Dem Rep: 'We Don't Want' Small Businesses That Can't Pay $15/Hour Minimum Wage

Hey you're the one that wants to make it illegal for Grandma to work unless she can produce $15 dollars an hour worth of labor. If you think it's absurd take it up with yourself.

You said:

Why should she have to be able to produce $15/hr in order to earn money she can spend at the casino? Grandma's a grown up. If she wants to produce $10 an hour that she can save up and spend at the casino on the weekends I'm totally cool with it. You on the other hand, can't imagine why grandma would want to produce labor for something other than putting a roof over her head (which she already has) or food in her mouth (which she already has). You're also trying to characterize such an employment agreement as bad for the economy, which is just plain silly.

 

IF these democrats new squat about business economy, they would AND they were honest- they would tell people that the wage idea is pure BS, just inflation that would not increase their buying power at all- it is just appeasement for the people foolish enough to think there is no connection between the cost of production and the cost of goods. It's what dishonest politicians do- they play the voters into debt and dependency.

 

False! You can't just make employees subcontractors without getting your company in deep trouble. If you want to cheat the IRS, better to do it with your taxes. This type of violations are too easy to spot.

Better for whom?

And get YOU in trouble, not only with the IRS, but with the Department of Labor, Social Security, your worker's comp insurance provider, .... sometimes even a disgruntled worker who could sue your ass.

As I said before (and as the title states), such companies are sweatshops. And they should not be in business.

 

Are you actually doing that of your own free will or are you being pressured by the fact that you must pay bills?

 

There is no requirement that a company hire anyone. Nor is there any requirement that they can't subcontract to someone else. For instance. I might need someone to maintain the grounds of my company. I can hire someone to do the work or I can subcontract the work to someone else. That same concept can be applied to just about any task required to be done.

 

Are you going to try and argue that it should be illegal or legal dependent on my feelings about work? How in the heck can a regulator divine whether or not I'm feeling some sort of way? That's the epitome of local knowledge problems.

People work for myriad reasons. People accept wages for myriad reasons. Why make some of the reasons illegal based on some arbitrary standard of what a regulator thinks they should earn? Should Grandma A be allowed to work to make casino money, but Grandma B not be allowed to work because she feels pressured to supplement her SS? You know that if Grandma B earns too much trying to supplement they're going to cut her SS?

• 
  

So a Grandma making $10 an hour in a 32 hour work week could easily get themselves below $18,960 keeping their full benefit, while a forced increase in wage would cause them to lose almost 5 grand in benefit.

https://www.ssa.gov/benefits/retire...ocial Security,may reduce your benefit amount.

 

Its very simple, if you need the job more than the employer needs you then its not a fair agreement

 

Of course you can. When's the last time you made a call to customer support? You think the person on the other end of the line works at the company you're calling? No one gets in deep trouble for hiring a subcontractor instead of an employee. What nonsense. Grandma wants to work for $10 an hour answering calls for a company. The company wants to pay her. You step in and demand that Grandma gets paid $15 dollars an hour. The company lays off Grandma and hires an answering service that charges a dollar a call. The company saves because Grandma wasn't taking nearly 80 calls a day. Grandma loses. You feel good about yourself because you have no clue how the world works.

Better for someone who thinks it's better for them. Who are you to decide what's better for someone else; someone you don't know; don't have any information about; and don't have to experience the consequences on behalf of?

 

Who gets to decide need? You?

 

Can you afford to pay your bills?

 

What do my bills have to do with whether or not someone else should be allowed to work for less than what my bills cost?

 

You asked who gets to decide need, thats a good indicator.

 

That's only half the equation. The employer gets to decide if you're actually producing the value you claim to need.

 

History has shown that employers as a general rule will not treat employees ethically or fairly unless they are forced to.

 

WTF? Why would I not be aware that people in the military are paid? And what is the relevance to a minimum wage?

Your post is a sign of desperation out of lack of arguments.

 

You're the one bringing up how much a worker produces or spends.

I'm talking about minimum WAGE. That means income! (look it up if you don't believe me). Not spending. Not producing. I don't give a crap about how much they spend or produce. That's irrelevant to anything in this thread. Minimum wage also refers to employees. Not Grandmas in Casinos.

Focus!

 

Wrong! There ARE restrictions to a business hiring subcontractors. A relevant one is that, broadly speaking, you can't treat them as employees. You obviously have never run a business.

 

In some States, Minimum Wage laws do not apply to family members employed in the business.

Better way around that is making sure they stay under the (antiquated) $600 threshold, and reimburse 'expenses' separately.

 

They work for somebody. And if that "somebody" is an American business, they damn well be making minimum wage.

Funny how so many of the people who have never run a business make the same mistake.

If grandma wants to volunteer or offer her work as a subcontractor, the company can pay $10 an hour, or $0 an hour... But she is not an employee. And they can't treat here like an employee. Which, anybody who has run a business will tell you, has many many downsides. And if they're caught treating her like an employee, they get into deep deep sh!t with the government. And with their insurance company. And maybe even with grandma herself

That's why we elect those who do decide by popular vote, and not by insurrection. Much to the dismay of anybody who believes their ideology is more important than the welfare of the people. a.k.a. ideologues.

 

I never said there were no restrictions. You should learn to read.

It can be done anytime they can perform a function and leave and they are not required to be there for a set time. They are paid for performing the function rather than by the hour. They can be used to stock shelves. Janitorial work. They could even be used in a factory, if whatever they are working on does not require someone working full time.

When I retired from Lockheed Martin, I considered becoming a subcontractor. Whenever, they had a special need for my specialty, they would give me a call and I would go in and do my thing.

 

Kinda sounded like you did here....

But... I'm glad that has been clarified.

 

You are the one who read something into my post which was not there.

 

As opposed to government...

 

BINGO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You nailed it. You understand how bad such a policy would be.

 

Irrelevant.