Many CEOs, especially of chain restaurants, have made statements and taken actions in response to the election last week, including announcing price hikes, layoffs, and limitation of hours, saying it’s due to Obamacare and various other issues that the President campaigned for.
This has, obviously, spurred discussion, and a point made elsewhere made me wonder: suppose a restaurant (or even a chain of restaurants - or grocery stores or gas stations or whatever) charged more than their equivalents/equivalent chains, but advertised, proudly and strongly, that this was because they paid better wages and benefits to its workers. Perhaps they would even directly compare this to other places, and argue that you’ll get better service with them because their workers are happier and healthier.
Would you go out of your way to patronize such a place? Would the general public? How much more would you be willing to pay in goods and services? How much more would the general public? Assume any truth you like for claimed change in service due to policy, but make your assumption, and reasoning for that assumption, clear.
Probably not much, because there are already competitive restaurant chains that offer employee benefits without making a big deal about it all the time. Here’stwo from off the top of my head. One’s a small chain of about 2 dozen locations in central PA, the other’s a huge chain with hundreds of locations nationwide. I feel if bragging about your employee benefits became a thing, a bunch of restaurants like these would just come out and say “Hey, we’ve been giving our employees benefits all along, so we can treat our workers well without having to raise prices like those other guys,” thus stealing the thunder from all the other eateries that came out and said “Hey, entrees are a dollar more now because we have to offer our employees health insurance.”
Hey… there’s a Longhorn near me. I think I’m going to try them this week. Thanks for posting the link!
I personally already shop local for anything that I can (most groceries, many tools/equipment that I need, most clothing). Since I don’t use the importers and cheap mega stores, I can’t tell you how much extra I’m paying except that I know I’m getting meat from the butcher for at least $0.10 less per pound than even the closest pricing among the box stores (oh, and mine has been processed in a small, family owned, animal friendly shop that is very, very clean - so I’d be willing to bet that I’m getting less ecoli, etc on my products than the mass butchered crap sold at the box stores… and it is all locally grown and grass fed)
Why is there a need for this sort of thing? 5,000 years ago people figured out it would be easier to just have the government collect a proportionate amount from each of the businesses and use that to help the workers with their healthcare or whatever. That way, workers get healthcare, restaurants can concentrate on making delicious food, everyone wins.
The low wage workforce seems like a small % of the budget of most large companies. So I would assume a living wage with benefits would drive up costs 1-5% or so. I would be willing to eat that.
Kroger pays their workers better than Marsh, so I try to frequent Kroger. But the prices at Kroger are actually better.
I think every dollar/hour in wages and benefits for the low wage workforce at walmart would drive up prices by 0.5%. I think.
I don’t want to come off as one of those jerks who’s constantly yelling “Cite?” but could you point me to a source backing up your claim that socialized healthcare has been common in civilizations since the early Bronze Age?
Does that mean Marsh has a higher profit margin? If so, I would rather shop at Marsh than Kroger. When choosing between companies, I would rather give my business to the one that generates higher profits for the owners.
I’m sure this isn’t going to be a popular opinion, but frankly, I go where it’s the absolute cheapest for me. Period. I do not have discretionary income that would allow me to do otherwise. I would not pay a premium for someone else’s benefits. Sorry if that seems cold, but it’s the truth.
I would not pay anymore for this. When I worked in a restaurant, neither I nor my coworkers seemed deserving of charity. Nowadays if someone gives me good service I pay them out of my own pockets with a bigger tip, I don’t expect the business owner to do it for me.
As a nation, we already support this to a limited degree with the enforcement of various labor laws, including minimum wage and minimum age. Some companies are promoting additional good treatment of employees with concepts like fair trade; people who buy fair-trade goods have basically chosen to pay more than market price for a product with the explicit knowledge that the extra cost goes toward (among other things) better treatment for the producers.
However, paying extra for better treatment of employees is really only an option for people who have plenty of disposable income - and that’s not many folks these days. In my town (Ann Arbor) the two Whole Foods stores have plenty of customers, but I think the vast majority of people in this area shop at stores that compete exclusively on price, e.g. Kroger and Meijer.
Thats fair enough. But there is difference here. You ain’t doing it because you are cheap or uncaring. You are doing it because you are poor.
And even then it is a matter of degree. In another thread about Papa John’s Pizza owner having a tizzy about providing health care somebody claimed it would cost an extra 15 cents or so per pizza to give the pizza delivery guys health insurance.
Now, is your budget so tight that 15 cents on say a 15 dollar pizza is going to break the bank? And or would you calculate your tip down to a few pennies to make sure you didn’t overpay or underpay?
Note these questions aren’t so much directed at you as the population at large out there.
Also. If people/employers who could pay employees in general a bit more DID do so people like you might not be on such a tight budget in the first place
Because well-qualified restaurant workers are easy to attract, even when you offer a low wage and no health benefits. If an employer is offering health benefits in that situation, it’s because they’re a nice guy, not because it’s necessary.
For other professions - doctor, lawyer, engineer, etc. - qualified applicants are rarer; it becomes necessary to offer higher salary and health (and other) benefits in order to attract applicants.
My answer is no, I wouldn’t patronize a business just because it treats its employees better. If that better treatment results in a better customer service experience, then yes I would go there.
I’m all for going the European route. Where in, the owners pay the servers a decent wage, the customer pays a higher price and nobody has to worry about tips.
