CapitolFax.com - Latest Comments in Question of the day

Re: Question of the day

Larry Mullholland — Thu, 16 Nov 2006 22:55:02 -0000

I have suggestion......

If the legislature demands a higher minimum wage, annual cost of living increases with no training wage provisions AND also no under 18 reduction provision, then the law should also include a provision with equal importance to a ban on no call-no shows, no tardiness, no personal calls, they should also include mandatory drug tests...ANDE while were at it, they should also provide a requirement that ALL wages earned while training be immediatly returned to the business if a person quits their job once training is complete......

Now back to reality...

If an employee shows up on time, never misses a shift (as in a no call no shows) and works hard,
I am willing to bet big money they will be paid far more than min. wage. This worker is valued asset worthy of far more than the min wage.

However, sadly, this is not the case with nearly all min. wage workers that I have hired and fired over the years... If an employee is earning min. for more than the training period they should do some self reflection and not rely on a liberal legislature to raise their annual income.

Before this law passes All members of the GA should be forced to put an ad in the local paper, interview and hire a perosn applying for a min. wage job, They legislators should then train the worker and schedule and rely on them for important task.

If in six months months the legislators agree that the government should mandate higher wages for them then I support it...

In the mean time, I suggest a better educational system and more vocational training.....

Re: Question of the day

Little Egypt — Thu, 16 Nov 2006 22:43:07 -0000

Lovie, I see your point. I guess not everyone was blessed with sons who have a high work ethic like little little egypt #1 and #2.

Re: Question of the day

Lovie's Leather — Thu, 16 Nov 2006 22:10:46 -0000

Although I am for equal pay, Little E, my experience with teenagers, particularly highshcool teenagers is not exactly what we would call productive. Many are inexperienced and don't care. At the restaurant I worked at, the highschoolers did enough just to get by. They didn't follow protocal and didn't do their jobs well. The older crowd did much better for the reason that they depend on their jobs to live. The highschoolers don't care and will just go find some other job where they can slack off. And if they don't find a job, they have good ole mom and dad as a safety net. So I will go with age, experience, and dependability over youth anyday.

Re: Question of the day

(618) Democrat — Thu, 16 Nov 2006 20:13:16 -0000

NO: When an employer pays a person the minimum wage or, in this case below the minimum wage, they are saying to the employee, I would pay you less for your hard work that is making me money if it weren't against the law.

Re: Question of the day

NoGiftsPlease — Thu, 16 Nov 2006 20:03:14 -0000

A lower "training wage" or a wage based on "high turnover"? How about if I get one of those high-turnover jobs or need training, I'm in my 40's, why wouldn't those reasons pertain to me? Would you say that anyone that needs extra training should be paid less? Oh, we already do that and call it salary negotiation -- you just don't negotiate below minimum wage. I also think that wait staff should be paid minimum wage.

Re: Question of the day

Little Egypt — Thu, 16 Nov 2006 19:07:07 -0000

Our 16 year olds just going into the workforce often bring a lot of enthusiasm with them. They tend to run circles around the other employees and in the "hamburger flipping world", you can watch the kids hustling around filling orders while their older counterparts watch. I'm absolutely for these kids getting equal pay.

Re: Question of the day

Grocery Guy — Thu, 16 Nov 2006 17:54:25 -0000

Thank you Smack. Unfortunately, the big business retailers are the ones hurting small business owners. All across Illinois, it is the Wal-Mart's, Target's and other big boxes that get the huge public subsidies to put up new stores that eventually run the small business owners out. These subsidies that the small business owners can't get place them in a more uncompetitive situation more than minimum wage increases.

Re: Question of the day

smack-o-cratic — Thu, 16 Nov 2006 16:54:56 -0000

Grocery Guy, I appreciate your insight of the grocery industry. I think that industry is dominated by big business, not small. An increase of the minimum wage, especially to entry level teen employees, will cause a decrease of employment opportunities for teens and hurt small businesses.

Re: Question of the day

Grocery Guy — Thu, 16 Nov 2006 16:32:28 -0000

It is not a "training wage". It is a youth wage and is very discriminatory. Under current law, a sixteen year old with 1 year of experience on a cash register in a grocery store can legally be paid 50 cents an hour less than an 18 year old with no experience. The elimination of the unfair youth wage will not inhibit youth employment -- retailers will still hire 16 and 17 year olds because they know they will be moving on. The retail stores thrive on turnover.

Re: Question of the day

smack-o-cratic — Thu, 16 Nov 2006 16:26:10 -0000

Let's look at some numbers. SBA says Illinois has 255,000 "employer" firms and of those 96% have less than 100 employees. I have dealt daily with small business for over 20 years and the vast majority work hard, are not getting rich and treat employees fairly (like family in some cases).

Each year thousands upon thousands of teens (like you and me I'll bet) started our working days in a small business....at mimimum wage.

Increasing the minimum wage to include all ages will, without a doubt, decrease employment opportunities for teens in the years to come. Small businesses work on slim margins and will not be able to afford to pay the higher wages along with all the added costs - workers comp, employment taxes.

When I hear legislators compare small business owners to corporate fat cats such as the CEOs in big oil and large corporations I am stunned by their ignorance and/or their unflagging pandering to their base. I got doubts they know or could even read a P and L statement.

Re: Question of the day

BIG R.PH. — Thu, 16 Nov 2006 16:05:49 -0000

Like we should pay like teenagers like way more like $20/hour because they need like way more stuff than like adults like need.Dude!

Re: Question of the day

small biz owner — Thu, 16 Nov 2006 15:28:01 -0000

A few cents less an hour for youngsters seems fair to me. Forget the training and retraining you have to do with these kids. As a biz owner you have to teach them phone manners, good manners in general, proper English, how to spell, etc. The list goes on and on. So yes, based on all they have to be taught in the business place they should earn a few cents less. Oh, and a big thanks goes out to our wonderful public schools!

Re: Question of the day

small biz owner — Thu, 16 Nov 2006 15:26:46 -0000

Forget the training and retraining you have to do with these kids. As a biz owner you have to teach them phone manners, good manners in general, proper English, how to spell, etc. The list goes on and on. Oh, and a big thanks goes out to our wonderful public schools!

Re: Question of the day

Lovie's Leather — Thu, 16 Nov 2006 15:16:26 -0000

If there is going to be a minimum wage set by the state... it should be simple. $6.50 for everyone sounds fine to me. Not $6.50 for me, $6 for you... or $7 in Chicagoland, $6.50 in the rest of the state. COLAs are crap when it comes to figuring the minimum wage because the cost of living in Chicago is more expensive than downstate. But I bet you would find that living in Galesburg and Peoria would offer substancial differences as well. Simplify and make it the same for everyone.

Re: Question of the day

winco — Thu, 16 Nov 2006 15:13:25 -0000

Kids should get used to get screwed by The Man and The Government every time they turn around.

They might as well learn this way.

But seriously, a lower training wage makes more sense. If employers are serious about not wanting a lot of turnover among kids, and the cost to re-train new kids, then that would be an incentive to keep them around for a while. But I'd suggest that is not really their concern.

Re: Question of the day

Gregor — Thu, 16 Nov 2006 14:54:45 -0000

Level pay across the board, minimum MEANS the minimum.

I would make an exception for kids who are mowing lawns, shoveling walks, running lemonaide stands, paper routes, that sort of thing, we should stay out of their hair for that stuff. But for any legally registered, tax-paying, profit-taking adult-run business or proprietorship, everybody needs to be on the same page. My kids are not working for just the fun of it: they are putting the money away for college tuition, not ipods.

The majority of even small fast food places and the like are paying more than minimum wage now, after the finite probationary/training period, so it's not that big a sacrifice we're asking. OTOH, I can definitely see greedy businesses exploiting youth or elderly employees with a below-minimum wage as a way to circumvent paying what everybody else has to, and pocketing the difference. Other ways they cheat like this already is by keeping the employment hours or seasons shorter, so as to evade rules for full-time workers. VoldeMart is a know practitioner of this in a big way, but MacDonald's and those kinds of places do it too. For the really small businesses that sqwawk, there are already programs with DCEO and IDES that could be used to level out these hring costs thru tax incentives. That can be the safety net for the businesses that can prove they can't make it any other way.

Let's teach our kids not only the value of honest work, but the values of honest and ethical business management while we're at it, rewarding them for both. A fair wage does that too.

Re: Question of the day

Crimefighter — Thu, 16 Nov 2006 13:51:32 -0000

Ummmm no, teens should be paid the same as the adults, this is a clear cut equal protection violation.

Re: Question of the day

Truthful James — Thu, 16 Nov 2006 12:45:06 -0000

Depends solely on the worth of the job at which the teen is working and the expected job turnover.

Training time does factor in, even for burger flippers.

Re: Question of the day

ZC — Thu, 16 Nov 2006 12:35:14 -0000

Yes. On this case, let employers discriminate by age, a little.

One objection to the minimum wage is that, as a way of helping "working families," a lot of its benefits go to teenagers who are just entering the workforce and who frankly don't need the cash as much. Making some small alteration to account for that reality strikes me as a fair move. If we raise the minimum wage, then teenagers will still be getting a boost.

Re: Question of the day

Patrick — Thu, 16 Nov 2006 12:34:43 -0000

Whether the youth supplements the household income or not, one wage should be given for the work performed. Business should not be able to determine its workforce by being able to pay one demographic less due to any one discerning characteristic. It is just not the American way.

Re: Question of the day

grand old partisan — Thu, 16 Nov 2006 12:24:46 -0000

I donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t know Ã¢â‚¬â€œ but IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢d like to see any stats that Lightford might have.
Keep in mind that many small, family owned restaurants in the city donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t have a very wide profit margin. An extra half-buck per hour per teenage employee could make a big difference between squeaking by and going under.

I used to live in the city, and worked in LightfordÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s district. I didnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t see many teens working in the restaurants, personally. Now that IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢m in the western suburbs (where teens are earning disposable income at ApplebeeÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s, not supplementing their parents at the local greasy spoon), I see them everywhere. So I wonder just how much of an issue this really is.

But, giving Lightford the benefit of the doubt, her position is a bit odd to me. SheÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s among those who view the minimum wage through the prism of a so called Ã¢â‚¬Å“living wageÃ¢â‚¬Â (ie, they should be the same). In light of that, is it right to pay someone who is the sole support of their family the same as someone who simply supplementing their families income? If we want to talk about paying people according to their needs (which is the philosophical underpinning of the Ã¢â‚¬Å“living wageÃ¢â‚¬Â theory), then no, it doesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t make sense to do that.

IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢d also like to hear her thoughts on proposals to mandate a higher minimum wage for big-box retailers. Was she for or against the idea of some of her Chicago constituentsÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ Hard work being valued less and making a smaller wage because they did not work in a store of a certain square footage? I donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t remember hearing anything from her about that, and in light of these questions, it fair to bring it up. Is she sincere in believing that wages should depend only on the value of the work being done, or is she just pandering?

Re: Question of the day

VanillaMan — Thu, 16 Nov 2006 11:58:57 -0000

We need to give teenagers a break. That means jobs, not pay. They need the experience and the opportunity to show their abilities. Without this provision, they will not be hired.

Paying everyone the same wage is dumb.

Re: Question of the day

doubtful — Thu, 16 Nov 2006 11:57:26 -0000

The pay should be the same. If there is a difference, adults who need the income will be passed over for teenagers.

Re: Question of the day

tom — Thu, 16 Nov 2006 11:47:09 -0000

Rod is wanting to get this done before the Congress does after the Dems are sworn in...that way he can get credit...the 2010 campaign is underway...well, actually the 2002 one never stopped.

Re: Question of the day

C$ — Thu, 16 Nov 2006 11:30:36 -0000

I don't think teens should have to work at all. I would vote for a candidate that would give the equivalent of 15 hours a week at minimum wage to EVERY teenager in high school. We need to make sure our teens are working on their education, not working to buy life's neccessities. Also, we can't let teenagers steal jobs from adults who need them to survive.