Tim Horton's blow back.

[ZR]

A social media movement is encouraging people to join “No Timmies Tuesday” on Jan. 9 and instead visit independent coffee shops.












The protest comes after some Ontario Tim Hortons franchisees eliminated paid breaks, fully covered health and dental plans, and other perks for their workers to help their businesses absorb the 20 per cent jump from an $11.60 hourly minimum wage to $14 at the start of the month. Those changes came to light after a letter from the owners of two Cobourg, Ont., franchisees circulated on social media.
Since then, concerned consumers have taken to social media and encouraged others to #BoycottTimHortons to put pressure on the chain to reverse the changes. However, the company and its franchisees are blaming each other for the decision, a blowout that could turn a local story with a small protest into a national tale and public relations disaster.
After seeing the letter, Lundquist went into her usual Tim Hortons in Whitby, Ont., to ask whether they made similar cutbacks. She said she decided to stop frequenting it after an employee reluctantly told her they were no longer paid for breaks. Employees at the other three Tim Hortons on her commute into work told her they were instructed not to speak about it, she said, so she inferred similar changes were afoot and gave up her Tim Hortons teas.
Alan Harris decided to stop his near daily prework Tim Hortons stop for an extra-large coffee and old-fashioned plain doughnut in Windsor, Ont. in a gesture of solidarity.
Harris works in retail and saw his pay increase to the new minimum wage this year.
“I can deeply understand what it means to live paycheque to paycheque,” he said. Harris wants the boycott to put pressure on the corporation and franchisees to reintroduce the scaled-back benefits.

[Mellow Yellow]

Tim Horton's is owned by a Brazilian conglomerate...they don't give shit what Canadians think. They just want to milk the system.
Corporate sets the prices, supplies the product at inflated prices. There is a fight between 1000 Canadian franchisees and head office.

This will get ugly.

[r-model]

They got paid breaks??????? I have never gotten paid breaks anywhere!!!!

[Laffs]

They got paid breaks??????? I have never gotten paid breaks anywhere!!!!

This is my feeling. Honestly I'm in favour of what they did, if the government is going to mandate the level of compensation and benefits I need to provide I'm going to adhere to that and nothing more. Also I love the FUCKING FACT THAT IN SOME OF THESE STORIES THEY INTERVIEW PEOPLE WHO MAKE MINIMUM WAGE HAVE A GODDAMN MORNING TIM HORTONS ROUTINE. FOR FUCKS SAKE YOU IDIOTS IF YOU MAKE MINIMUM WAGE AND ARE COMPLAINING ABOUT SUPPORTING A LIVING CUT OUT THE GODDAMN EXPENSIVE MEAL BREAKS AND MAKE COFFEE AND BREAKFAST AT HOME. FUCK.

[Intmdtr]

I don’t see many people boycotting the government for causing business to have to take these measures. I mean can I stop paying taxes and such to show the government who’s boss (I fucking think not) Does everyone know that by increasing the minimum wage it actually sets you in a higher tax bracket? And therefore you work the same for less money yet again....the liberals will bleed us to the end......

[ZR]

^ Yes they most certainly will.

[5.4MarkVIII]

If you do the math the workers make out a little better than before but the government effectively doubled the amount of tax they were making off minimum wage earners.

[Laffs]

If you do the math the workers make out a little better than before but the government effectively doubled the amount of tax they were making off minimum wage earners.

Depends on the hours they worked before and after, in a lot of cases folks may enter a new tax bracket. It's a shit show designed for optics and revenue collections disguised as public interest.

[ZR]

Gary's post from earlier.

http://www.torontomustangclub.ca/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=11510&d=1515588990

[5.4MarkVIII]

Depends on the hours they worked before and after, in a lot of cases folks may enter a new tax bracket. It's a shit show designed for optics and revenue collections disguised as public interest.

Oh I totally agree with you. Was just reiterating the fact that it’s the government that is coming out on top here.

[Styrofoam04]

You also have to remember that its not Fat Cats in Brazil that are affected, its the Franchise owners. They're the ones taking the hit! They still have follow the set prices set by the corporation. They still have to buy the same stock. Pay the same lease and franchise fees (all of that is prolly going up too) and on top of that a huge 20% jump! That has to come somewhere!

Paid Breaks and Fully covered Benefits ?! Cry me a river! I don't get those and no one I know does either! I dint get a 20% raise to pay for everything going up?. There are people who've been working for 10-15 years starting at $7-8/hour only now making $14.. where's there 20%

You want to protest, then shove your signs up Wynne's ASS. Not Franchise owners!

My Aunt owns her own restaurant in a small town and this hit is cutting into her costs huge. That 20% she lost! Imagine losing 20% of your income. She not in Florida.. She at work 5am-5pm everyday. Most business' barely get by.. and same goes for Franchises! I guarantee there will be a lot of them closing down.

Most Franchise owners are just people trying to start and run a business but instead of starting from scratch they pay a corporation for the name and product.

My wife works at a bank and she talks with these owners every week and most of them don't know what to do

Congratulations!! You had it good for a while! Grow up!
/rant

[Burns]

I don’t see many people boycotting the government for causing business to have to take these measures. I mean can I stop paying taxes and such to show the government who’s boss (I fucking think not) Does everyone know that by increasing the minimum wage it actually sets you in a higher tax bracket? And therefore you work the same for less money yet again....the liberals will bleed us to the end......

^^^Quote of the day...instead of protesting at Tim Hortons they should head on down to Queens Park!

[RedSN]

Does everyone know that by increasing the minimum wage it actually sets you in a higher tax bracket? And therefore you work the same for less money yet again...
How many hours is a person on minimum wage working? i.e. how much income are they making per year?
Unless they are making more than $43k, they will not be paying a higher income tax rate. And even if they do make more than $43k, they only pay a slightly higher rate on the income above $43k. They aren't working for "less" money.

https://www.taxtips.ca/taxrates/canada.htm
https://www.taxtips.ca/taxrates/on.htm

Moving into a higher tax bracket is a GOOD thing. It means you are making more money.

[WTF]

let em boycott...imo

if it gets bad the franchisee will have to fire staff

if it gets real bad maybe just close up shop and leave 30 people unemployed

but...I have a suspicion that the loudest fucktards encouraging a boycott weren't even customers to begin with

[92redragtop]

How many hours is a person on minimum wage working? i.e. how much income are they making per year?
Unless they are making more than $43k, they will not be paying a higher income tax rate. And even if they do make more than $43k, they only pay a slightly higher rate on the income above $43k. They aren't working for "less" money.

https://www.taxtips.ca/taxrates/canada.htm
https://www.taxtips.ca/taxrates/on.htm

Moving into a higher tax bracket is a GOOD thing. It means you are making more money.

This post saved me a detailed post about the government winning and/or minimum wage earners paying more taxes. Unless the increase pushes their income above $45.3K into the next tax bracket their effective or marginal tax rates will not change (they will pay tax on the incremental dollars earned but typically at the same tax rate as before the increase unless they have other income to push them into a higher tax bracket). The incremental income is being directed from other taxpayers so the government will win only if the income is taxed higher (ie. higher bracket) in the hands of the minimum wage earners than in the hands of the people who were receiving that income before.

[92redragtop]

I don’t see many people boycotting the government for causing business to have to take these measures.

This is what elections are for - we'll see how Ontario votes at the next one but the Wynne machine is already setting the stage to paint themselves as the saviour of the "people".

[92redragtop]

Of course the unions are jumping in to support the government. From the G&M:

Labour organizations across Ontario are holding rallies today to protest the actions some Tim Hortons franchises have taken in response to an increase in the province's minimum wage.

[Laffs]

How many hours is a person on minimum wage working? i.e. how much income are they making per year?
Unless they are making more than $43k, they will not be paying a higher income tax rate. And even if they do make more than $43k, they only pay a slightly higher rate on the income above $43k. They aren't working for "less" money.

https://www.taxtips.ca/taxrates/canada.htm
https://www.taxtips.ca/taxrates/on.htm

Moving into a higher tax bracket is a GOOD thing. It means you are making more money.

Yes and no based on how you perceive it. It is a case of diminishing gains which many many people don't realize (not a case of change to taxation rate on entire income). When you correlate the effort vs reward technically you are making less for the work you perform after you hit $43,000 than you were below it. Overall yes still more, but the reward for the jump is less.

To go from making $41500 to $42500 results in a change in after tax income of $35349 to $36266 which means you got an additional $917 for the 67 hours of work at $15 an hour you performed (So an effective wage of $13.69 an hour). To then go from $42500 to $43500 results in a change in after tax income of $36266 to $36985 which means you received an additional $719 for the additional 67 hours at $15 an hour for that jump (An effective wage of $10.73 an hour).

FWIW it's worth I only raised my initial tax bracket jump since it all it would take to eclipses it is an employee working 49 hours a week at $15hr to make enough to enter the next bracket.

[92redragtop]

Yes and no based on how you perceive it. It is a case of diminishing gains which many many people don't realize (not a case of change to taxation rate on entire income). When you correlate the effort vs reward technically you are making less for the work you perform after you hit $43,000 than you were below it. Overall yes still more, but the reward for the jump is less.

To go from making $41500 to $42500 results in a change in after tax income of $35349 to $36266 which means you got an additional $917 for the 67 hours of work at $15 an hour you performed (So an effective wage of $13.69 an hour). To then go from $42500 to $43500 results in a change in after tax income of $36266 to $36985 which means you received an additional $719 for the additional 67 hours at $15 an hour for that jump (An effective wage of $10.73 an hour).

FWIW it's worth I only raised my initial tax bracket jump since it all it would take to eclipses it is an employee working 49 hours a week at $15hr to make enough to enter the next bracket.

I didn't re-check your calcs but I assume you're using marginal tax rate methodology on the amount above the next bracket threshold...or no?

To Don's point, on an absolute basis you are making more as you move up through the progressive brackets (except for some small should ranges) so whether it's worth the effort to do so comes down to opportunity cost of that additional work time.

[Laffs]

I didn't re-check your calcs but I assume you're using marginal tax rate methodology on the amount above the next bracket threshold...or no?

To Don's point, on an absolute basis you are making more as you move up through the progressive brackets (except for some small should ranges) so whether it's worth the effort to do so comes down to opportunity cost of that additional work time.

Correct on both accounts.

EDIT, I'm not diminishing Don's points at all either. To reinforce actually in the example of someone earning $11.40 under the old min wage structure would have taken home $29038 working 49 hours a week. At the $15 an hour wage those same hours will get them to $37417 after tax, an $8,379 increase despite jumping in to the next tax bracket. A 28% jump, nothing to sneeze at. Interestingly the government would collect an additional $2198 in tax, a 49% increase. Draw your own conclusions at that.

[RedSN]

Yes and no based on how you perceive it.
I perceive it mathematically.

But I get what you are saying about diminishing return for effort.
There is a false perception that being "pushed" into a higher tax bracket means you are going to take home less money than you were before.

[Laffs]

I perceive it mathematically.

But I get what you are saying about diminishing return for effort.
There is a false perception that being "pushed" into a higher tax bracket means you are going to take home less money than you were before.

Correct, I attempted to clarify that in my edit above and reinforce the reason I mentioned tax brackets to begin with.

[92redragtop]

Correct on both accounts.

EDIT, I'm not diminishing Don's points at all either. To reinforce actually in the example of someone earning $11.40 under the old min wage structure would have taken home $29038 working 49 hours a week. At the $15 an hour wage those same hours will get them to $37417 after tax, an $8,379 increase despite jumping in to the next tax bracket. A 28% jump, nothing to sneeze at. Interestingly the government would collect an additional $2198 in tax, a 49% increase. Draw your own conclusions at that.

Got it. I get different numbers when I run your example using a 20.05% combined (Fed/ON including surtax) tax rate on the before and after scenarios but in the end I think we both agree that this Liberal government continues to attempt to sink us.

[ZR]

You can guarantee they ran n analyzed the numbers before deciding on how much and how soon before implementing. Gotta give em kudo's for managing their own agenda all the while deflecting blame onto someone else.

[5.4MarkVIII]

. Gotta give em kudo's for managing their own agenda all the while deflecting blame onto someone else.

They have mastered this.

[RedSN]

....an $8,379 [annual] increase despite jumping in to the next tax bracket.
Thanks for running the numbers.

[Biz]

I cant remember who (possibly Tim) once did a Timmy's breakfast sandwich review.
Was something like this.
As a sandwich 6/10
As a laxative 10/10
http://www.pic4ever.com/images/loudlaff.gif

[RedSN]

despite jumping in to the next tax bracket

Thanks for running the numbers.
LOL, it was pointed out to me that in your example, you would still be in the low income tax bracket.

You're going to have to work more than 55 hrs per week at minimum wage before you have to worry about moving into the next tax bracket.

[Mellow Yellow]

I perceive it mathematically.

But I get what you are saying about diminishing return for effort.
There is a false perception that being "pushed" into a higher tax bracket means you are going to take home less money than you were before.

With all these calculations there has been no mention of the increase in CPP deducted (2.475% of increase) and matched by the employer or EI deducted (1.66% 0f increase) and matched by the employer at 1.4 time the employee deduction. Oh and don't forget the threshold for paying the Ontario Health Premium may change for the employee. This is 6% on income above $20,000 and at $36,000 income it becomes 6% over the $36,000 plus $300, maximum is $750.

These mandated deductions increase as gross increases to a maximum that is higher than the numbers stated in the examples.

[Scrape]

http://business.financialpost.com/opinion/jack-mintz-sorry-ontarians-wynnes-wage-hike-is-going-to-penalize-you-all?campaign_id=A100

(http://business.financialpost.com/opinion/jack-mintz-sorry-ontarians-wynnes-wage-hike-is-going-to-penalize-you-all?campaign_id=A100)Jack Mintz: Sorry, Ontarians. Wynne’s wage hike is going to penalize you all
Time and again politicians stick us with policies that create more harm than good. And now Ontario’s harmful policy to drive up minimum wages has led to a dustup over between Premier Kathleen Wynne and members of Tim Hortons’ founding family, Ron Joyce Jr. and his wife, Jeri-Lynn Horton-Joyce, who own two stores in Cobourg, Ont.
Wynne says the Joyce family is a “bully” for adjusting to her forced minimum-wage increase — from $11.60 to $14 beginning this month — by cutting back staff benefits (including coffee breaks, ironically enough). Tim Hortons’ corporate parent company, Restaurant Brands International, fearing a customer backlash, cowered, and denounced the benefit rollbacks as the “reckless” actions of “a few restaurant owners … (who) do not reflect the value of our brand.”

And here I thought Tim Hortons’ brand was about selling good coffee and donuts at low prices to the broad public. Maybe the family that founded the company made the mistake of thinking that, too. Sure, it’s easy to call franchisees mean names for trying to cut labour costs to counter the impact of higher minimum wages. But the alternative is that other franchisees have instead started raising prices, as reported by the CBC. Supposedly we’re to think that’s the nicer response, yet no one points out that this also hurts consumers, many of whom are also poor or working poor. From what I see in various downtown Tim Hortons outlets, some customers are homeless. Is it fair that they should lose more of their money? There’s no free Tim Hortons lunch here.
Ontario’s 21-per-cent minimum-wage hike — set to rise another seven per cent to $15 next year — is simply “yuge” in Trump terms. The 2017 minimum wage of $11.60 an hour translates into a yearly salary of $24,000 (assuming vacation time and no other benefits). That’s an income many senior citizens would love to have. By 2019, the same employee will be receiving roughly $31,000 annually.

Now consider that Ontario’s median employee earnings for someone who slogged for years to gain an apprenticeship in a skilled trade are $37,000 (including non-pension benefits), which is about $18 per hour. That’s not drastically higher than the 2019 minimum wage before benefits. So, if someone with little education is getting $15 per hour plus some benefits, why would workers bother putting in the time and effort to get a better-skilled apprenticeship? Meanwhile, the workers who will be increasingly shut out of minimum-wage jobs will be those who bring the lowest skill value, including youths and immigrants.
Not everyone believes that, of course. In 2015, defending her hikes to Alberta’s minimum wage, Premier Rachel Notley claimed that “copious studies” show that higher minimum wages increase employment. That argument — based on the idea that putting money in workers’ hands, rather than investors’, raises aggregate demand for more workers — is actually based primarily on one study that was later refuted with better data. It’s also intuitively nonsensical; otherwise Notley could have quadrupled minimum wages to $60 to put unemployed Albertans’ back to work after the oil-price crash.
Job lossesEconomists generally agree that minimum wages cause job losses, even if the impact may not be significant in some cases, but most studies underestimate the losses by looking at short-term rather than long-term effects. Research suggests job losses are heaviest in slow-growing economies or when minimum wages are already high relative to median wages. (A new study by the Bank of Canada suggests the job losses in Ontario caused by the wage hikes will range from 30,000 to 130,000, but those are incorrectly based on marginal changes, rather than large changes in the minimum wage.)
But whatever the studies say, the fact is someone has to pay for higher labour costs. Employers really only have three options: lower profits, raise prices or reduce wages and benefits.
Obviously, those on the left want the first option, since they see business owners as bottomless money pits who should absorb the wage hike themselves. But that’s not how the world works. Investors — including worker pension funds — can choose to invest in Ontario or somewhere else. If an Ontario business is earning poor profits, owners will shift their money to greener pastures, and over time, Ontario workers will get relatively lower pay and benefits. Any owner who tries staying put with weak profits wouldn’t be able to raise capital to replace or upgrade equipment or fund expansion or innovations to maintain market share.
OptionsThen there’s the second option: raising prices. Not only does this hurt workers by immediately reducing the purchasing power of everyone’s money, it makes it harder for local manufacturers and producers (like farmers) to compete with imports. Ultimately both owners and workers bear the cost as businesses lose market share.
That leaves the third option: paying workers less. Minimum-wage rules don’t cover benefits, so employers can react to higher hourly wages by cutting commissions, health plans or retirement benefits. Or they can introduce automation that will save on labour costs. The way technology is going, it might not be long before Ontarians are ordering their burgers with iPhones, delivered by robots.
So ultimately, who pays most for minimum wage hikes? Workers of all incomes do. The public economic literature is full of studies that show that whether it’s employer- or employee-paid taxes on payroll — and mandated minimum wages are no different, even if some workers gain while others lose — the result is always lower wages through either reductions in salaries or benefits or both.
We should welcome policies that actually help the working poor get more money. There are ways to do that, like increasing education, and eliminating excessive marginal tax rates and benefit clawbacks, some of which exceed 100 per cent. But raising wage floors doesn’t help. It only makes things worse for workers.


(http://business.financialpost.com/opinion/jack-mintz-sorry-ontarians-wynnes-wage-hike-is-going-to-penalize-you-all?campaign_id=A100)

[Biz]

This online calculator has this after all Ontario deductions:

$14.00/hr @ 40hrs = $461.99 a week
$11.00/hr @ 40hrs = $374.81 a week

$24,023.48 new
$19,490.12 old

$4533.36 a year more if that calculator is correct.







https://www.paymentevolution.com/payrollcalculator

[Intmdtr]

One must remember, minimum wage is not enough to survive on. I know several people working more then 1 job @ minimum wage, and some put in anywhere from 60-80hr/s a week. Good for them to put in the effort, but with the increase in minimum wage some have stated their hours are now being cut back, and will need to find other employment as a solution. Some of these individuals will be up into the next bracket.

[5.4MarkVIII]

Multipul business in our area can’t find employees. All paying above even the new minimum wage.
My neighbour said that that a few of them are getting together to look into the possibility of offering housing to bring in off shore workers becasie they can’t find anyone here that wants to show up and work.

Rough figuring is at least 200 jobs.

Manufacturing place got In resumes. Called dozens of people, 8 called back and signed up for orientation. Only 4 actually showed up for the orientation. And after the end of the first week only one was showing up for his shift.

Another place said they have done well over 200 Interviews in the last 2years. Got one guys that’s stuck around.

My brother came back from out west. And handed out multipule resumes. Got multipule job offers.

Anyone crying about being stuck on minimum or not being able to find better work needs to seriously look at themselves and ask why.

[Screw]

let em boycott...imo

if it gets bad the franchisee will have to fire staff

if it gets real bad maybe just close up shop and leave 30 people unemployed

but...I have a suspicion that the loudest fucktards encouraging a boycott weren't even customers to begin with

Your prolly right !

[WTF]

maybe these pros in the media should ask these protesters how they would react if their cellphone bills were jacked by 22%.....and then an additional 7% next year

what the fuck would these SJWs sacrifice to compensate for that increase?

I can already hear the "but, but, but, um, grrr, ahh, umm...but"

buncha fucktards

[5.4MarkVIII]

I just ask them if they would be okay taking a 21% pay cut to help somone who makes less.

So far not one person has said okay.

[Screw]

Gary's post from earlier.

http://www.torontomustangclub.ca/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=11510&d=1515588990

Share for truth

[Ponyryd]

Of course the unions are jumping in to support the government. From the G&M:

Labour organizations across Ontario are holding rallies today to protest the actions some Tim Hortons franchises have taken in response to an increase in the province's minimum wage.

That has nothing to do with supporting the government, more like supporting the workers who are losing perks, since that’s what unions are supposed to be about after all.

[83 5.0]

Multipul business in our area can’t find employees. All paying above even the new minimum wage.
My neighbour said that that a few of them are getting together to look into the possibility of offering housing to bring in off shore workers becasie they can’t find anyone here that wants to show up and work.

Rough figuring is at least 200 jobs.

Manufacturing place got In resumes. Called dozens of people, 8 called back and signed up for orientation. Only 4 actually showed up for the orientation. And after the end of the first week only one was showing up for his shift.

Another place said they have done well over 200 Interviews in the last 2years. Got one guys that’s stuck around.

My brother came back from out west. And handed out multipule resumes. Got multipule job offers.

Anyone crying about being stuck on minimum or not being able to find better work needs to seriously look at themselves and ask why.

Funny, our company has had difficulty this week finding through our broker 2 53 ft trailers/drivers to bring materials up from Chicago this week. Seems there are a shortage of drivers/trucks due to the hotter than expected economy south of the border.
Good debate on this forum on this topic. If the Liberals were not in desperation mode to implement this so quickly, I would say it is a good thing . They have only been in power over 12+ years, couldn't they have implemented it more gradually so business could adjust? Shows Kathleens desperation to stay in power

[92redragtop]

That has nothing to do with supporting the government, more like supporting the workers who are losing perks, since that’s what unions are supposed to be about after all.

Given this province's unions are attached at the hip to Wynne and her government, I would say they are out there in support of the election process already (payback for past and/or upcoming collective bargaining perks).

[Ponyryd]

It’s entirely possible that everyone in power is corrupt, but I’d like to believe otherwise.
Unions supposed to protect the worker, Tim’s workers are not unionized but the union still sees it as unfair. That’s my take on it, until proven otherwise.

[ZR]

Nothing takes the mob’s mind off one’s own indefensible and appalling misconduct quite like shaming some other villain.
Ontario Labour Minister Kevin Flynn tried to do just that Monday in a stunning, self-serving farce of a press conference where he threatened, bullied and promised to publicly out Ontario businesses for wrongs they haven’t, and are wholly unlikely, to commit.
A reality check to follow, first the latest news.
Flynn called a press conference Monday in the wake of Premier Kathleen Wynne’s adversarial tweet last week directed at a Cobourg Tim Hortons franchise owned by the children of the donut empire’s billionaire co-founders, who planned to claw back paid meals and other benefits from staff there in response to the Liberals hiking the minimum wage to $14-an-hour this year, and $15 next.
Wynne tweeted how “upset” she was and said if franchise owner Ron Joyce Jr. “wants to pick a fight I urge him to leave his employees out of it. I’m right here,” then publicly called his purported cost-saving plan “the act of a bully.”

<iframe name="fsk_frame_splitbox" id="fsk_frame_splitbox" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="" webkitallowfullscreen="" mozallowfullscreen="" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border-width: initial; border-style: none; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-size: inherit; line-height: inherit; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; -webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; max-width: 100%; width: 580px; height: 346px;"></iframe>

Several other Timmies subsequently suggested they might follow Joyce Jr’s lead, and one Tim Hortons in Scarborough allegedly told staff they planned to ban tipping, or would require all tips to go straight into the till, which isn’t allowed under provincial law.
That may have been the straw that motivated Wynne and Flynn to declare war on every miserly miscreant running a business in the province.
“You can’t break the law in the province of Ontario,” Flynn fumed Monday. “You have to pay the minimum wage.”
He suggested “some employers are abandoning the spirit of this legislation, and some may even be doing more than that,” but didn’t bother to elaborate.
“The stories we’ve all heard over the past week have not only been disappointing but, quite frankly, they’ve made the premier, myself and others in this province angry,” he said.
“For some businesses to take it out on their workers, however, is completely unacceptable,” he said. “And it’s simply wrong. It’s the act of bullies that has no place in this province.”
In response to the villainy perceived at Tims and elsewhere, Flynn vowed to hire up to 175 inspectors to crack down on businesses to ensure they implement the Liberal government’s new $14-an-hour minimum wage.
And he promised to publicly shame and name those who violate new labour rules.
Now for the reality check.


No business is refusing to pay the new minimum wage or suggesting they’ll break the law. They are looking for ways to legally offset what the Canadian Centre for Economic Analysis describes as “a $23-billion cost challenge over two years” for Ontario businesses and an estimate by Ontario’s Financial Accountability Office that 50,000 people could lose their jobs here if the accelerated minimum wage hikes proceeds.
The Coburg Tim Hortons isn’t required under Ontario law to pay staff during lunch breaks. They had been doing so and told staff they were ending that benefit and others to offset the new wage hikes. The suggestion this violates the “spirit” of the new minimum wage is ridiculous, self-serving hyperbole from a government that’s had 14 years to help low-income workers and decided, virtually months before an election, to force businesses to help bankroll their abysmal election prospects.
One Tim Hortons franchise made a dumb proposal to put tips in the till, probably because they didn’t know any better. This sort of thing happens routinely and is routinely dealt with by the labour ministry. It’s not a conspiracy.
If Flynn makes good on his ridiculous threat to use up to 175 inspectors (that may include 100 new ones) it would by our rough, conservative calculation easily cost the government $10.5 million or more annually (175 x a modest $60,000 annual civil service salary) to police, among other things, its minimum wage law.

Wynne and Flynn are the real villains in this tedious tale, yet another example of a politically and morally bankrupt Liberal government resorting to bullying, the politics of division and virtue shaming to save their own skins.
Shame on them.
And shame on you if you let them fool you.

[92redragtop]

It’s entirely possible that everyone in power is corrupt, but I’d like to believe otherwise.
Unions supposed to protect the worker, Tim’s workers are not unionized but the union still sees it as unfair. That’s my take on it, until proven otherwise.

There is also opportunity for more union revenue (dues) as a result of this which is really what the modern union business model is about.

[Ponyryd]

There is also opportunity for more union revenue (dues) as a result of this which is really what the modern union business model is about.

Pretty sure they’re more about taking care of their workers, other than the just making money, it is a business though so yes they do need to make money at the end of the day.
Sure they will make more money, if businesses actually stay open and have union employees, but most minimum wage people aren’t in a union. But it may go the other way and cause closures instead, especially big places, which will likely go overseas and put many out of a job.

[83 5.0]

Pretty rich that Wynne and her mafia calling Timmies owners bullies.

[Quicksilver]

All there people protesting individual Timmie's outlets simply don't understand the owner's frustration.
An individual buys a Timmie's franchise. That franchise costs approximately $50,000. by itself. Then, the purchaser has to have approximately $500,000 to $1,000,000 in cash or credit to get their store up and running.
Out of the revenues, they have to pay their franchise fees, which includes approximately 5% of gross revenue, plus another percentage for advertising. After this, they have to service their debt. If they don't pay themselves back their out of pocket investment, as well as paying back the inevitable business loan, then all they have done is effectively bought themselves a job.

Then, according to their franchise contract, they have to buy ALL of their food, paperwork, cups, spoons, packaging, posters, uniforms, EVERYTHING, from Tim Hortons, the franchisor, at whatever prices Timmie's sets.
After all this, they have to obey copious numbers of rules and regulations to put out a consistent quality of product.
All of this costs a certain amount of money. Nothing wrong with rules and procedures. After all, that;s why one buys a franchise: to learn all the tried and true ways to run a business profitably.
On top of all this, the main franchisor sets the prices they can sell at. Selling for more, or selling product not approved by the franchisor can result the loss of their franchise.

Now to the gist of the matter. The minimum wage has gone up by $2.40/hr. On top of that there is 4% vacation pay; another 4% holiday pay (Christmas, New years, etc), employer's share of CPP, EI, medical benefits, uniforms, and whatnot. This adds up to more than 20% of base pay, so that $2.40 is really about $2.90.

The average Timmies has 35 employees, although they don't always work at the same time. I have gone into many Timmie's and counted as many as 8 people behind the counter, with probably 3 or 4 more behind closed doors.
For argument's sake, lets just say (arbitrarily, and just for simplicity), that the store has a minimum of 5 employees working at any one time. If the store is open 24/7, then that is 840 working manhours every week. At almost $3.00/hr increase that comes to $2520/wk, or $131,040 a year in extra wages.
This is a very basic model, and if anything probably way under reality, but please tell me, Mr. protester, and especially Ms Wynne. How the hell is a franchisee, who cannot control what he pays for his product, and who's control of prices is completely out of his hands, cover $130,000 A YEAR in extra expense? That is likely more than his annual gross profit.
No wonder businesses are panicking about their futures, and considering labour cutbacks, and not paying for breaks, lunches, uniforms and such.
Going back to one of my recent threads, this is a major reason why I use subcontractors and pay piecework for my labour. And for those who are interested, my rates come out to more or less triple the minimum wage.

[Mellow Yellow]

All there people protesting individual Timmie's outlets simply don't understand the owner's frustration.
An individual buys a Timmie's franchise. That franchise costs approximately $50,000. by itself. Then, the purchaser has to have approximately $500,000 to $1,000,000 in cash or credit to get their store up and running.
Out of the revenues, they have to pay their franchise fees, which includes approximately 5% of gross revenue, plus another percentage for advertising. After this, they have to service their debt. If they don't pay themselves back their out of pocket investment, as well as paying back the inevitable business loan, then all they have done is effectively bought themselves a job.

Then, according to their franchise contract, they have to buy ALL of their food, paperwork, cups, spoons, packaging, posters, uniforms, EVERYTHING, from Tim Hortons, the franchisor, at whatever prices Timmie's sets.
After all this, they have to obey copious numbers of rules and regulations to put out a consistent quality of product.
All of this costs a certain amount of money. Nothing wrong with rules and procedures. After all, that;s why one buys a franchise: to learn all the tried and true ways to run a business profitably.
On top of all this, the main franchisor sets the prices they can sell at. Selling for more, or selling product not approved by the franchisor can result the loss of their franchise.

Now to the gist of the matter. The minimum wage has gone up by $2.40/hr. On top of that there is 4% vacation pay; another 4% holiday pay (Christmas, New years, etc), employer's share of CPP, EI, medical benefits, uniforms, and whatnot. This adds up to more than 20% of base pay, so that $2.40 is really about $2.90.

The average Timmies has 35 employees, although they don't always work at the same time. I have gone into many Timmie's and counted as many as 8 people behind the counter, with probably 3 or 4 more behind closed doors.
For argument's sake, lets just say (arbitrarily, and just for simplicity), that the store has a minimum of 5 employees working at any one time. If the store is open 24/7, then that is 840 working manhours every week. At almost $3.00/hr increase that comes to $2520/wk, or $131,040 a year in extra wages.
This is a very basic model, and if anything probably way under reality, but please tell me, Mr. protester, and especially Ms Wynne. How the hell is a franchisee, who cannot control what he pays for his product, and who's control of prices is completely out of his hands, cover $130,000 A YEAR in extra expense? That is likely more than his annual gross profit.
No wonder businesses are panicking about their futures, and considering labour cutbacks, and not paying for breaks, lunches, uniforms and such.
Going back to one of my recent threads, this is a major reason why I use subcontractors and pay piecework for my labour. And for those who are interested, my rates come out to more or less triple the minimum wage.

To consider this further....if (and I have no idea) the franchisee is able to make $1 per average cup of coffee, that means that the the store has to sell an additional 360 cups of coffee in a day just to cover this extra cost.

If they make $0.50 per cup then they now have to sell 720 extra cups of coffee each and every day. I have a feeling they make even less than that so do the math.

[92redragtop]

All there people protesting individual Timmie's outlets simply don't understand the owner's frustration.
An individual buys a Timmie's franchise. That franchise costs approximately $50,000. by itself. Then, the purchaser has to have approximately $500,000 to $1,000,000 in cash or credit to get their store up and running.
Out of the revenues, they have to pay their franchise fees, which includes approximately 5% of gross revenue, plus another percentage for advertising. After this, they have to service their debt. If they don't pay themselves back their out of pocket investment, as well as paying back the inevitable business loan, then all they have done is effectively bought themselves a job.

Then, according to their franchise contract, they have to buy ALL of their food, paperwork, cups, spoons, packaging, posters, uniforms, EVERYTHING, from Tim Hortons, the franchisor, at whatever prices Timmie's sets.
After all this, they have to obey copious numbers of rules and regulations to put out a consistent quality of product.
All of this costs a certain amount of money. Nothing wrong with rules and procedures. After all, that;s why one buys a franchise: to learn all the tried and true ways to run a business profitably.
On top of all this, the main franchisor sets the prices they can sell at. Selling for more, or selling product not approved by the franchisor can result the loss of their franchise.

Now to the gist of the matter. The minimum wage has gone up by $2.40/hr. On top of that there is 4% vacation pay; another 4% holiday pay (Christmas, New years, etc), employer's share of CPP, EI, medical benefits, uniforms, and whatnot. This adds up to more than 20% of base pay, so that $2.40 is really about $2.90.

The average Timmies has 35 employees, although they don't always work at the same time. I have gone into many Timmie's and counted as many as 8 people behind the counter, with probably 3 or 4 more behind closed doors.
For argument's sake, lets just say (arbitrarily, and just for simplicity), that the store has a minimum of 5 employees working at any one time. If the store is open 24/7, then that is 840 working manhours every week. At almost $3.00/hr increase that comes to $2520/wk, or $131,040 a year in extra wages.
This is a very basic model, and if anything probably way under reality, but please tell me, Mr. protester, and especially Ms Wynne. How the hell is a franchisee, who cannot control what he pays for his product, and who's control of prices is completely out of his hands, cover $130,000 A YEAR in extra expense? That is likely more than his annual gross profit.
No wonder businesses are panicking about their futures, and considering labour cutbacks, and not paying for breaks, lunches, uniforms and such.
Going back to one of my recent threads, this is a major reason why I use subcontractors and pay piecework for my labour. And for those who are interested, my rates come out to more or less triple the minimum wage.

I believe Tim Horton franchises cost a lot more than $50K plus the cost of the facility/equipment so the "small" business owners are in debt for a while after they launch, and have to pay ongoing franchise royalties and marketing fees so the 6-figure increase on the average location is a hard pill to swallow.

[5.4MarkVIII]

I believe Tim Horton franchises cost a lot more than $50K plus the cost of the facility/equipment so the "small" business owners are in debt for a while after they launch, and have to pay ongoing franchise royalties and marketing fees so the 6-figure increase on the average location is a hard pill to swallow.

Yeah one artical the other day said 1.5 mill and another 500k in liquid assets to open a Tim’s.

[92redragtop]

Yeah one artical the other day said 1.5 mill and another 500k in liquid assets to open a Tim’s.

That sounds about right especially for high demand areas plus they're paying a royalty percentage from each sale (essentially) to the franchisor.

[Quicksilver]

The actual franchise fee itself is generally fairly low. About 8 years ago I was that close to franchising my own business, and after lots of research the most common franchise fee (at the time) for almost every business in every catagory, was $25,000. Even McDonalds was around that amount. Of course, after that were training fees, equipment fees, management fees to oversee the construction of the store, fees for this and fees for that. The most successful franchisors even did payroll and bookkeeping (remotely) for the individual franchisee. For more fees of course.

[92redragtop]

Found this on the web. I think the royalty is now up to 6%.

https://www.timhortons.com/ca/en/pdf/Franchise-Information-Package-en.pdf

Franchising Program
Franchise Cost: $480,000 to $510,000* plus all applicable taxes (this includes a drive-thru)
Additional Working Capital: (start-up costs) $50,000 (unencumbered)
At least $153,000 of the franchise cost must be unencumbered (cash or liquid assets) in
addition to the $50,000 working capital that must also be unencumbered. The remaining
amount may be financed through various lending programs offered by the chartered banks,
providing, of course, the candidate meets the normal borrowing requirements.
The specific cost of a Tim Hortons license will depend upon the Tim Hortons building size and
the required furnishings and equipment to be installed. The cost of a Tim Hortons license may
exceed $510,000 in certain locations due to higher development costs.
Included in the cost of a franchise is the following:
 All equipment, furniture, display equipment and signage
 Seven (7) week training program in the Oakville, Ontario, at Tim Hortons University
 A Restaurant opening crew/Manager of Operations Standards (MOS) to assist the
opening of the Tim Hortons Restaurant (for a maximum period of two weeks)
 The use of all Tim Hortons Manuals
 Right to use trademarks and trade names
 Support from head office personnel who have vast knowledge in the food service
business
Not included in the cost of the franchise:
 The building (responsibility of the TDL Group)
 The property that the Restaurant is built (responsibility of the TDL Group)
The term of the License agreement is usually 10 years and usually with options to renew for up
to a further period of 10 years.
*Subject to change without notice.
Copyright of Tim Hortons. All rights reserved.
Royalties
In addition to the initial investment, on-going payments (plus applicable taxes) are
required as follows:*
 A weekly royalty fee of 4.5% of gross sales for the term of the license
 A monthly rental that is the greater of a fixed minimum rent or 8.5% of monthly
gross sales
 A monthly advertising levy of 4% of gross sales for the term of the license

[92redragtop]

This looks like it's US-based but Canada should be similar or higher I would think. I guess the correct terminology would be start-up cost or initial investment to open a location versus just "franchise cost/fee" which is only one of the costs related to having one of these brand locations.

Opening a McDonald's: Franchise Costs and Requirements
https://www.thebalance.com › Small Business › Franchises › Popular Franchises
Apr 27, 2017 - Individuals with additional funds may be better prepared for additional or multi-restaurant opportunities, which McDonald's encourages. As of 2016, the initial investment varies from $1,003,000 to $2,228,000, with a liquid cash requirement of $500.000. There is also an initial franchise fee of $45,000.

[5.4MarkVIII]

Thought the blowback from this was over but today my media sources are abuz again about protests and crooked business owners.

I was confused. What did the media jump back on this?
Has something changed?
Perhaps something else is going on in the Provence.


Surprise surprise. Today is suppose to be the verdict reading for the pawns that are taking the fall on the gas plant scandal.

[92redragtop]

Thought the blowback from this was over but today my media sources are abuz again about protests and crooked business owners.

I was confused. What did the media jump back on this?
Has something changed?
Perhaps something else is going on in the Provence.


Surprise surprise. Today is suppose to be the verdict reading for the pawns that are taking the fall on the gas plant scandal.

The big unions appear to be pushing this back to the forefront otherwise it would fade away. These guys are behind the protests which are being hosted by some of the big unions in various locations. The organization is pretty murky in terms of who created it but all the big unions have sections/media on their own websites about it (ie. 15and fairness).

http://www.15andfairness.org/national_day_of_action_tim_hortons

[92redragtop]

Is Kathleen Wynne and her big union buddies winning their campaign against Tim Hortons? Smaller businesses may be next - they've hired some of those new "inspectors" already with more to come.

From the G&M:

Anger over minimum-wage response could pose threat to Tim Hortons brand

On Friday, roughly 50 protests were planned across Canada in response to the cuts; a social-media campaign is encouraging a boycott. The brand, meanwhile, has become a political punching bag for an unpopular Ontario premier: Kathleen Wynne has accused some franchise owners of treating employees as "pawns."

The question is whether all the negative publicity could inflict lasting damage to the brand. The issue of employee perks comes on the heels of a bitter battle between store owners and the parent company over cost-cutting and alleged mismanagement.

[83 5.0]

gas plant scandal, what gas plant scandal?
Newstalk 1010 runs an audio clip of Wynne saying "Knives, I don't see any knives" when she was asked if there was any one pushing her out.
Wynne and the Unions have found their whipping boy in Tim Hortons. Unfortunately the Franchisees don't have the bottomless well of taxpayers money to fall back on.
Hasn't stopped my large double double in the morning

[ZR]

Stepping up her words again Tim's franchise owners again yesterday. Nice how she goes on n on about other small business's have taken it in stride with no complaints, guess they can't afford to defend themselves against our elected govt'd and their bottomless / our pocket book.

[Armen]

Grocery shopping at Sobey's gives you a .04 cents off coupon up to 74 litres, if anyone is interested.

[Ponyryd]

What station?

[5.4MarkVIII]

Stepping up her words again Tim's franchise owners again yesterday. Nice how she goes on n on about other small business's have taken it in stride with no complaints, guess they can't afford to defend themselves against our elected govt'd and their bottomless / our pocket book.

I think that was her plan. I know quite a few small business that are tricked and don’t know what to do. Don’t cut costs. And where does the money come from.
Cut cost and risk the backlash that Tim’s is seeing. Tim’s will survive. Smaller business would not.

[Ponyryd]

^Screw the risk, many businesses are not sustainable with the new wages unless you raise your prices substantially. Business owners need to come together and all raise prices/slash benefits so Tim’s doesn’t look like the bad guy-Wynne does.


The big unions appear to be pushing this back to the forefront otherwise it would fade away. These guys are behind the protests which are being hosted by some of the big unions in various locations. The organization is pretty murky in terms of who created it but all the big unions have sections/media on their own websites about it (ie. 15and fairness).

http://www.15andfairness.org/national_day_of_action_tim_hortons

This is so stupid. I really wish I could go to all the stores they’re protesting at, put on a Wynne mask and drink a Tim’s coffee in front of them.

[Armen]

What station?

Sorry... Shell and this should have been in the gas prices thread, lol. Wrong clicky.

[5.4MarkVIII]

^Screw the risk, many businesses are not sustainable with the new wages unless you raise your prices substantially. Business owners need to come together and all raise prices/slash benefits so Tim’s doesn’t look like the bad guy-Wynne does.
.


I don’t disagree.

I only had one employee that was making less than 15. That employee wasn’t worth more and has cost me thousand upon thousand in sales. Over the last couple years.

She no longer works for us. And we gave more hours to another employee that was pet time to avoid having to hire someone else.

I’m already hearing about how it’s minimum is going to be 15 and hour and how my current employees who make 15 expect a raise. Won’t do all the extra work they do if they are only making minimum.


I can’t raid my prices becasie they are set by the manufacture. And my direct competition big box stores. They aren’t raising prices. They are reducing staff and putting in more self checkouts.

[Ponyryd]

^Tough situation, and I empathize, I would definitely not want to own a business at this point.

I’m faced with this as well although on a different level-contract negotiations. I’m sure everyone in my bargaining unit will want a raise (me included), and that’s not gonna go over well with the owners.

[bluetoy]

I don't drink coffee or eat doughnuts but I think I am going to go to Tim Hortons to get a coffee to show my support in their fight against the lie-beral dictatorship.

[Mellow Yellow]

This probably isn't practical for you but I suspect will happen elsewhere

if an employee was making $15/hr prior to the new Wynne tax and now expects a 20% raise similar to the bottom end workers, that employee get's fired and replaced with a new worker at $15/hr

this assumes common capability and interchangeability of people, and has zero empathy for the effect of fired workers

I honestly think that strategy would backfire. I'm sure the employees could get together and initiate a law suit for wrongful dismissal.
Why did you let them go when they did nothing wrong. You need a written history of any indiscretions with remedial action and signed by the employee and with continued indiscretions if you want to let them go and hire someone else even if its not at a lower wages.

[92redragtop]

I honestly think that strategy would backfire. I'm sure the employees could get together and initiate a law suit for wrongful dismissal.
Why did you let them go when they did nothing wrong. You need a written history of any indiscretions with remedial action and signed by the employee and with continued indiscretions if you want to let them go and hire someone else even if its not at a lower wages.

I don't think you don't need a reason if you give proper notice and severance (if eligible). Most companies that know what they're doing will give a little extra which makes it almost impossible for a court to rule against the company (any decent labour lawyer would advise a prospective claimant of this).

[Mellow Yellow]

I don't think you don't need a reason if you give proper notice and severance (if eligible). Most companies that know what they're doing will give a little extra which makes it almost impossible for a court to rule against the company (any decent labour lawyer would advise a prospective claimant of this).

And what are you going to put on the record of employment?

Fired - what reason - also former employee cannot collect unemployment insurance when fired for cause or when they quit.

Lack of work - but you hired someone else

There are many cases that have gone to court. To protect themselves employers have hired labour lawyers.....have you ever seen how large those bills are? Might as well retain the worker and pay the extra.

[92redragtop]

And what are you going to put on the record of employment?

Fired - what reason - also former employee cannot collect unemployment insurance when fired for cause or when they quit.

Lack of work - but you hired someone else

There are many cases that have gone to court. To protect themselves employers have hired labour lawyers.....have you ever seen how large those bills are? Might as well retain the worker and pay the extra.

You can separate employment "without cause" as long as you compensate appropriately - you don't need a reason related to performance. One company I've worked at was regularly hit with Ontario Human Rights Board complaints and lawsuits about firings but they always compensated higher than the law recommended so the cases never went anywhere. My manager (CEO of a TSX listed company) once asked me to let someone go because he didn't like how she looked. I've had to do "with cause", "without cause", downsizing layoffs, etc., so have worked closely with HR and lawyers on these aspects over the years. The companies that get in trouble tend to pay inadequately or at the minimum the law requires which opens the door for legal interpretation and maneuvering about age, gender, level in company, industry specialization, etc.

[Harbinger]

Most of you probably never worked at a tim hortons lol

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk

[ZR]

Nor have most been employers!!

[ZR]

Based on feedback from a family friend (she normally has nothing bad to say about anyone), looking to fill some free time and earn a few bucks, worked as a part time baker. Says she was constantly being reminded she was part time only / could be let go at anytime when she was pushed to work more or back to back shifts when others were either sick or hadn't shown up. When it escalated into being shuffled between working a shift at location one then them demanding she head directly over to location two to cover a shift, she walked away. You would think / hope this is not the norm at most locations.