- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Sea-Tac workers not happy with $15/hr minimum wage
Posted on 5/31/14 at 9:39 am
Posted on 5/31/14 at 9:39 am
5
Posted on 5/31/14 at 9:40 am to Quidam65
quote:
Because their employer took all their perks away to compensate.
Anyone that has ever run a business or even has a lick of common sense knows this is what happens when costs go up in one area.
Posted on 5/31/14 at 9:44 am to Quidam65
I don't know how much I trust an article that can't get a simple fact, like a waitresses hourly wage before the hike, correct.
In WA you cannot cut wages of workers who typically receive tips as compensation. The minimum wage was $9.19 before Seatac jumped to $15. So the waitress was making $9.19 an hour plus tips, not $7. I know it's semantics but that's just lazy reporting and makes me question how much of what the Asian wrote on her blog is actually true.
To the overall point...What did these dummies think would happen?
In WA you cannot cut wages of workers who typically receive tips as compensation. The minimum wage was $9.19 before Seatac jumped to $15. So the waitress was making $9.19 an hour plus tips, not $7. I know it's semantics but that's just lazy reporting and makes me question how much of what the Asian wrote on her blog is actually true.
To the overall point...What did these dummies think would happen?
This post was edited on 5/31/14 at 9:49 am
Posted on 5/31/14 at 9:59 am to YipSkiddlyDooo
quote:Wait staff are often paid below minimum wage because of tipping.
So the waitress was making $9.19 an hour plus tips, not $7
Posted on 5/31/14 at 10:02 am to La Place Mike
Did you not read what I wrote or do you not believe me?
In WA it is ILLEGAL to pay anyone less than minimum wage, including positions that are known to receive tips as a part of their compensation.
In WA it is ILLEGAL to pay anyone less than minimum wage, including positions that are known to receive tips as a part of their compensation.
Posted on 5/31/14 at 10:24 am to YipSkiddlyDooo
quote:The above does not appear in the article, but yes I did read the article. The waitress said she was earning $7.00 and hour and I believe her. Wait staff are more often paid less than minimum wage. The new law mandates that she be paid $15.00 and hour and she lost a lot of perks. What article did you read?
In WA it is ILLEGAL to pay anyone less than minimum wage, including positions that are known to receive tips as a part of their compensation.
Edited to add:
Yes, I saw what you wrote and I do not believe you. For now I will take the waitress at her word.
This post was edited on 5/31/14 at 10:28 am
Posted on 5/31/14 at 10:42 am to La Place Mike
quote:
Yes, I saw what you wrote and I do not believe you. For now I will take the waitress at her word.
LINK
Washington is one of 7 states who do not allow lower wages for tipped workers. I went to the trouble of googling it for you. Crazy how I'm right about the state I grew up in and currently live in.
La Place Mike is everything that's wrong with this board. He doesn't actually read what is being written. Just clings on to some arbitrary point and argues it not only for the sake or arguing, but also without any intimate background knowledge of the subject matter.
This post was edited on 5/31/14 at 10:44 am
Posted on 5/31/14 at 11:02 am to YipSkiddlyDooo
quote:Why wouldn't have I believed what the lady said she earned. She was relating her experience. You are just some guy posting on a message broad. Why would I grant you more credibility?
Washington is one of 7 states who do not allow lower wages for tipped workers. I went to the trouble of googling it for you. Crazy how I'm right about the state I grew up in and currently live in.
quote:I read the article.
La Place Mike is everything that's wrong with this board. He doesn't actually read what is being written.
quote:I read what you wrote. Again why should I have believed you? You weren't there for the interview. You don't know the lady being interviewed. Should I believe you because you call yourself YipSkiddlyDooo?
He doesn't actually read what is being written.
quote:I didn't cling to an arbitrary point. I was taking the waitress being interviewed for her word and going by the intimate knowledge that I have from waiting tables in the past. So, please forgive me. I expected the women to be intimately more knowledgeable about how much she earned than the estimable YipSkiddlyDoo.
Just clings on to some arbitrary point and argues it not only for the sake or arguing, but also without any intimate background knowledge of the subject matter.
Posted on 5/31/14 at 11:12 am to La Place Mike
Still trying to argue. Has to be right. Point proven.
Posted on 5/31/14 at 11:35 am to YipSkiddlyDooo
quote:I didn't take you for your word. Deal with it.
YipSkiddlyDooo
Posted on 5/31/14 at 11:42 am to YipSkiddlyDooo
Posted on 5/31/14 at 12:33 pm to La Place Mike
The simple fact is that the lady was either not telling the truth or was being screwed by her employer in relation to the law.
I personally thought something was amiss with her statement because I believed it was around 8.50 an hour but this was info from a few years ago and Wash. adjusts for inflation annually.
As to the article.. I believe the consequences because they make sense and it didn't even touch on probable long term job loss.
I personally thought something was amiss with her statement because I believed it was around 8.50 an hour but this was info from a few years ago and Wash. adjusts for inflation annually.
As to the article.. I believe the consequences because they make sense and it didn't even touch on probable long term job loss.
This post was edited on 5/31/14 at 12:34 pm
Posted on 5/31/14 at 1:11 pm to TROLA
quote:This could be true. The article said she was a part time worker. Maybe the previous law only applied to full time workers. Who knows? I really don't care. Either way, I do believe that she is in a worse place than she was before because of the new law.
The simple fact is that the lady was either not telling the truth or was being screwed by her employer in relation to the law.
This post was edited on 5/31/14 at 1:14 pm
Posted on 5/31/14 at 1:39 pm to La Place Mike
quote:
La Place Mike
You're getting owned in this thread. I live in Washington state as well and he's right.
quote:
Yes, I saw what you wrote and I do not believe you. For now I will take the waitress at her word.
It's funny that you don't believe hard data but choose to believe some random waitress with an enormous bias. Of course she wants you to believe she's some poor underpaid $7 a hour employee. And of course your dumb arse believes her.
Here's another link:
MinimumWage.org
quote:
Including tips and cash wages, all tipped employees must still earn at least the Washington Minimum Wage of $9.32 per hour.
It doesn't say only full time workers. It doesn't say some workers that meet certain requirements. It says ALL tipped employees must earn $9.32 an hour. But hey- you believe what you want to believe why other posters shite logic turds all over you.
This post was edited on 5/31/14 at 1:41 pm
Posted on 5/31/14 at 1:41 pm to Quidam65
What? Actions have consequences?
Posted on 5/31/14 at 1:43 pm to ClientNumber9
quote:I think Mikes point is simple.
You're getting owned in this thread. I live in Washington state as well and he's right.
Absent proof there is no reason to just accept some dude on the net's word over a woman being interviewed.
The proof was shown and it is what it is. But, that doesn't change that prior to the proof, the person on this board was no more credible than the waitress.
Posted on 5/31/14 at 2:09 pm to ShortyRob
quote:pretty much this. Other dude was being a dick
Absent proof there is no reason to just accept some dude on the net's word over a woman being interviewed. The proof was shown and it is what it is. But, that doesn't change that prior to the proof, the person on this board was no more credible than the waitress.
Posted on 5/31/14 at 2:14 pm to ClientNumber9
And it's not only full time workers. In fact, thanks to the new health care law, one very large national restaurant chain that my wife works for will only allow 20% of all workers (including salaried managers and people like her at the corporate level) to be full time. So basically any server you see is going to be part time.
And in WA those workers still have to be paid minimum wage prior to calculating any tips. But don't take my word for it...
I just want to know why I would criticize something for being factually incorrect if I did not know the law I was referring to? And the article was quoting a random blog post from a different site. You know, a blog. The thing also written by an anonymous internet poster...
And in WA those workers still have to be paid minimum wage prior to calculating any tips. But don't take my word for it...
I just want to know why I would criticize something for being factually incorrect if I did not know the law I was referring to? And the article was quoting a random blog post from a different site. You know, a blog. The thing also written by an anonymous internet poster...
This post was edited on 5/31/14 at 2:21 pm
Posted on 5/31/14 at 3:23 pm to ClientNumber9
quote:Not at all. What's so hard to understand why someone just doesn't take some random poster on the internet at his word.
You're getting owned in this thread.
quote:Whoo Hoo!
I live in Washington state as well and he's right.
quote:No hard data had been presented when I made the post that I didn't believe him. Why wouldn't I believe she didn't earn $7.00 and hour. Based on my experience of having worked in restaurants. In fact, based on my experience she was being paid more than all of the waitresses that I have known. So why wouldn't my dumb arse believe her?
It's funny that you don't believe hard data but choose to believe some random waitress with an enormous bias. Of course she wants you to believe she's some poor underpaid $7 a hour employee.
quote:Why are you so mad? All of the evidence was posted after I said that that I chose not to take him at his word. I think I pretty much explained my reasoning why I believed her instead of him when I said.
t doesn't say only full time workers. It doesn't say some workers that meet certain requirements. It says ALL tipped employees must earn $9.32 an hour. But hey- you believe what you want to believe why other posters shite logic turds all over you.
quote:LickSpittleDoo just can't let it go.
I was taking the waitress being interviewed for her word and going by the intimate knowledge that I have from waiting tables in the past. So, please forgive me. I expected the women to be intimately more knowledgeable about how much she earned than the estimable YipSkiddlyDoo.
Posted on 5/31/14 at 4:22 pm to La Place Mike
yeah! Cause there's no way you could independently verify what he said.
Page 1 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News