Jump to content

Recommended Posts

29 minutes ago, sweatshorts said:

The whole point of the PAYCHECK Protection Program was to allowed business owners to continue to pay employees with limited/no revenue, right? It's supposed to be geared towards helping the workers, not the owners. I understand if she wants more help for herself/the business itself, but why would you not give 75K of a forgivable loan to your employees?

Right, in many cases employees are sitting home on enhanced unemployment, or have left town, but then she writes:

 

Quote

Yes. We were really fortunate; prior to this happening, out of the 16 employees, 14 of them live within walking distance of the restaurant. So we put it out there that whoever wants to come and help out, they can come, but they are basically working on tips, and our customers have been super generous, so Jennifer our lead barista has just been coming in and making coffees for the neighborhood.

Which if I were a DOL investigator would make me think she's saying they are probably collecting unemployment and just coming to help out because they feel like it (for tips)...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some people are just so tone deaf &, more importantly, too inept to even take advantage of “free” (aka: taxpayer) money in a legal way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Steve R. said:

Some people are just so tone deaf &, more importantly, too inept to even take advantage of “free” (aka: taxpayer) money in a legal way.

PPP probably isn’t useful for most restaurants because they have no sales. 
 

Ori’s hypothesis seems correct and also the efficient solution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No disagreement with anything Orik has said on this.  But, PPP is "useful", or could be, to many places.  First of all, as Orik quoted, this particular place is using their previously paid staff as "volunteers", working only for tips (while probably collecting other government unemployment funds - that puts the "volunteer" at risk for a fraudulent claim & the employer at risk for less than minimum wage labor if they're not real stringent on how "volunteer" labor is legally defined).  The PPP would put them back to work full time (which I assume is more income than unemployment) using a different pot of Federal funds & would give the business the opportunity to pay its rent as well.  I'm sure it would also enable this place to put out more product for distribution.  At any rate, no loss, only gain.  Hey, maybe the owner herself can do something meaningful (or is already) & draw a salary under PPP.

Secondly, a lot of local restaurants that I know of have tried to avoid total bankruptcy by at least trying to convert to a take out and delivery operation.  The PPP would really help them expand this, maybe even allowing them to hire a couple of delivery (& even publicity) staff of their own and get rid of Grubhub, Caviar, Uber, Doordash and other delivery companies currently taking 30-60% of what the consumer pays.

Thirdly, even the closed retail operations might be thrilled to have the opportunity to hire their employees back and figure out what the best use of them might be.  For some, it might be increased production of inventory for future sales or expanded distribution.  For others, it might simply be an opportunity for a limited opening to meet a community need without profit but without loss either.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PPP is clearly useful for lots of places. It’s a good idea. But, depending on the labour costs and revenue of the business, my understanding is that there are situations where the economics are better for both the employees and the business of they lay them off  take enhanced unemployment benefits (I think - and I could be wrong - that for a lot of lower wage employees the enhanced benefits are better than wages). If they are coming in and working for tips while receiving benefits, and both parties are better off, it’s hard to be mad about it . There’s a legal risk, but my guess is that the chance of enforcement is low.

 

From what I understand takeout and delivery is limiting  the bleeding, but few are making rent from it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right, as I posted on another thread - unemployment in nyc is $1100/week until the end of July, or $27+/hour, and iirc they don't pay social security and medicare, so even more. 

Quote

 There’s a legal risk, but my guess is that the chance of enforcement is low.

Yes, but you don't go on the record. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's twice this week that I was "less than correct" (usually phrased as "wrong") on postings.  Lucky for me, the other one was just Sneak gloating on my "notifications" button error.  This one is more important.  I looked at the new regs. and expanded benefits & it seems that you're correct that it could be advantageous in many/most cases for an average restaurant employee to be unemployed vs. being called back using PPP benefits.  The federal supplement for unemployment is reported to be $600/week in "Federal Pandemic Unemployment Compensation".  That's $15/hr for full time 40 hrs/week employees in addition to the state's regular benefit.  And its for 39 weeks.  At this amount, I'd guess that a kitchen staff or wait staff in a less than high end tip joint is doing better than when working.

eta: cross posted with Orik.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just recalled that my sister had Kawasaki's disease at an unusually late age (12 I think). It was a very big deal - the hospital brought everyone by to see what it looks like and took pictures to send to other facilities. Fortunately it resolved with no long term damage, but I'm now guessing it's more than coincidence that this was right after we all had a very bad flu.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Orik said:

I just recalled that my sister had Kawasaki's disease at an unusually late age (12 I think). It was a very big deal - the hospital brought everyone by to see what it looks like and took pictures to send to other facilities. Fortunately it resolved with no long term damage, but I'm now guessing it's more than coincidence that this was right after we all had a very bad flu.

I may have posted this previously, but similarly a family member contracted polio 2 weeks after I had a "very bad flu".    Our GP said that it was his sense that in those days, i.e., before vaccine, most people had had polio but not a catastrophic case.    I think Corona is following this probably prevalent pattern.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Orik said:

I just recalled that my sister had Kawasaki's disease at an unusually late age (12 I think). It was a very big deal - the hospital brought everyone by to see what it looks like and took pictures to send to other facilities. Fortunately it resolved with no long term damage, but I'm now guessing it's more than coincidence that this was right after we all had a very bad flu.

My sister has Kawasaki's disease at 18 months.  Fortunately, the hospital my father was working at then happened to have a Kawasaki's specialist on staff who diagnosed her right away.  She thankfully recovered with no complications; I don't remember if we were all sick before or afterwards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/8/2020 at 2:03 PM, Wilfrid said:

The problem for the yokels is that they don't have hospitals or doctors, so it won't take much to overwhelm their regional healthcare.

Looks like there's no statistically significant difference between states that have "opened" and ones that haven't in terms of what the population is actually doing.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/05/12/us/coronavirus-reopening-shutdown.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because it blends urban+rural, weather patterns, socio-economic-racial differences, etc. but overall the lockdowns were only about 70% as effective as in Spain/Italy/Israel, and now are only about 50% as effective. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...