Tips at restaurants should be done away with for minimum wage and employee benefits..
Debate Rounds (3)
also according to OECD (Organisation for Economic and Co-operation and Development) the average working our for a minimum wage American is 1 789 annually, it would make the annual wage for a minimum wage American $13417.5. With Governmental healthcare and dental insurance, it would cost the business only $200 for all employees annually on a shared plan. We shall use 8 employees as well for our example. It would cost the business around $109340 or about %43 of their gross income and this is including insurance. This rebuttal paragraph has clearly proven the lies that my opponent has told you.
As I said in my rebuttal, only about %43 of the income of the restaurants are used to pay restaurant employees. This is no way detrimental to the business, as my opponent thinks. Insurance, in my opinion, should be essential! If, an employee is severally burned by a faulty stove etc. They can easily access the insurance for injuries. But if a company lacks insurance the employee most likely is going to sue the business. Now using the business is detrimental to the finances of it If the restaurant is sued it most likely will close due to the expensive high in legal fees. Which can also result in more people losing thier jobs.
http://www.managingyourhr.com... cost on average $6,881 per employee, though I was conservative with my numbers and went with 6,000. The combined total of that and minimum wage would be $159,360. Which is 63% of his sources profit and $50,000 more than what my opponent told you. He also seems to misunderstand what I mean for healthcare or insurance. I am meaning insurance from outside injuries. If it was an injury that was caused by the owner regardless of where or when it happened, the owner would be, by law, expected to pay for it. What I mean are expenses that are caused by the employees, without the employers interference. My opponent didn't even talk about the fact that people who are getting tips actually make more money than the minimum wage, which is supported by the Atlantic and Washington Post. Also since many tips are just simply not reported many end up not paying taxes on the tips. As for Jonas Mikka Luster stating $250,000 was the average, my statistics as I have stated come from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, his came from a psychologist, someone who studies the mind, not business. (Could you also show me where exactly he said it, I was not able to find that.) Yet even if his source were correct, according to http://smallbusiness.chron.com... approximately 32% of income goes to food already, add that to the 63% from the $159,360 you have left the owner 5% , or $12,500 of his income to spend on better facilities, bills, any other expenses and themselves for an entire year.
" They can easily access the insurance for injuries. But if a company lacks insurance the employee most likely is going to sue the business. Now using the business is detrimental to the finances of it If the restaurant is sued it most likely will close due to the expensive high in legal fees. Which can also result in more people losing their jobs." is ". If it was an injury that was caused by the owner regardless of where or when it happened, the owner would be, by law, expected to pay for it. " This is literally him agreeing with my argument.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by TheJuniorVarsityNovice 4 months ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||5||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Con proved that if we do away with tips it will hurt small businesses. Its a shame that Pro didn't lay out an actual case, as was his job. As pro, he has burden of proof. That means the only thing im evaluating this round on the harm on small businesses. Even if that harm wasn't real, even the risk of that harm possibly being real is enough to vote con, because there's no real benifit to voting pro anyways. why take the risk of any negative change. Next time pro should make his own unique arguments for why we SHOULD, not just refuting the negative arguments. and both sides should use more sourcing and put the sources in the debate. Con is the only one with a source in the pasted in the round and proved that pro's source was inferior due to it being by a psychologist
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.