Government Regulation and Jimmy John's

[nathanm]

It's unfortunate that Jimmy John had to open his big bucking mouth. Whining is quite unappetizing.

[sgrizzle]

It's unfortunate that Jimmy John had to open his big bucking mouth. Whining is quite unappetizing.

When a mandate is passed to retail employers, weather it be to add benefits or increase wages, the business must cut employees/hours, or raise prices. That is all he said and I don't see it as whining, just basic math. Retail has very fixed margins and can't just "suck it up."

[Conan71]

Jimmy John's isn't alone.  A lot of food chains (and I would assume retail chains) are looking at cutting work hours for part-timers so they have to cover fewer employees or pay the penalty. 

We will know soon enough what the unintended consequences of this legislation was.

[nathanm]

When a mandate is passed to retail employers, weather it be to add benefits or increase wages, the business must cut employees/hours, or raise prices. That is all he said and I don't see it as whining, just basic math. Retail has very fixed margins and can't just "suck it up."

The largest pizza franchisee in the country manages to offer health insurance to all of their employees who work over 28(ish, I know part timers can get it, but I don't remember the exact cutoff) hours a week. Or at least they did until the private equity takeover. I don't know about their present arrangement. So yeah, it strikes me as whining to say that he can't stay in business if he doesn't get an implicit subsidy from the public. If that means I have to pay 20 cents more per sandwich, so be it.

[Conan71]

The largest pizza franchisee in the country manages to offer health insurance to all of their employees who work over 28(ish, I know part timers can get it, but I don't remember the exact cutoff) hours a week. Or at least they did until the private equity takeover. I don't know about their present arrangement. So yeah, it strikes me as whining to say that he can't stay in business if he doesn't get an implicit subsidy from the public. If that means I have to pay 20 cents more per sandwich, so be it.

It's not a big deal whether Papa John's adds 13 cents to cover his costs or 50 cents for Jimmy Johns to cover theirs so long as all their competitors play by the same rules rather than cutting hours to under 28 to avoid the whole fiasco.

[nathanm]

It's not a big deal whether Papa John's adds 13 cents to cover his costs or 50 cents for Jimmy Johns to cover theirs so long as all their competitors play by the same rules rather than cutting hours to under 28 to avoid the whole fiasco.

I agree with everything in this post.

[heironymouspasparagus]

If they were working someone over 28 before without the business justification to do so, then.....why??  Business out of control.  Lack of good management.  It is an absolute certainty that those employees for whom no economic justification can be made to work over 28 DID NOT hire themselves, nor did they establish the schedule that gave them all those "unnecessary" - over 28 hours. 

[davideinstein]

It hurts us big time. We already have to pay a payroll tax which would easily make room for another employee or two during the lunch rush  The part that really pisses me off is that I have personally trained two people that went from minimum wage in April to a salaried bonus position this month. If you work hard, the opportunity is there.

Also, I should have some news on a new store for us next week sometime.

[Red Arrow]

Cutting hours to avoid paying health insurance is dirty pool.  Most of us wouldn't notice a few cents on a pizza.  If you can't afford another $.25 to $.50 per pizza averaging over $10, you probably shouldn't be eating pizza to begin with.  Go to WalMart, buy some food to take home and prepare.  I wonder how effective an advertising campaign saying a pizza place provides health insurance to its employees would be.  Any marketing folks out there with some real data?

[Conan71]

We already have to pay a payroll tax which would easily make room for another employee or two during the lunch rush 

Are you referring to FICA and Social Security?  Every employer is on the hook for that.

[heironymouspasparagus]

It hurts us big time. We already have to pay a payroll tax which would easily make room for another employee or two during the lunch rush 


The part that really pisses me off is that I have personally trained two people that went from minimum wage in April to a salaried bonus position this month. If you work hard, the opportunity is there.

Might want to re-read that first statement - is that exactly what you wanted to say?  Sounds like you might be saying you didn't factor that payroll tax into the cost structure for your business plan to begin with.  And if you have the kind lunch rush that NEEDS another employee or two, then how is the pricing structure so far off that you can't justify it regardless??  And yeah, if all of us could employ people at $3.00 per hour, we could hire more and do more...but that is not a business condition I plan for.   (This sounds like it is drifting close to the mantra;  to Democrats, low wages are the problem...to Republicans, low wages are the solution.)



I guess I would ask for elaboration about why that advancement would be a pisser?

[davideinstein]

My point is that government regulations and taxes hinder economic growth. Nothing more to it.

[RecycleMichael]

My point is that government regulations and taxes hinder economic growth. Nothing more to it.

All government regulations hinder economic growth?

I disagree.

[patric]

My point is that government regulations and taxes hinder economic growth. Nothing more to it.

Government regulations are what keep mouse droppings out of your Jimmy Johns. 
Otherwise, such incidents would be handled with lawsuits and boycotts, which have a bigger impact on economic growth.

[carltonplace]

Government regulations also level the playing field by discouraging collusion, price fixing and gouging. Regulations ensure that the "ham" you are advertising in your Sandwich actually has some "ham" in it.

Caveat emptor.