout of their claims cannot cooperate with the criminal invest...
Post a Comment
Read more

Recent Case Developments: Court Finds Breach of Contract of Oral Agreement/Loan

In November, 2014, plaintiff and defendant agreed that the plaintiff would loan the defendant $200,000, and the defendant would pay him back in 4 installments of $50,000 over the next year. The defendant made the first 3 payments (totaling $150,000), but not the last payment. The plaintiff then sued for breach of contract for the remaining $50,000. There was nothing in writing, just an oral agreement. It appears that as soon as the defendant served his "Answer" to the "Complaint", the plaintiff moved for summary judgment (a kind of mini-trial on paper). The evidence included the cancelled check for $200,000 and the records of payments totaling $150,000. The appeals court held that, although there was nothing in writing, the oral agreement was enforceable as a contract and held that the plaintiff had proven his breach of contract claim.  The defendant had argued it was too early in the case to decide such a motion, that more evidence needed to be gathered (called...
Post a Comment
Read more