Speakeasy forum: Darden?...Where have I heard that name before?

If the president is successful in running the business in the black,

IF there was no "Black Friday" "Black Friday" indicates the point at which retailers begin to turn a profit, or are "in the black"

WHERE would you find a successful business?

"Servers" are 'tipped employees' and as such are covered by their own minimum wage laws.

http://www.dol.gov/whd/regs/compliance/whdfs15.pdf

>>>Tip Credit: Section 3(m) of the FLSA permits an employer to take a tip credit toward its minimum wage obligation for tipped employees equal to the difference between the required cash wage (which must be at least $2.13) and the federal minimum wage. Thus, the maximum tip credit that an employer can currently claim under the FLSA is $5.12 per hour (the minimum wage of $7.25 minus the minimum required cash wage of $2.13).>>>

From your link: >>Meanwhile, according to a report released by the National Employment Law Project, the current federal minimum wage the workers are often paid, is worth 30% less than it was in 1968 in terms of purchasing power.>>> Since the dollar is devalued as badly as it is and prices are high for every necessity out there and not coming down any, the worker's dollar is buying much less for the same money. That isn't the business's fault.......that's the government's fault.

If the server's minimum wage can't stretch because CUSTOMERs aren't leaving big tips anymore because THEY can't afford to do so (most don't even eat out anymore), that again is not the business's fault. Please keep in mind that the business has all the expenses that go along with that business......higher prices for their food supply, higher prices for energy costs, repairs/replacements, rent or mortgage, etc.

do you do your best to spend as little as you can get away with or do you happily pay full price...or even more...so that the employees will have a chance to maximize their earnings? I don't think there was any doubt that those footing the bill for cost of the new health care system would be looking to trim expenses to cover it rather than happily pay into the till. It was easy to predict that. Just more evidence of how evil businesses are?

I will seek out prices that are below retail. I'm also aware that, for the most part, such prices are artificial. If I want an item, I know it will eventually rotate to "on sale" status and will buy it then. As for tipping, that really wasn't what I was talking about but I consider myself to be a generous tipper even when the service isn't that good. I'm aware that, in restaurants, tips are not the icing on server's paychecks but the cake itself. In most cases, I tip above 20% but don't pass that word around.

Buying and selling is a mind game. I think we need to get used to that. Merchants, as employers, are out to earn their own living and not just provide jobs for the livelihood of others. Merchants do much the same as buyers do in trying to hang onto their money. They aren't going to pay more in wages and benefits than that which is needed to be competitive in the market they are in. This doesn't make them inherently greedy or evil. If it did, then buyers who don't pay full price or more so that workers can earn more are also inherently greedy and evil. It's a mind game and I suspect there are but a handful of people out there that never play it.

it being Obama's party and he could invite who he wanted to? This was in reference to a closed meeting with a powerful union and moveon...just to refresh your memory. People got upset charging that Obama went back on word about transparency. Rhetorically, I'd ask if you thought they had reason to be unhappy. I'd also say that business owners get to make and change decisions. Some employees will be unhappy with the decisions and then be unhappy again if the owner changes his mind. IMO, it's the business owner's "party". He can do as he wishes. He'll also need to take the consequences of his actions. That's life.

I answered you question. Is there something you don't like about it?

Maybe you got bored and fell asleep reading the preface to your answer by saying it was also similar to what you'd said in another instance. Here's the Reader's Digest version.

Employees will get upset with their employers. They'll be unhappy with announced changes and they'll be unhappy if their employer reneges on them later. They employer owns the business...his party...he does what he wants business wise.

The employer lives with his decisions. This means he could lose unhappy employees.

To both employer and employee, all I can say about your problem is "That's life". I'm not one one side or the other in your given scenario.

out of space. I guess I'm not understanding your dilemma. From what I gather, you're talking about employee reactions to what their employer says and or does. You're doing so in a generic sense by offering one example. My answer is "so what". What is it you would prefer to happen? I can't imagine there's anything to make a big deal about here. Employers and employees would be well off to try to understand what each one is to the other and how they should work together rather than compete with one another. Conflict and confrontation isn't what's needed between employer and employee. Perhaps your work experience has been different from others. Sorry but I don't think I can offer what you're looking for.

I regret wasting good and sincere time trying to decipher that kind of crap. Good day to you.

You haven't read the entire Obamacare law, have you? Nobody has, and you wanna know why? Because it hasn't been fully written yet. Obamacare when it was passed was nothing but a 2500 page OUTLINE......NOW each department and agency that has ANYTHING to do with the FIRST 2500 pages gets to write its OWN rules and regulations into it.

THAT is what businesses are getting geared up for. There are a minimum of 23 new taxes written into the ORIGINAL 2500 pages that go into effect Jan 1, 2013..........knowing how much BO loves the EPA regulating willy-nilly via Executive Power and how devastating those have been plus new ones coming down the pike, you can bet and WIN that every department and agency within Obamacare has already begun writing THEIR own taxes and penalties into it.

Obamacare is a spiderweb of gargantuan proportions ALREADY........and it's only BEGUN weaving. Aren't you glad YOU won't have to put up with it........as an individual OR a business?

>>>I recall you saying employers were reducing hours and laying off because of Obamacare...now I see articles stating they are still planning on their next step and haven't made a decision.>>>

And they have been reducing hours and laying off because of Obamacare.......so, one prediction has been coming true. As for the next step, they are already making preparations for that since they know that more rules, regulations, taxes, and penalties are coming down the pike. No final decisions will be made until they turn up, but they know they're coming so they are planning and preparing. THAT is what businesses DO, JP........they don't succeed by going day-to-day.....they need five-year plans at a minimum to budget for those things and possible new hires, new expansions, or layoffs. They have contingency plans in place or are preparing them........the decisions on which things they need to do will come as the hits show up.

"Blowing smoke"??????? Hardly........even tho workers depend on a paycheck, businesses also depend on a 'paycheck' in order to survive. It's just that, fortunately, most businesses have backup plans available to them and they get them ready, just in case.......individuals don't usually prepare for a backup plan, but that's not a business' fault. Obamacare is just the tip of the iceberg that they all deal with........increased prices for every necessity is also at play at both ends of the workforce. Do you think that only the worker has to look at rising energy costs for their home, rising gas prices to get to work, rising food prices (especially restaurants), rising taxes at the city, state, and Fed levels, etc? The bottom line keeps getting smaller and smaller for both.

which evidently YOU have no problem with........

Many employers already have health insurance for their employees......some better than most, some not so much.....some fully paid by the company, some employees contribute to.......some offer a variety of plans for their employees to pick from that fits their own needs, some have only one plan.......some employers offer nothing because they have only part-time people, some cover even part-time workers.

With Obamacare...........employers are required to have a one-size fits all plan with coverage that perhaps many of their employees don't need and don't want (such as hysterectomies for a single man or vasectomies for women workers or abortion coverage that goes against the employer or employee belief but now has to accept and pay for), Obamacare will require that the plan meets government approval before the plan can be offered (approval requirements not yet written) forcing insurance companies to completely rewrite the plans they already have when they don't even know what they need to have IN the plan and no way to know ahead of time what will be approved, if the employer finds that the coverage is more expensive now compared to the fine/penalty/tax they would have to pay for each employee then they can opt out and not cover anybody anymore and the employee is now required by law to 'shop around' and find their own insurance plan at their own expense completely.

>>>Pay their way, whether deducted from wages(paid by employer) or collected when filing taxes>>>

Pay their way.........who? The worker?

Whether deducted from wages (paid by employer).......that's an assumption you make that the employee pays the entire amount, deducted from wages, and the employer sends the check.....or an assumption that only a portion of the premium gets deducted from wages, the employer adds to it, and sends the check........or an assumption that the employee pays the entire amount privately because there is no work health care coverage

Collected when filing taxes.........you have it wrong there completely........Nothing is collected when filing taxes except for the penalty/fine from either the worker or the employer. When a company files taxes, they have to give the name of the insurance company they pay in order to comply with the law.....if they don't list a company, they pay the fine times however many employees they have (unless there are less then 50 employees or unless all or some of the employees are part-time since only full-time employees have to be covered) When a worker files taxes, they also have to list the name of the insurance company they have coverage with.....if thru a company he works for, that record matches up with what the company files....if privately paid by the worker, then no penalty.........if NO insurance company is listed, then before the worker gets a refund (if one is due), the IRS will deduct the PERSONAL fine from the check before issuing it....if the worker OWES taxes, then the penalty is ADDED to what they have to pay IRS.

Now.........WHERE the penalties collected goes to from the IRS, nobody knows because THAT rule hasn't been written into the law yet. Can you guess where it will go? Into the TREASURY so liberals can SPEND IT WHEREVER THEY PLEASE because NOBODY with a brain believes that money is 'earmarked' exclusively to go to healthcare. I'm sure it will (or at least part of it will) end up in the hands of the Health and HUMAN SERVICES.........but do you have any idea how MANY tentacles THAT department/agency has?

statement appear that the IRS was actually collecting the insurance premium.....They would be collecting NOTHING IF the employer or employee actually listed an insurance company on their forms. So your statement that they would collect at tax time is incorrect because they wouldn't be taking ANYTHING from those who had already paid. When you post a vague statement, do YOU even think about what you are saying or do you just hope that somebody doesn't catch your antagonizing but hopeful 'gotcha' and steps 'into it'?