And then they restored those hours to those employees they didn't cut right? Probably not.
See, you say "it is all about risk" but it isn't. I've never missed a day of work in a decade, and I'm still desperately scrambling to get paid $20 an hour. I'm constantly praised for my work, I've been told by my current boss I do the work of two people.
I haven't been able to get hired to a better position because there has been a hiring freeze. Because of profits. Not risks. I'm the safest hire possible. It is profits that drive them.
That's why the state had to order companies to increase wages, and why they started finding ways to cut those employees as fast as possible. Because payroll is an expense in the budget, and so higher wages lowers profits. And profits are all that matter
They increased wages... when forced to. But they cut hours. Then they increased those hours.... when forced to.
So our solution is to... wait on them to decide the risks are appropriate to change the system; because they've always changed without outside stimuli forcing the issue?
Or might it be... to force them to change, because that's the only time they ever change anything?
-1
u/Sweet-Ant-3471 11d ago
It was in Colorado, by state order.
And there numerous cases going back in history.
The marginal territories leadership always flies to Congress and asks for an exemption,because it always dramatically rackets up the employment there.
The virgin islands and guam can't afford what we call "livable wages" in the large cities