I saw your response to the 'decepticon-aesthetic' post about boycotting Tims, and to the individual who had responded to that post saying that they were afraid a boycott would mean more hours and employees would be cut. I was really unimpressed at your response to that. As someone who also works a minimum-wage service job, I can say in solidarity that a company making less money does in fact mean they will shorten the length of the shifts they give out and fewer people will work those shifts.1/?
2/2 The tone of your response upset me, and I pray I’ve misinterpreted what you meant, because I really admire this blog and what you do here. To say to someone who is genuinely afraid their livelihood is being diminished, that they need to “name something else that will put pressure on the company” was not very tactful. If our goal is to try and show Tims that we stand with their employees, how is telling those employees “nope we’re not listening to your fears of consequences” helping them?
I wasn’t meaning to be harsh. I was genuinely asking for a counter-solution that harms no one. Because I have not seen an alternative.
I understand what Tim Hortons workers are going through. I work a part time, minimum wage job at my university with no benefits. My hours vary widely from week to week. I’ve worked service jobs in a restaurant such as bussing tables and janitorial work (which had very long hours and very short breaks).
My post was about looking to resolve this solution in the long term, so that although this could hurt TH workers now, in the near future it could restore lost benefits and ensure working hours are fair. That’s something worth fighting for. The alternative is to accept the removed benefits, with no chance of ever getting them back.
I refuse to passively accept that these franchise owners should be allowed to rob their employees without any penalties.
