Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So why didn't everyone else at the casino lose their job if this raise in pay was so horrible?
Because they provide enough value to be worth their present wage, as shown by the financial statements, or else the casino would have closed. Same reason all folks keep their jobs.
It is unfortunate that people learned the hard way, that artificially imposed wage levels are often not sustainable. It is doubly bad for the servers, who, no doubt, were getting large tips all along, and not relying on simply the paycheck wage rate.
There is no "natural" wage rate. There was nothing inevitable about these layoff, either. The layoffs were an act of retaliation against the workers. It is about power, pure and simple.
Raising wages distributes more of the profits to workers, as opposed to managers and shareholders. There is no "natural" reason that managers or shareholders couldn't make a little less in order to enable workers to make a little more. The fact workers are always and everywhere expected to take 100% of the hits for the entire enterprise just shows how undemocratic and unjust corporations are.
Because they provide enough value to be worth their present wage, as shown by the financial statements, or else the casino would have closed. Same reason all folks keep their jobs.
175 failed to meet that test.
So you are saying the casino makes more money, thus it stays open and can afford to pay the higher wages, but the restaurant that was losing money before the increase is shut down. Sounds to me like they were gonna shut the restaurant down with or without a wage increase.
This has nothing to do with what an employee is worth and everything to do with how much of a profit does a business make.
I know of very few restaurants/buffets that are profitable in Las Vegas either. Casinos will often subsidize these restaurants/buffets in order to either attract or retain more customers. Casinos will also often put on shows and other forms of entertainment at either no cost, or very little cost, to the consumer in order to attract more potential gambling customers. The MGM Grand, for example, use to have a buffet that was $0.99 per person for all you could eat. They certainly were not making a profit.
So it really has nothing to do with whether the restaurant/buffet was profitable or not.
There is no "natural" wage rate. There was nothing inevitable about these layoff, either. The layoffs were an act of retaliation against the workers. It is about power, pure and simple.
Raising wages distributes more of the profits to workers, as opposed to managers and shareholders. There is no "natural" reason that managers or shareholders couldn't make a little less in order to enable workers to make a little more. The fact workers are always and everywhere expected to take 100% of the hits for the entire enterprise just shows how undemocratic and unjust corporations are.
The company is responsible to shareholders. The shareholders invest to make money. If the company does not make money, the shareholders sell or bring in new management. Either way the worker suffers. Then you have other companies try to take over the company, fire everybody and start over again. The worker loses again.
I know of very few restaurants/buffets that are profitable in Las Vegas either. Casinos will often subsidize these restaurants/buffets in order to either attract or retain more customers. Casinos will also often put on shows and other forms of entertainment at either no cost, or very little cost, to the consumer in order to attract more potential gambling customers. The MGM Grand, for example, use to have a buffet that was $0.99 per person for all you could eat. They certainly were not making a profit.
So it really has nothing to do with whether the restaurant/buffet was profitable or not.
I said the restaurant closed because it was not profitable and the workers priced themselves out of a job.
Both reasons. Could be that the casino was owned by one company and the restaurant by another. Not in all cases can one feed off the other.
So you are saying the casino makes more money, thus it stays open and can afford to pay the higher wages, but the restaurant that was losing money before the increase is shut down. Sounds to me like they were gonna shut the restaurant down with or without a wage increase.
This has nothing to do with what an employee is worth and everything to do with how much of a profit does a business make.
I said the restaurant closed because it was not profitable and the workers priced themselves out of a job.
Both reasons. Could be that the casino was owned by one company and the restaurant by another. Not in all cases can one feed off the other.
Restaurants in casinos are normally loss leaders. They more often than not are designed to lose money. They entice people to stop there to eat, and then gamble while they are there, and they keep people from leaving the casino to find food elsewhere.
At some point, the casino owners clearly decided losing $50K a week MORE than they were losing before, wasnt worth the cost of staying open..
Nope. Fired. They priced themselves out of a job. Expect that to happen more and more when LSD's try to manipulate the wage.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
