Quote:
Originally Posted by OneHungLo
The bottom line is, they were making an equivalent of $13 an hour. They wanted $15. Bernie said sure then cut their hours to 40. Why not give them $15 @ 60?
This is a blunder for Bernie.
Everyone that runs a business knows that in the real world you can't give your $10 an hour employees a $15 pay raise then cut their hours.
Is disingenuous and it's sad that you're trying to defend it.
|
$17 @ 40 hours = $680 a week (original contract)
$12ish @ 60 hours = $680 a week (what they earned)
$15 @ 43 hours = $645 a week (renegociated terms... I assume there is more benefits to make for the slight loss of revenue)
$15 @ 60 hours = $900 a week (OneHungLo's statement)
I think the mistake here is you're not doing simple math. Bernie can't just magically increase his staff budget by 40% just for fun. Thats not how you run a business.
Its pretty obvious that the employees were hired at $17 an hour, but with the amount of hours paid they ended up at $12-13 an hour. So they re-negociated to balance a healthy amount of work and pay while still remaining within budget.
Conclusion: This is a non-issue and the article is dog shit.