Forum Announcement

Please don't panic! You are not in the Twilight Zone, you are experiencing the new CNET forums platform! Please click here to read the details. Thanks!!

Speakeasy

General discussion

Darden?...Where have I heard that name before?

by JP Bill / November 27, 2012 / 1:12 PM UTC
On the discussion of part-time employees], we're already a large part-time employer. Seventy-five percent of our employees are part-time already. [Any] policy change will affect employees that work 30 to 35 hours. ... Our industry has met the needs of a lot of employees who want to work part time. We as an industry have met that need, and so the economic reality is very, very challenging. They may need to move above 40 [hours] or less than 30. It could be hard to get those folks to move up. ... If that's the reality can we maintain guest satisfaction? Can we maintain employee engagement? We value that significantly. [The answer will] come from surveying our frontline employees. This is where we are today. There are still a lot more rules to understand, and now we have to take time from other things to address them."

It wasn't that long ago...Dardens...cutting hours, because of Obamacare, NO mention of increasing hours, just cutting.

The 12 Companies Paying Americans the Least

11. Darden Restaurants
> U.S. workforce: 165,475
> Highest compensation: $8,480,148
> Revenue: $8.00 billion
> Net income: $475.5 million
> No. of U.S. stores: 1,994

A lawsuit filed in September charged Darden Restaurants, Inc. (NYSE: DRI) with violating federal labor laws by underpaying thousands of servers across the country at its Olive Garden, LongHorn Steakhouse and Red Lobster chains. The action represented employees who who worked for the company going back to Aug. 2009 and sought millions of dollars in back wages and other compensation. "We're seeking not only to correct the wrongs that have occurred at Darden, but hopefully this will stimulate change across the country," said a lead attorney in the case. While the compensation of CEO Clarence Otis Jr. did drop from $8.48 million in 2011 to $8.08 million in 2012, that cannot be much comfort to those at the bottom of the pay scale at Darden.
Post a reply
Discussion is locked
You are posting a reply to: Darden?...Where have I heard that name before?
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Please refer to our CNET Forums policies for details. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Track this discussion and email me when there are updates

If you're asking for technical help, please be sure to include all your system info, including operating system, model number, and any other specifics related to the problem. Also please exercise your best judgment when posting in the forums--revealing personal information such as your e-mail address, telephone number, and address is not recommended.

You are reporting the following post: Darden?...Where have I heard that name before?
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Collapse -
Why not have Obama try and manage a couple of their
by Steven Haninger / November 27, 2012 / 1:46 PM UTC

restaurant's until 2014 using his own rules regarding what he considers fair wage and reasonable benefits. Have the book keeping done by a private firm but allow them to withhold data as to how the businesses are doing. Provide taxpayer money as needed to keep the restaurants afloat should the bottom line turn red. If the president is successful in running the business in the black, Obamacare gets fully enacted. If the restaurants need the government subsidy, it's back to the drawing board. My guess is that he'd say "Whoa! Those numbers just didn't add up."

Collapse -
RE: If the president is successful
by JP Bill / November 27, 2012 / 1:58 PM UTC

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?

Collapse -
We could do the same to Obama that we just did
by Steven Haninger / November 27, 2012 / 2:11 PM UTC

If he runs up a lot of debt, we reward him by letting him manage the restaurants for twice as long. Devil

Collapse -
FYI
by TONI H / November 27, 2012 / 2:41 PM UTC

"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.

Collapse -
Do you have anything to say about
by JP Bill / November 27, 2012 / 8:07 PM UTC
In reply to: FYI

Darden changing from cutting hours because of Obamacare

A major restaurant group is experimenting with cutting its employees hours in the hopes of cutting the costs of healthcare.

Darden Restaurants, which owns the Red Lobster, Olive Garden, LongHorn Steakhouse, and Yard House chains has stopped offering full-time schedules to hourly workers, the Orlando Sentinel reports. The company plans to offer a maximum of 28 hours per week per employee.


and then saying

We as an industry have met that need, and so the economic reality is very, very challenging. They may need to move above 40 [hours] or less than 30. It could be hard to get those folks to move up. ... If that's the reality can we maintain guest satisfaction? Can we maintain employee engagement? We value that significantly. [The answer will] come from surveying our frontline employees. This is where we are today. There are still a lot more rules to understand, and now we have to take time from other things to address them."

Blowing Smoke......just like you....They don't know what they will do, Just like you don't know what employers will do.

Collapse -
When you spend your money
by Steven Haninger / November 28, 2012 / 2:00 AM UTC

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?

Collapse -
So what do you think about people getting upset
by JP Bill / November 28, 2012 / 4:02 AM UTC

about what employers say they are going to do, and then remaining silent when the same employers change their minds about what THEY are going to do?

Just more evidence of how evil businesses are?

I know...they change their minds as often as you change your socks. Devil

Collapse -
(NT) And the answer to my opening question of you is???
by Steven Haninger / November 28, 2012 / 6:20 AM UTC
Collapse -
Your question was
by JP Bill / November 28, 2012 / 6:32 AM UTC
When you spend your money 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?

IF these "employees" you're talking about work in the frontline of a restaurant, MY answer would be "I usually leave a 15% tip"...If they can/should be able to maximize with a 15% tip, you tell me...Where is that on your "happily pay full price scale"?

NOW will you answer MY question?

So what do you think about people getting upset about what employers say they are going to do, and then remaining silent when the same employers change their minds about what THEY are going to do?
Collapse -
Like most anyone else who's of lesser wealth
by Steven Haninger / November 28, 2012 / 7:39 AM UTC
In reply to: Your question was

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. Happy

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.

Collapse -
Response
by JP Bill / November 28, 2012 / 7:41 AM UTC

So what do you think about people getting upset about what employers say they are going to do, and then remaining silent when the same employers change their minds about what THEY are going to do?

Collapse -
Do you remember saying something about
by Steven Haninger / November 28, 2012 / 7:59 AM UTC
In reply to: Response

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.

Collapse -
(NT) Non-responsive
by JP Bill / November 28, 2012 / 8:23 AM UTC
Collapse -
Non-responsive? Who died?
by Steven Haninger / November 28, 2012 / 9:07 AM UTC
In reply to: Non-responsive

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

Collapse -
RE: I answered you question.
by JP Bill / November 28, 2012 / 11:08 AM UTC

NO, you didn't.

You answered what you thought about employers changing their mind, and the fact that they can change their mind.

The question was not about employers, but about getting upset and speaking out and then remaining silent, when the situation changes. (eating crow)


So what do you think about people getting upset about what employers say they are going to do, and then remaining silent when the same employers change their minds about what THEY are going to do?

I'll try and make it as simple as I can.

Someone makes a post holding up Darden as a example of the effects of Obamacare. Darden cutting hours because of Obamacare.

The next week, Darden announces it is NOT cutting hours...instead they may be increasing them and announce they have NOT made a decision.

That "someone" is strangely silent on THAT "effect of Obamacare".

Collapse -
Yes I did answer it
by Steven Haninger / November 28, 2012 / 12:17 PM UTC

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.

Collapse -
RE:I'm not one one side or the other in your given scenario
by JP Bill / November 28, 2012 / 12:21 PM UTC

THERE...THAT'S an answer to MY question.

Collapse -
This will need to be my last post as we've long run
by Steven Haninger / November 28, 2012 / 1:11 PM UTC

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.

Collapse -
RE: From what I gather, you're talking about employee
by JP Bill / November 28, 2012 / 1:26 PM UTC

From what I gather, you're talking about employee reactions to what their employer says and or does.

WRONG!!!

Disregard "employees" totally, in fact disregard "employers" also

Think "POSTERS" as in People that make "posts in SE".....especially female posters...named Toni. Makes a post?...poster?...get it?

So what do you think about people getting upset about what employers say they are going to do, and then remaining silent when the same employers change their minds about what THEY are going to do?

Someone makes a post holding up Darden as a example of the effects of Obamacare. Darden cutting hours because of Obamacare.

The next week, Darden announces it is NOT cutting hours...instead they may be increasing them and announce they have NOT made a decision.

That "someone" is strangely silent on THAT "effect of Obamacare"

Collapse -
In that case, JP Bill
by Steven Haninger / November 28, 2012 / 1:29 PM UTC

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

Collapse -
RE: Good day to you.
by JP Bill / November 28, 2012 / 1:47 PM UTC

And a good day to you Sir.

I kinda thought you wouldn't have anything to say about the subject, now that you've admitted you know what I was talking about, we both had nothing better to do or we would have been doing it.

Collapse -
OK...I have some stuff to say AGAIN
by TONI H / November 28, 2012 / 2:29 AM UTC

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?

Collapse -
RE: OK...I have some stuff to say AGAIN
by JP Bill / November 28, 2012 / 3:30 AM UTC

And THAT'S a problem? ............ Saying stuff AGAIN? ............ You're not giving up already, you're only 3 weeks into the journey (4 MORE YEARS!!!!).

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.

Like I said

Blowing Smoke......just like you....They don't know what they will do, Just like you don't know what employers will do.

You don't know what's in it, but you don't like it?

Try it, you might like it.

Collapse -
Yes, I don't like it
by TONI H / November 28, 2012 / 4:06 AM UTC

>>>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.

Collapse -
RE: THAT is what businesses DO,
by JP Bill / November 28, 2012 / 4:29 AM UTC
In reply to: Yes, I don't like it

That's right, that's what they do...so before they decide WHAT to do.... WAIT until They DECIDE what they are going to do.

You have no problem paying higher insurance rates so an uninsured person can have access to the same services as you, at no charge to them....You don't like entitlements and, according to you, individuals don't usually prepare for a backup plan, .......

What's your problem with having people/employees/employers paying for their medical insurance through Obamacare?

DOWN WITH ENTITLEMENTS!!!!

Pay their way, whether deducted from wages(paid by employer) or collected when filing taxes...what's the problem? Sounds like a good backup plan.

Collapse -
The problems,
by TONI H / November 28, 2012 / 5:03 AM UTC

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?

Collapse -
RE: Collected when filing taxes.........you have it wrong th
by JP Bill / November 28, 2012 / 6:35 AM UTC
In reply to: The problems,
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.

Do you think about what you type?

Completely wrong...NOTHING collected EXCEPT

Name 2 words that should not be used together?

NOTHING and EXCEPT.
Collapse -
You made your posted
by TONI H / November 28, 2012 / 7:19 AM UTC

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'?

Collapse -
Response
by JP Bill / November 28, 2012 / 7:39 AM UTC
In reply to: You made your posted
You made your posted statement appear that the IRS was actually collecting the insurance premium

When you post a vague statement,


Appear?...Vague?...Perhaps to you.

You even quoted (part of) my statement in your post

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

Pay their way, whether deducted from wages(paid by employer)or collected when filing taxes...what's the problem? Sounds like a good backup plan.


Deducted from wages(paid by employer) OR collected when filing taxes.
Collapse -
Again, your statement
by TONI H / November 28, 2012 / 8:11 AM UTC
In reply to: Response

makes it appear that the 'or collected' is referring to the premium that is 'deducted from wages(or paid by employer). There are no premiums collected when filing taxes. All that would be collected would be fines and penalties......neither of which is deducted from wages....

IF you are talking about two different things, then you should split the sentence into two sentences and make the second half clear that you mean something entirely different from the first sentence. IF you run two part sentence into one running sentence you have nobody but yourself to blame when someone interprets that you are on the same subject.

Popular Forums
icon
Computer Help 45,842 discussions
icon
Computer Newbies 10,052 discussions
icon
Tablets 1,149 discussions
icon
Security 28,606 discussions
icon
Home Audio and Video 18,995 discussions
icon
HDTV Picture Setting 1,743 discussions
icon
Cell Phones 11,258 discussions
icon
Windows 8 1,311 discussions
icon
Networking & Wireless 10,496 discussions