Juniors Not Paying Employees! - Page 3

esmerelda · ‎03-10-2010

@noodleann I wish all of the money was handed out in a much more discriminating fashion...including that given to individuals regardless of their circumstances.

*********************
Keepin' it real.

CelticCrafter · ‎03-09-2010

@noodleann wrote:
Juniors' CEO has explained his thinking.

Frankly, it's a lousy restaurant, or Brooklyn's was in the 90s, and there are much better cheesecakes out there. I'd never give them my business anyway and don't understand why the loans weren't handed out in a much more discriminating fashion. We don't need Juniors or the Shake Shop or most of the other companies that are trying to feed at the public trough. Help the former employees, but the firms should have had a disaster anticipation strategy of their own. Enough of corporate welfare!

@noodleann & @esmerelda Shake Shack is giving it back

suzyQ3 · ‎03-09-2010

@noodleann wrote:
Juniors' CEO has explained his thinking.

Frankly, it's a lousy restaurant, or Brooklyn's was in the 90s, and there are much better cheesecakes out there. I'd never give them my business anyway and don't understand why the loans weren't handed out in a much more discriminating fashion. We don't need Juniors or the Shake Shop or most of the other companies that are trying to feed at the public trough. Help the former employees, but the firms should have had a disaster anticipation strategy of their own. Enough of corporate welfare!

@noodleannI, I agree. But unlike some, I don't have a problem with individuals receiving help via the stimulas checks, especially since the amount given depends upon income.

The cut-off is relatively modest, and I think that is wise: Individuals who earned more than $99,000 and couples who earned more than $198,000 jointly will not receive checks. The income cut-off for heads of households is $136,500.

~Who in the world am I? Ah, that's the great puzzle~ Lewis Carroll, Alice in Wonderland

noodleann · ‎06-10-2015

@CelticCrafter wrote:
@noodleann wrote:
Juniors' CEO has explained his thinking.

Frankly, it's a lousy restaurant, or Brooklyn's was in the 90s, and there are much better cheesecakes out there. I'd never give them my business anyway and don't understand why the loans weren't handed out in a much more discriminating fashion. We don't need Juniors or the Shake Shop or most of the other companies that are trying to feed at the public trough. Help the former employees, but the firms should have had a disaster anticipation strategy of their own. Enough of corporate welfare!
@noodleann & @esmerelda Shake Shack is giving it back

Shake Shack won't be bound to its employees that way, one of the conditions of accepting the loan, so I don't see it as positive. It's a completely unnecessary company, just like Juniors.

"More than 25% of the total $350 billion fund went to fewer than 2% of the firms that got relief, including a number of publicly traded companies with thousands of employees and hundreds of millions of dollars in annual sales." _NYT

Shake Shack had no business applying in the first place.

noodleann · ‎06-10-2015

@suzyQ3 wrote:
@noodleann wrote:
Juniors' CEO has explained his thinking.

Frankly, it's a lousy restaurant, or Brooklyn's was in the 90s, and there are much better cheesecakes out there. I'd never give them my business anyway and don't understand why the loans weren't handed out in a much more discriminating fashion. We don't need Juniors or the Shake Shop or most of the other companies that are trying to feed at the public trough. Help the former employees, but the firms should have had a disaster anticipation strategy of their own. Enough of corporate welfare!
@noodleannI, I agree. But unlike some, I don't have a problem with individuals receiving help via the stimulas checks, especially since the amount given depends upon income.

The cut-off is relatively modest, and I think that is wise: Individuals who earned more than $99,000 and couples who earned more than $198,000 jointly will not receive checks. The income cut-off for heads of households is $136,500.

Yep. Unlike some embittered posters who resent older people getting the benefits--not entitlements--they paid into for decades, I agree 100%. That includes what the IRS calls the "Economic Impact Payment."As you point out, it has a fair cutoff point.

People first. People power companies, so businesses should be on board with that.

Carmie · ‎10-25-2010

What good will it do to hire all of their employees back right now? Their shop is closed.

Their mail order business is probably suffering too. I am sure they usually do big business for Easter and Passover. This year everyone cut back. They probably have cheese cake up the wahoo.

Mostly all business are hurting right now, except the big grocery stores and Walmart..

because they are allowed to be open.

If at least part of the country doesn't open up soon, many business will be close forever.

It is estimated that 61% of small businesses in PA will not survive this. These loans are only going to be a bandaid trying to stop a hemorrhage.

So, yeah..go ahead and boycott them because they can't bring all of their employees back right now. Then maybe they will completely go under and none of their employees will have a job.

ladyann45 · ‎05-01-2011

I understand your point but if it for payroll and they are under a lock down why pay them now. His business will still be looking for money to pay them when the city of NY open up. He pay unemployedment insuriance. I can tell you are not an employer and he is in the middle because he don't know when his state will open because NY has really been hit with this virus. I am a small business person and we are on partial lockdown in TX and some of my friends businesses are nonessential and we don't qualified for the loan because we have no employees, so that is another thing in itself.. I have to say at least he was able to say why and if you need an excuse to not do business with him i can understand both of you.

esmerelda · ‎03-10-2010

@CelticCrafter wrote:
@noodleann wrote:
Juniors' CEO has explained his thinking.

Frankly, it's a lousy restaurant, or Brooklyn's was in the 90s, and there are much better cheesecakes out there. I'd never give them my business anyway and don't understand why the loans weren't handed out in a much more discriminating fashion. We don't need Juniors or the Shake Shop or most of the other companies that are trying to feed at the public trough. Help the former employees, but the firms should have had a disaster anticipation strategy of their own. Enough of corporate welfare!
@noodleann & @esmerelda Shake Shack is giving it back

@CelticCrafter I saw that. At the time I read the name mentioned in the earlier post here I thought it was odd. Shake Shop isn't a household name is it...I mean to the point it would be mentioned here?

And then I saw the headline about them giving it back and I got it.

It. Was in. The news.

Of course. Maybe how they didn't deserve it. And I'm talking about the post BEFORE they gave it back. The business was mentioned, in an unflattering light, here.

*********************
Keepin' it real.

Spacrazy · ‎12-14-2018

@CrazyDaisy ours, too. It’s very clear - payroll.

esmerelda · ‎03-10-2010

@noodleann The $1200 relief payment is not a benefit that you "paid into for decades" nor is it an entitlement. For some it's a lifeline. For many it's spending money.

*********************
Keepin' it real.