The Tulsa Forum by TulsaNow

Not At My Table - Political Discussions => National & International Politics => Topic started by: nathanm on November 11, 2012, 10:44:47 am



Title: Government Regulation and Jimmy John's
Post by: nathanm on November 11, 2012, 10:44:47 am
It's unfortunate that Jimmy John had to open his big bucking mouth. Whining is quite unappetizing.


Title: Re: Jimmy John\\\\\\\\\\\\
Post by: sgrizzle on November 12, 2012, 09:43:51 am
It's unfortunate that Jimmy John had to open his big bucking mouth. Whining is quite unappetizing.

When a mandate is passed to retail employers, weather it be to add benefits or increase wages, the business must cut employees/hours, or raise prices. That is all he said and I don't see it as whining, just basic math. Retail has very fixed margins and can't just "suck it up."


Title: Re: Jimmy John\\\\\\\\\\\\
Post by: Conan71 on November 12, 2012, 10:18:16 am
Jimmy John's isn't alone.  A lot of food chains (and I would assume retail chains) are looking at cutting work hours for part-timers so they have to cover fewer employees or pay the penalty. 

We will know soon enough what the unintended consequences of this legislation was.


Title: Re: Jimmy John\\\\\\\\\\\\
Post by: nathanm on November 12, 2012, 10:29:29 am
When a mandate is passed to retail employers, weather it be to add benefits or increase wages, the business must cut employees/hours, or raise prices. That is all he said and I don't see it as whining, just basic math. Retail has very fixed margins and can't just "suck it up."

The largest pizza franchisee in the country manages to offer health insurance to all of their employees who work over 28(ish, I know part timers can get it, but I don't remember the exact cutoff) hours a week. Or at least they did until the private equity takeover. I don't know about their present arrangement. So yeah, it strikes me as whining to say that he can't stay in business if he doesn't get an implicit subsidy from the public. If that means I have to pay 20 cents more per sandwich, so be it.


Title: Re: Jimmy John\\\\\\\\\\\\
Post by: Conan71 on November 12, 2012, 10:47:31 am
The largest pizza franchisee in the country manages to offer health insurance to all of their employees who work over 28(ish, I know part timers can get it, but I don't remember the exact cutoff) hours a week. Or at least they did until the private equity takeover. I don't know about their present arrangement. So yeah, it strikes me as whining to say that he can't stay in business if he doesn't get an implicit subsidy from the public. If that means I have to pay 20 cents more per sandwich, so be it.

It's not a big deal whether Papa John's adds 13 cents to cover his costs or 50 cents for Jimmy Johns to cover theirs so long as all their competitors play by the same rules rather than cutting hours to under 28 to avoid the whole fiasco.


Title: Re: Jimmy John\\\\\\\\\\\\
Post by: nathanm on November 12, 2012, 11:02:06 am
It's not a big deal whether Papa John's adds 13 cents to cover his costs or 50 cents for Jimmy Johns to cover theirs so long as all their competitors play by the same rules rather than cutting hours to under 28 to avoid the whole fiasco.

I agree with everything in this post. ;)


Title: Re: Jimmy John\\\\\\\\\\\\
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on November 12, 2012, 01:08:04 pm
If they were working someone over 28 before without the business justification to do so, then.....why??  Business out of control.  Lack of good management.  It is an absolute certainty that those employees for whom no economic justification can be made to work over 28 DID NOT hire themselves, nor did they establish the schedule that gave them all those "unnecessary" - over 28 hours. 


Title: Re: Jimmy John\\\\\\\\\\\\
Post by: davideinstein on November 12, 2012, 09:43:46 pm
It hurts us big time. We already have to pay a payroll tax which would easily make room for another employee or two during the lunch rush  The part that really pisses me off is that I have personally trained two people that went from minimum wage in April to a salaried bonus position this month. If you work hard, the opportunity is there.

Also, I should have some news on a new store for us next week sometime.


Title: Re: Jimmy John\\\\\\\\\\\\
Post by: Red Arrow on November 12, 2012, 10:23:31 pm
Cutting hours to avoid paying health insurance is dirty pool.  Most of us wouldn't notice a few cents on a pizza.  If you can't afford another $.25 to $.50 per pizza averaging over $10, you probably shouldn't be eating pizza to begin with.  Go to WalMart, buy some food to take home and prepare.  I wonder how effective an advertising campaign saying a pizza place provides health insurance to its employees would be.  Any marketing folks out there with some real data?


Title: Re: Jimmy John\\\\\\\\\\\\
Post by: Conan71 on November 12, 2012, 11:19:50 pm
We already have to pay a payroll tax which would easily make room for another employee or two during the lunch rush 

Are you referring to FICA and Social Security?  Every employer is on the hook for that.


Title: Re: Jimmy John\\\\\\\\\\\\
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on November 13, 2012, 12:52:55 pm
It hurts us big time. We already have to pay a payroll tax which would easily make room for another employee or two during the lunch rush 


The part that really pisses me off is that I have personally trained two people that went from minimum wage in April to a salaried bonus position this month. If you work hard, the opportunity is there.



Might want to re-read that first statement - is that exactly what you wanted to say?  Sounds like you might be saying you didn't factor that payroll tax into the cost structure for your business plan to begin with.  And if you have the kind lunch rush that NEEDS another employee or two, then how is the pricing structure so far off that you can't justify it regardless??  And yeah, if all of us could employ people at $3.00 per hour, we could hire more and do more...but that is not a business condition I plan for.   (This sounds like it is drifting close to the mantra;  to Democrats, low wages are the problem...to Republicans, low wages are the solution.)



I guess I would ask for elaboration about why that advancement would be a pisser?



Title: Re: Jimmy John\\\\\\\\\\\\
Post by: davideinstein on November 15, 2012, 12:04:30 am
My point is that government regulations and taxes hinder economic growth. Nothing more to it.


Title: Re: Jimmy John\\\\\\\\\\\\
Post by: RecycleMichael on November 15, 2012, 07:13:20 am
My point is that government regulations and taxes hinder economic growth. Nothing more to it.

All government regulations hinder economic growth?

I disagree.


Title: Re: Jimmy John\\\\\\\\\\\\
Post by: patric on November 15, 2012, 10:33:02 am
My point is that government regulations and taxes hinder economic growth. Nothing more to it.

Government regulations are what keep mouse droppings out of your Jimmy Johns. 
Otherwise, such incidents would be handled with lawsuits and boycotts, which have a bigger impact on economic growth.


Title: Re: Jimmy John\\\\\\\\\\\\
Post by: carltonplace on November 15, 2012, 10:46:18 am
Government regulations also level the playing field by discouraging collusion, price fixing and gouging. Regulations ensure that the "ham" you are advertising in your Sandwich actually has some "ham" in it.

Caveat emptor.


Title: Re: Jimmy John\\\\\\\\\\\\
Post by: Townsend on November 15, 2012, 10:49:43 am
Government regulations also level the playing field by discouraging collusion, price fixing and gouging. Regulations ensure that the "ham" you are advertising in your Sandwich actually has some "ham" in it.

Caveat emptor.

And that places don't exceed the acceptable amount of rodent hair and bug excrement in their processed foods.


Title: Re: Jimmy John\\\\\\\\\\\\
Post by: Conan71 on November 15, 2012, 11:34:07 am
Government regulations are what keep mouse droppings out of your Jimmy Johns. 


One reason why I never used to get the chocolate sprinkles on my donuts.


Title: Re: Jimmy John\\\\\\\\\\\\
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on November 15, 2012, 12:07:04 pm
My point is that government regulations and taxes hinder economic growth. Nothing more to it.


These guys around here are all too nice to you.  That is an absolute crock of carp!  For all the reasons they said, plus about a hundred more or so, right down to the traffic regulations that allow people to reasonably travel to your stores!  Hey, how about those pesky "unwarranted government intrusions' that make you have restrooms in each store.  Or handwash sinks.  Or guards on the slicers.  Or a big, king size bucket of other stuff?

Geeeeezzz...  Now, I gotta ask - did you an erfalf go to the same business school?  Both of you need to step back from the Kook-Aid a bit.

They hinder growth in exactly the same means and scale that every other business expense hinders growth.  It is another line item in you economic evaluations that determine whether what you say you want to do is viable or not.  It would be absolutely ridiculous for me to not take into account the fact that I am paying someone $12.00 per hour, but instead say to myself in my little MurdochianFantasyWorld that I should be able to get competent, conscientious employees to do what I need done for $2.50 an hour.  You know what the regulations are (or you didn't do proper due diligence before you started - like the health department regulation that you must have a certified food manager on duty, along with all food permit people.)  You know that employees cost you $x.xx.  You know that rent is $y.yy.  You SHOULD be reasonably able to foresee if you have paid ANY attention to the history of the last 30 years - with emphasis on the last 12 - that taxes will HAVE to go up, cuts to government MUST be made, and costs overall are gonna climb.  Unless we enter into a deflationary cycle... which I hope never happens!

And new regulations - well some may happen.  And there is ALWAYS long advanced notices before implementation.  You cannot possibly - reasonably - be taken by surprise without more than adequate notice to allow you to plan and adjust.  DOES NOT HAPPEN!!  I have literally been dealing with a ton of that kind of stuff industrially, and now in food related, for 40 years and yeah, it is a pain in the butt sometimes, but NEVER has it hindered what the goal of the enterprise was beyond the above mentioned cost issues.  (I built a small commercial kitchen that had a big learning curve for me, so some amount of pain, but received high marks and praises from the health department!  And it was economically feasible/practical.)

As an example, if you cannot "afford" to make a sub shop that doesn't have a commercial refrigerator, then you shouldn't be in business to start with, so get out of the way and let someone do it who can!



Title: Re: Jimmy John\\\\\\\\\\\\
Post by: DowntownDan on November 15, 2012, 03:29:02 pm
Just don't tell him that small business didn't build the roads and highways leading to their businesses, or the reservoirs and plumbing and treatment facilities that pump fresh water into their business and remove waste, or that they didn't build the power plants and miles upon miles of lines that bring electricity to their businesses, or that they didn't create the courts of law that prevent people from robbing the business and punishes those who do.  Don't you dare say that.  Because they did all of that all on their own.  They benefited nothing from that infrastructure or from the governemental systems that protect them.  They do it all by themselves.  No benefit from the taxpayer funded public systems or processes whatsoever.


Title: Re: Jimmy John\\\\\\\\\\\\
Post by: nathanm on November 15, 2012, 03:51:53 pm
Damn communists, the lot of you.


Title: Re: Jimmy John\\\\\\\\\\\\
Post by: davideinstein on November 16, 2012, 12:56:28 am
Any reason why we should make people that earn low wages go pay for a food handlers card? Seems like a regressive tax for the most part. Do we really need a payroll tax and sales tax around 8%? Lower that tax, spend wiser and you will help out the consumer and leave more labor open for employment opportunities. Why should the employer be forced to provide health care? Is that the best solution to getting much needed health care to people? Or do we end up with low wage employees working two part time jobs instead of one full time job and limiting their experience to advance at just one job?


Title: Re: Jimmy John\\\\\\\\\\\\
Post by: davideinstein on November 16, 2012, 12:58:55 am
Just don't tell him that small business didn't build the roads and highways leading to their businesses, or the reservoirs and plumbing and treatment facilities that pump fresh water into their business and remove waste, or that they didn't build the power plants and miles upon miles of lines that bring electricity to their businesses, or that they didn't create the courts of law that prevent people from robbing the business and punishes those who do.  Don't you dare say that.  Because they did all of that all on their own.  They benefited nothing from that infrastructure or from the governemental systems that protect them.  They do it all by themselves.  No benefit from the taxpayer funded public systems or processes whatsoever.

At what point did I say I was opposed to public infrastructure?


Title: Re: Jimmy John\\\\\\\\\\\\
Post by: nathanm on November 16, 2012, 01:48:33 am
The same health department that stops mouse droppings (our corporate standards are what does that actually)...requires us to have two hand sinks in the front kitchen for no reason and two prep sinks for no reason. I realize regulations are needed and I made a blanket statement on regulation. But it can be overzealous at times.

If one sink breaks, you still have a working hand sink and don't need to shut the store to avoid violating the health code. If Oklahoma requires a food handler's license to work in a fast food place, you've got my total support in getting that repealed. I am perfectly OK with requiring that managers and shift leaders take specific food safety training, but I don't see the need for an actual license. That said, I would think that having your employees trained on food safety would reduce the risk of being fined by the health department, so maybe it's a good idea from that perspective.


Title: Re: Jimmy John\\\\\\\\\\\\
Post by: dbacks fan on November 16, 2012, 04:39:56 am
The same health department that stops mouse droppings (our corporate standards are what does that actually)...requires us to have two hand sinks in the front kitchen for no reason and two prep sinks for no reason. I realize regulations are needed and I made a blanket statement on regulation. But it can be overzealous at times.

Remind me which ones you own, I won't be eating there, because profit over consumer safety sounds more important to you.


Title: Re: Jimmy John\\\\\\\\\\\\
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on November 16, 2012, 07:11:09 am
The same health department that stops mouse droppings (our corporate standards are what does that actually)...requires us to have two hand sinks in the front kitchen for no reason and two prep sinks for no reason. I realize regulations are needed and I made a blanket statement on regulation. But it can be overzealous at times.

Your corporate standards are there EXACTLY because that is what the health department specifically requires on mouse droppings. 

Do tell,...where did the dual sink thing come about?  As of just a couple of years ago, I wasn't required to do that.  Maybe has to do with square footage or number of employees.  The kitchen I built was very smale - under 600 square feet - and only 4 to 6 people work in it.

NO health department regulation is for "no reason".  What you are very intentionally trying to do is deflect - so, how about finishing the sentence and saying WHAT specific reason the health department gives you for requiring tow sinks.  I know YOU feel it is NO reason - am curious to see if all would agree.

As for "making employees" pay a regressive tax such as the food handlers permit....are you freeking kidding me???  YOU don't pay the $10 for their permit??  (Yes, I do.  I reimburse ALL expenses they accrue specifically related to the operation of my business.  Why should they pay for MY business when undoubtedly, I get the biggest reward.)

As for the certified food managers - yep, I pay for their class and their permit.  Do you?

How about uniforms?  I don't remember seeing any when I was there, but yes, I pay for the shirts required - jeans they already got. 




Title: Re: Jimmy John\\\\\\\\\\\\
Post by: tulsa_fan on November 16, 2012, 08:26:46 am
Wasn't there a thread once where it was pondered why so many people look but few comment?  WoW, I mean you can disagree with someone's opinion but if I was the JJ guy, I'd be done posting my opinions as well.  Maybe he doesn't have time to sit down and compose a well thought out dissertation on his frustrations with over involvement by the government, maybe he's too busy trying to find ways to grow his organization to go pull statutes and laws to quote.  That doesn't mean I can't see what he is trying to say, over involvement by the government stiffles growth.


Title: Re: Jimmy John\\\\\\\\\\\\
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on November 16, 2012, 11:45:41 am
Wasn't there a thread once where it was pondered why so many people look but few comment?  WoW, I mean you can disagree with someone's opinion but if I was the JJ guy, I'd be done posting my opinions as well.  Maybe he doesn't have time to sit down and compose a well thought out dissertation on his frustrations with over involvement by the government, maybe he's too busy trying to find ways to grow his organization to go pull statutes and laws to quote.  That doesn't mean I can't see what he is trying to say, over involvement by the government stiffles growth.


Again...see previous...it's another business expense/issue to be managed like ALL of them.  It is like saying the cost of soap for those sinks is stifling growth.  I get frustrated by a lot of things related to the business I do, but don't go whining about any particular one more than the other - they are ALL pains in the backside.  Managing them is the key to prevent any of them from stifling my growth.  A small warehouse/factory is my major pain these days.  And I can't afford a bigger one yet, so I guess I am stifled.  It's like playing Farmville or Nile Online, though.  Management of issues is key.  I will grow.  Without whining about how it is 'gubmint' or union holding me back.  I do factor all those things in so they don't hold me back.  








Title: Re: Jimmy John\\\\\\\\\\\\
Post by: Conan71 on November 16, 2012, 11:49:17 am
Wasn't there a thread once where it was pondered why so many people look but few comment?  WoW, I mean you can disagree with someone's opinion but if I was the JJ guy, I'd be done posting my opinions as well.  Maybe he doesn't have time to sit down and compose a well thought out dissertation on his frustrations with over involvement by the government, maybe he's too busy trying to find ways to grow his organization to go pull statutes and laws to quote.  That doesn't mean I can't see what he is trying to say, over involvement by the government stiffles growth.

I always get a kick out of people who have never taken the risk to start or run their own business from the ground up who pontificate as if they are experts on how it is done and the daily challenges of a small business owner. 

It would be like me describing to you what being pregnant and child birth is like simply because I've fathered two daughters.  ;)


Title: Re: Jimmy John\\\\\\\\\\\\
Post by: Townsend on November 16, 2012, 11:52:43 am

It would be like me describing to you what being pregnant and child birth is like simply because I've fathered two daughters.  ;)

You have to be a Middle aged white male United States Republican congressman first.


Title: Re: Jimmy John\\\\\\\\\\\\
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on November 16, 2012, 11:57:43 am
I always get a kick out of people who have never taken the risk to start or run their own business from the ground up who pontificate as if they are experts on how it is done and the daily challenges of a small business owner. 

It would be like me describing to you what being pregnant and child birth is like simply because I've fathered two daughters.  ;)

Moi??

I have started 4.  One failed spectacularly - and expensively.  One slowly ground to a halt due to economy and inadequate sales capability - my failures - made money - good margins, just not enough total.  Third - I am very cautiously optimistic - doing ok so far.  Fourth just getting started - need more manufacturing space - time will tell - prototypes excellent and doing well in field trials.



Title: Re: Jimmy John\\\\\\\\\\\\
Post by: nathanm on November 16, 2012, 12:57:02 pm
That doesn't mean I can't see what he is trying to say, over involvement by the government stiffles growth.

The flip side being that under involvement by the government also stifles growth. Without a referee, we're stuck with the 20 paces at dawn style of dispute resolution. That's all well and good, but killing the brain trust isn't the best way to move ourselves forward. ;)


Title: Re: Jimmy John\\\\\\\\\\\\
Post by: Conan71 on November 16, 2012, 02:44:43 pm
Moi??

I have started 4.  One failed spectacularly - and expensively.  One slowly ground to a halt due to economy and inadequate sales capability - my failures - made money - good margins, just not enough total.  Third - I am very cautiously optimistic - doing ok so far.  Fourth just getting started - need more manufacturing space - time will tell - prototypes excellent and doing well in field trials.



Bring in a trusted partner if your management skills leave something to be desired.  Many great partnerships have flourished when you have an idea person and someone else who believes in the idea and can sell it.


Title: Re: Jimmy John\\\\\\\\\\\\
Post by: Hoss on November 16, 2012, 02:50:27 pm
Bring in a trusted partner if your management skills leave something to be desired.  Many great partnerships have flourished when you have an idea person and someone else who believes in the idea and can sell it.

Ala Edison/JP Morgan.  Been watching that on History Channel this week.  Fascinating stuff.


Title: Re: Jimmy John\\\\\\\\\\\\
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on November 16, 2012, 09:22:43 pm
Bring in a trusted partner if your management skills leave something to be desired.  Many great partnerships have flourished when you have an idea person and someone else who believes in the idea and can sell it.


Apple Computer.  Microsoft.  These are my goals/aspirations.

Have one I have been trying to get - he moved to Texas about 5 years ago.  Wants to come back.  Will be getting together as soon as money allows.  And one thing I won't repeat is #1.





Title: Re: Jimmy John\\\\\\\\\\\\
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on November 16, 2012, 09:37:18 pm
Ala Edison/JP Morgan.  Been watching that on History Channel this week.  Fascinating stuff.

Looks very good.  Out of town too much lately...may have to try to catch up online if they will let me.

Those guys were hard core.  If Carnegie didn't like 'em, he beat them to a pulp. 



Title: Re: Jimmy John\\\\\\\\\\\\
Post by: Hoss on November 16, 2012, 10:55:43 pm
Looks very good.  Out of town too much lately...may have to try to catch up online if they will let me.

Those guys were hard core.  If Carnegie didn't like 'em, he beat them to a pulp. 



It wasn't necessarily Carnegie.  Frick was the taskmaster.


Title: Re: Jimmy John\\\\\\\\\\\\
Post by: Conan71 on November 16, 2012, 11:28:38 pm
It wasn't necessarily Carnegie.  Frick was the taskmaster.

Well, now, smile.  How did I miss this series?  Sounds like a must watch.


Title: Re: Jimmy John\\\\\\\\\\\\
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on November 17, 2012, 09:06:43 pm
It wasn't necessarily Carnegie.  Frick was the taskmaster.


Can't remember - maybe it was JP.  One of those guys was a brawler when he was younger....



Title: Re: Jimmy John\\\\\\\\\\\\
Post by: Hoss on November 17, 2012, 09:13:06 pm

Can't remember - maybe it was JP.  One of those guys was a brawler when he was younger....



JP was pretty much a daddy's boy up until he met Edison.  I could see Carnegie being that way as a Scot.


Title: Re: Jimmy John\\\\\\\\\\\\
Post by: davideinstein on November 18, 2012, 09:29:24 am
Wasn't there a thread once where it was pondered why so many people look but few comment?  WoW, I mean you can disagree with someone's opinion but if I was the JJ guy, I'd be done posting my opinions as well.  Maybe he doesn't have time to sit down and compose a well thought out dissertation on his frustrations with over involvement by the government, maybe he's too busy trying to find ways to grow his organization to go pull statutes and laws to quote.  That doesn't mean I can't see what he is trying to say, over involvement by the government stiffles growth.

You called the spade on time. I check on mobile and wish I had the time to sit down and elaborate on the many government frustrations I have. I don't, however, think I should limit my opinions. I have been on here for years and I am a huge advocate for many things we all want done in Tulsa (business development, public transit, etc).


Title: Re: Jimmy John\\\\\\\\\\\\
Post by: Red Arrow on November 18, 2012, 12:47:36 pm
I could see Carnegie being that way as a Scot.

Stereotyping much lately?


Title: Re: Jimmy John\\\\\\\\\\\\
Post by: Hoss on November 18, 2012, 01:24:26 pm
Stereotyping much lately?

Ah yes. Humorless chimes in.

BTW I'm a direct descendant of William Wallace.

Jumping to conclusions much lately?


Title: Re: Jimmy John\\\\\\\\\\\\
Post by: sgrizzle on November 18, 2012, 01:25:05 pm
Maybe so. Roaches are one of the things that give me an instant guttural reaction of disgust. Even though that incident was at least a year ago, I can still picture that gross thing rooting around for food. I swear that it looked at me from across the room and mocked me.

Those type of roaches I've seen walking down the street. Could've had nothing to do with the store.


Title: Re: Jimmy John\\\\\\\\\\\\
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on November 22, 2012, 10:46:35 am
  I'll give ya two regulations right off that I am working on with my gift shop downtown.  1.  I am told I have to have two water fountains, a "high-low".  Water cooler or bottled water won't work.  Thats over a thousand dollars out of my pocket to have it bought and installed.  Could have cost much more but I found a place to put it where it wouldn't cost too much but could still be public and ADA accessible.  Basically, when you walk into the store, the first thing you see, isn't something wonderful and fancy but... an ugly water fountain lol.  Oh, well.  2.  Have to have a mop sink.  Never mind that I don't have a mop, still have to have the mop sink.  It can't be one of the ones on legs but has to be on/in the ground.  So bring out the jackhammers and tearing out sheetrock etc. to lay the water pipes, venting, etc. Could be another $1,500 or so  Am working on this second issue right now trying to get it taken care of so that I can open the gift shop in time for the other Deco District shops grand openings.  May have to cut off the second bathroom and turn it into a "mop closet".  Anyway, these and others have cost a pretty dime for me trying to start and open a small business.  Just those two things with labor and parts and permits and inspections could cost around $3,000 (not to mention all the time it's taken me to mess with these issues).  That's $3000 I now don't have to purchase products to sell in order to make money (which is the point of the exercise lol).  What's frustrating too is that I hear from many of the contractors over and over the refrain "We don't have to mess with this or that in Bixby or Jenks", etc.  Tulsa has adopted these added rules which make it more expensive, for the little guy especially, to start a new business.     


Thank you very much!!   Specifics!!!


I had to do the mop closet shuffle, but managed to dodge the drinking fountain fiasco on the commercial kitchen I put together.  Many pains in the butt to be encountered in these endeavors.

Wonder what the rationale is for drinking fountains in a gift shop?  Adjacent to the bathroom??



Title: Re: Jimmy John\\\\\\\\\\\\
Post by: tulsabug on November 22, 2012, 04:24:08 pm
I'm curious on this too. I'm guessing this is more than a gift shop?  ???


Title: Re: Jimmy John\\\\\\\\\\\\
Post by: davideinstein on November 22, 2012, 04:37:31 pm

Quote from: tulsa_fan on November 16, 2012, 08:26:46 am
Wasn't there a thread once where it was pondered why so many people look but few comment?  WoW, I mean you can disagree with someone's opinion but if I was the JJ guy, I'd be done posting my opinions as well.  Maybe he doesn't have time to sit down and compose a well thought out dissertation on his frustrations with over involvement by the government, maybe he's too busy trying to find ways to grow his organization to go pull statutes and laws to quote.  That doesn't mean I can't see what he is trying to say, over involvement by the government stiffles growth.



Sound bite comments and replies.  It was David that said there were too many government regulations stifling his business.  Well, what I "ask" for is a note detailing which ones he is so obviously concerned about since he appears to have something specific in mind related to the direct operation of HIS stores! 

And then the reply is, well, I don't really have time or can't afford the effort to say which issue is stifling my business??  What an unbelievable cop-out.


Oh...I'm frustrated by government stifling me...
Ok, which piece exactly is stifling you?
I don't have time to talk about it...

??  Plenty of time to post about all the frustrations, but no time to say which ones they are - or even just one?


Well, I will say again - I'm frustrated as can be that I can't get the competent people I need to work for me for $2.50 per hour.  That's stifling my business to the point where I just don't know for sure if we can possibly survive....(insert wringing of hands here)....I guess I can just sell all my equipment, write myself the bonus check, and all those people are just gonna lose their jobs...

There isn't a single regulation that is stifling us. I gave some examples of things that frustrate me earlier in the thread (two hand sinks, food handlers cards, labor tax, etc). I don't know what kind of side rant the latter part of your post means, but that wasn't my point. I just like efficiency.


Title: Re: Jimmy John\\\\\\\\\\\\
Post by: TheArtist on November 22, 2012, 07:53:49 pm
I'm curious on this too. I'm guessing this is more than a gift shop?  ???

Nope, just a gift shop.  And also, no, the fountain is not by the restrooms.  Wish it could have been but the hallways were not wide enough for that to be ADA compliant.  Couple other interesting things we had to take care of recently were, a "mixing" valve on the restroom sinks so that the water would not get too hot (apparently just turning it down at the water tank won't do it) and a brand new regulation now requiring a vertical grab bar next to each toilet.

Money here, money there, it's a wonder it's so hard to start a business in downtown or in an older building.  Especially if your just an average person, or an artist lol, trying to start a business without taking out a big loan and doing it "out of pocket".  You think with some "sweat equity" hard work and yes, paying attention to some basic, fundamental things you could make a go of it.  Even with our talents and us doing a LOT of things ourselves, it's easily cost over $20,000 to get the space workable, and that is not including props (tables, shelving, etc.) and of course merchandise.  I still have yet to do signage, that will have to wait a bit.  We just did the baaare essentials for lighting and plug-ins for instance and will call in the electrician to add more later.  Will also upgrade the restrooms (add tile for instance) as we can afford that as well.  Then we have easily over $30,000 in merchandise, and it still could have used at least double that to get the space to feel full.  So, by the time we open next week, about $60,000 will have been put out to get this little, meager "start" of a gift shop going.  And even that does NOT include our 4 months of working in that space just about every evening, often till 10 or 11 at night.

But I do have to say I am excited about the future.  Just been a rollercoaster, stressful, hard working, 4 months.   After the holiday rush I can then spend the next year or two working the kinks out, upgrading, being creative, trying out new ideas, etc.  Am excited about the possibilities.  This first step would have been a lot easier though without some of the "expensive to us on a tight budget" regulations and such.

SO,   should open next week!   Please drop by and do some Christmas shopping!  I have a mop sink to pay for lol. 


Title: Re: Jimmy John\\\\\\\\\\\\
Post by: JCnOwasso on November 23, 2012, 09:42:02 am
I'll give you an example as well, my in laws owned an extremely successful construction business that did mostly government work.  They had done work for Tulsa for years.  In the last couple of years a new requirement was put in for those that bid, you had to utilize Minority Owned subs or you wouldn't be considered to bid.  It didn't matter that he didn't use subs at all, or that his company was full of minorities . . . if he didn't give part of his bid to a minority owned sub, he would not win the bid.  He didn't appreciate the city telling him how to do his work, so guess what?  He liqudated and left others to deal with it.  He was successful enough that he had that option.  But they are spending less money in the economy, as are many of their employees who likely aren't making as much $$ elsewhere. 


I am not a fan of the cities procurement practices, but I actually agree with this one.  The purpose of this is not to stifle business, it is to stimulate Minority owned businesses and encourage entrance into the market of other business.  I am not sure of the amount that the city required, but I am pretty sure it was insignificant in the grand scheme of things.  When I worked for a DoD contractor, we had to utilize a total of 25% small business mixed among several different classifications (woman owned, veteran/disabled vet, disadvantaged small business, etc). 

As for my current federal job, we HAVE to use small business for EVERYTHING under 150k.  No way to get around it (unless there is not 2 or more small businesses that can perform the task or supply the item).  The arguement that you pay more for small business is not even a consideration unless it is a gross overpayment.  The response from DC is that you have to budget for the use of socio-economic programs (small business usage). 


Title: Re: Jimmy John\\\\\\\\\\\\
Post by: Red Arrow on November 23, 2012, 10:09:24 am
The response from DC is that you have to budget for the use of socio-economic programs (small business usage). 

I guess that's OK as long as folks are willing to buy "$600 hammers".  (Or was it toilet seats?)


Title: Re: Jimmy John\\\\\\\\\\\\
Post by: nathanm on November 24, 2012, 03:05:01 pm
I guess that's OK as long as folks are willing to buy "$600 hammers".  (Or was it toilet seats?)

You mistake accounting shortcuts for actual cost:

Quote
One problem: "There never was a $600 hammer," said Steven Kelman, public policy professor at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government and a former administrator of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy. It was, he said, "an accounting artifact."

The military bought the hammer, Kelman explained, bundled into one bulk purchase of many different spare parts. But when the contractors allocated their engineering expenses among the individual spare parts on the list-a bookkeeping exercise that had no effect on the price the Pentagon paid overall-they simply treated every item the same. So the hammer, originally $15, picked up the same amount of research and development overhead-$420-as each of the highly technical components, recalled retired procurement official LeRoy Haugh. (Later news stories inflated the $435 figure to $600.)

"The hammer got as much overhead as an engine," Kelman continued, despite the fact that the hammer cost much less than $420 to develop, and the engine cost much more-"but nobody ever said, 'What a great deal the government got on the engine!' "

Thus retold, the legend of the $600 hammer becomes a different kind of cautionary tale. It is no longer about simple, obvious waste. The new moral is that numbers, taken as self-explanatory truths by the public and the press, can in fact be the woefully distorted products of a broken accounting system.

http://www.govexec.com/federal-news/1998/12/the-myth-of-the-600-hammer/5271/

Sometimes the government does have to spend seemingly ridiculous amounts of money on things, but I'm sure you understand that reopening a production line to build a relatively small number of needed spare parts 20 years after production ended can be very expensive since those startup costs have to be allocated over a small run of product. It would be nice if Congress would be consistent in its prediction of the expected lifetimes of our various weapon systems, but we're constantly fighting about it, so sometimes we have to spend more money than we'd like when service lifetimes are extended by Congressional fiat.


Title: Re: Jimmy John\\\\\\\\\\\\
Post by: Red Arrow on November 24, 2012, 03:52:08 pm
You mistake accounting shortcuts for actual cost:

You mistake my "$600 hammers" for an actual claim of a hammer that cost $600.  Please note the quote marks.

Quote
Sometimes the government does have to spend seemingly ridiculous amounts of money on things, but I'm sure you understand that reopening a production line to build a relatively small number of needed spare parts 20 years after production ended can be very expensive since those startup costs have to be allocated over a small run of product. It would be nice if Congress would be consistent in its prediction of the expected lifetimes of our various weapon systems, but we're constantly fighting about it, so sometimes we have to spend more money than we'd like when service lifetimes are extended by Congressional fiat.

I'm sure you understand that I find the mere thought (you found it necessary to post the thoughts above) that I don't understand the concept that startup, prototype, one-off, and making replacement parts in small quantities is expensive to be insulting.

I was thinking about everyday, off-the-shelf items. 


Title: Re: Jimmy John\\\\\\\\\\\\
Post by: nathanm on November 24, 2012, 04:49:29 pm
I'm sure you understand that I find the mere thought (you found it necessary to post the thoughts above) that I don't understand the concept that startup, prototype, one-off, and making replacement parts in small quantities is expensive to be insulting.

I did say "I'm sure you understand..." :)

In a public forum, a discussion isn't kept between us chickens. You mentioned a notional $600 hammer, so I felt inclined to explain how those particular examples of supposed government waste which are still in the public consciousness some 20 years after they were first discussed are not in fact good examples of government waste. There is plenty of waste, but it's more often connected with someone committing fraud to receive improper payments than it is pure stupidity.


Title: Re: Jimmy John\\\\\\\\\\\\
Post by: Red Arrow on November 24, 2012, 05:11:13 pm
I did say "I'm sure you understand..." :)
Your usual attitude toward others here evidently led me to an incorrect conclusion.

Quote
In a public forum, a discussion isn't kept between us chickens. You mentioned a notional $600 hammer, so I felt inclined to explain how those particular examples of supposed government waste which are still in the public consciousness some 20 years after they were first discussed are not in fact good examples of government waste. There is plenty of waste, but it's more often connected with someone committing fraud to receive improper payments than it is pure stupidity.

Depending on the size of the company, there can be a significant amount of overhead involved in complying with the Federal Acquisition Requirements (FARs not related to flying).  Although it doesn't show directly in the cost of a purchased item, it does add to the overall cost of doing business.  The process of finding and approving suppliers can significantly add cost to an otherwise relatively inexpensive item.

Just to reiterate my earlier post, I am not saying this is either right or wrong.  I am only saying that it is a part of doing business that people should acknowledge and accept or change.


Title: Re: Jimmy John\\\\\\\\\\\\
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on November 24, 2012, 09:19:28 pm
And none of that even touches the shell game going on between DOD, NASA, NSA, and CIA to get funding for various activities that won't show up as line items like hammers.  $15 for the hammer, $585 for clandestine operations lumped under "hammer" umbrella....



Title: Re: Jimmy John\\\\\\\\\\\\
Post by: JCnOwasso on November 26, 2012, 09:41:19 am
And none of that even touches the shell game going on between DOD, NASA, NSA, and CIA to get funding for various activities that won't show up as line items like hammers.  $15 for the hammer, $585 for clandestine operations lumped under "hammer" umbrella....

I can pretty much assure you that this type of stuff doesn't happen as much as it used to.  Sure there are things that are covered under that whole "national security" blanket, but the days of handling things like they did in the 70's and 80's are pretty much done.  But if you want examples of things that are joked about in my job, there is the $35 screw that a media outlet found out about.  They went to a hardware store and made a big deal about how they could find the same size for .35... They neglected to mention that these screws were for the wings of an F117 stealth fighter.  There is the $2500 tea kettle that is used on Air Force One, again as was mentioned before it was a 3 off so all the non recurring engineering costs and build-up costs were captured in 3 kettles.  The ones that should be mentioned, but rarely are, are the systems level stuff.  The initial Bradley fighting vehicle was an absolute example of Government f'in something up.  There is a movie about it and is the basis behind a lot of the rules we have today as Contracting Officers.  Combat ships that go 100-200% over budget and are done on a cost plus basis so that the contractor doesn't have a reason to control costs.  The media likes to point out the small mess ups and neglects to focus on the things that really cost the tax payers.  I could buy 3.33Million $600 hammers for a 2Billion dollar overrun on a ship contract.


Title: Re: Jimmy John\\\\\\\\\\\\
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on November 27, 2012, 09:15:51 am
I can pretty much assure you that this type of stuff doesn't happen as much as it used to.  Sure there are things that are covered under that whole "national security" blanket, but the days of handling things like they did in the 70's and 80's are pretty much done.  But if you want examples of things that are joked about in my job, there is the $35 screw that a media outlet found out about.  They went to a hardware store and made a big deal about how they could find the same size for .35... They neglected to mention that these screws were for the wings of an F117 stealth fighter.  There is the $2500 tea kettle that is used on Air Force One, again as was mentioned before it was a 3 off so all the non recurring engineering costs and build-up costs were captured in 3 kettles.  The ones that should be mentioned, but rarely are, are the systems level stuff.  The initial Bradley fighting vehicle was an absolute example of Government f'in something up.  There is a movie about it and is the basis behind a lot of the rules we have today as Contracting Officers.  Combat ships that go 100-200% over budget and are done on a cost plus basis so that the contractor doesn't have a reason to control costs.  The media likes to point out the small mess ups and neglects to focus on the things that really cost the tax payers.  I could buy 3.33Million $600 hammers for a 2Billion dollar overrun on a ship contract.


It has been about 10 years since I had any government related work - I cannot imagine how they could/would make things any better/different than they used to be, so I wouldn't expect big changes on a decade to decade basis.  The system is too entrenched for big shifts.


One of the big "secrets" about low bid contract procurement with the government that I saw - and heard "joked" about regularly - was how the bid was low to get the work, then the 'add-ons' made the overruns.  Very simplistic example - but valid:  "Oh, you mean you wanted a tire on that wheel...??  That is $ xxx more..."

Standard operating procedure.







Title: Re: Jimmy John\\\\\\\\\\\\
Post by: JCnOwasso on November 27, 2012, 10:05:42 am
It has been about 10 years since I had any government related work - I cannot imagine how they could/would make things any better/different than they used to be, so I wouldn't expect big changes on a decade to decade basis.  The system is too entrenched for big shifts.

One of the big "secrets" about low bid contract procurement with the government that I saw - and heard "joked" about regularly - was how the bid was low to get the work, then the 'add-ons' made the overruns.  Very simplistic example - but valid:  "Oh, you mean you wanted a tire on that wheel...??  That is $ xxx more..."

Standard operating procedure.

Well, big shifts have been made.  I entered contracting on Oct 3, 2000 and over the past decade +2 there have been tremendous changes.  These changes were implemented late in the Clinton administration, but really didn't hit the road until 2000 and took a while for everyone to fully accept.  Invitation for Bids are pretty much kept to construction contracts, and the "buying in" bids (low bidding expecting to get modifications to bump your price) are no longer the norm... but that does not mean that contractors don't try.  We scrub our specifications very thoroughly to make sure we limit any ambiguities which will then limit changes.  But also keep in mind that most of the changes can easily be made at the operational level (making sure the war fighter has everything they need, or in my case, making sure the power gets from the dam's to the grid), systems level stuff is where the politicing comes into play and is a big reason for the bad name many contracting officers get labeled with. There have been many occasions where contractors have made offers to CO's to try to steer an award.  Sometimes they are successful and sometimes the people involved go to jail for a long time (making big rocks into little rocks).


Title: Re: Jimmy John\\\\\\\\\\\\
Post by: Gaspar on November 28, 2012, 02:04:38 pm
All government regulations hinder economic growth?

I disagree.

I actually agree with you.  Government regulations only hinder SOME economic growth.  Primarily they produce boundaries to entry of a specific market or markets, while at the same time protecting others.  Sure, their intent may be just (i.e. reducing the acceptable amount of rodent droppings tolerated in a can of chocolate sprinkles), but they none the less restrict entry into a market.

If I want to open a business, it will be necessary for me to acquire and maintain a series of licenses.  It will also be necessary for me to purchase appropriate coverages, and pay necessary fees.  Otherwise I will incur fines or simply be barred from operation.  For the first time entrepreneur this represents a barrier to business, and is indeed a financial concern that impacts labor decisions.

Lets say my competition is a multi-million dollar chain with an active lobby.  They see businesses like mine as a competitive threat.  They're process are very different than mine, and far more complex and costly, but my process gives me a competitive advantage.  It is in their best intrest to lobby for regulations that support their process and force others to conform.  They will research, and produce evidence supporting the necessity of such regulation for "the greater good."  Politicians like that. ;D

Large companies enjoy much less impact from regulation, taxation and other unnatural market forces, and many rely on regulatory systems to remain at the top of the heap.  The threat of new government regulation and burden is also the primary cause of economic uncertainty for small businesses. As the CEO of Home Depot said last year, "I couldn't start this business today."  The barriers that continue to grow, also continue to protect companies like Home Depot from new and innovative competitive offerings by limiting entry.

The Ten Commandments contain 297 words. The Bill of Rights is stated in 463 words. Lincoln's Gettysburg Address contains 266 words. A recent federal directive to regulate the price of cabbage contains 26,911 words. The Atlanta Journal

It took about 150 years, starting with a Bill of Rights that reserved to the states and the people all powers not explicitly delegated to the federal government, to produce a Supreme Court willing to rule that growing corn to feed to your own hogs is interstate commerce and can therefore be regulated by Congress. David Friedman

He who regulates everything by laws, is more likely to arouse vices than reform them. Spinoza

The natural effort of every individual to better his own condition is so powerful that it is alone, and without any assistance, capable not only of carrying on the society to wealth and prosperity, but of surmounting 100 impertinent obstructions with which the folly of human laws too often encumbers its operations. Adam Smith

Simple, clear purpose and principles give rise to complex, intelligent behavior. Complex rules and regulations give rise to simple, stupid behavior. Dee Hock



Title: Re: Government Regulation and Jimmy John's
Post by: nathanm on November 28, 2012, 02:50:22 pm
I would think you'd be more upset about the things that are forcing small businesses out of business, namely gigantic subsidies (aka development incentives) they are forced to pay to bring large chain competitors to town.


Title: Re: Government Regulation and Jimmy John's
Post by: Gaspar on November 28, 2012, 04:18:31 pm
I would think you'd be more upset about the things that are forcing small businesses out of business, namely gigantic subsidies (aka development incentives) they are forced to pay to bring large chain competitors to town.

:) Why not just equally upset?
They both represent unnatural market forces and therefore accomplish the same ends.

Nice redirect though.


Title: Re: Government Regulation and Jimmy John's
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on November 30, 2012, 12:08:09 pm
:) Why not just equally upset?
They both represent unnatural market forces and therefore accomplish the same ends.

Nice redirect though.


nathan,
We have seen massive, overwhelming evidence that Gaspar puts more "weight" on $500 million of effect than he does on $2 trillion of effect.  They are not the same to him at all.  Somehow that leads him to going on about the $500 million as if it were the most important thing, while turning the blind eye to the $2 trillion.  I guess since it is SO much smaller, it is easier to get a grasp on and to wrap one's mind around....



Title: Re: Government Regulation and Jimmy John's
Post by: Gaspar on November 30, 2012, 01:19:45 pm

nathan,
We have seen massive, overwhelming evidence that Gaspar puts more "weight" on $500 million of effect than he does on $2 trillion of effect.  They are not the same to him at all.  Somehow that leads him to going on about the $500 million as if it were the most important thing, while turning the blind eye to the $2 trillion.  I guess since it is SO much smaller, it is easier to get a grasp on and to wrap one's mind around....



You must have made a trip to Colorado recently or something.  ;)


Title: Re: Government Regulation and Jimmy John's
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on November 30, 2012, 01:21:09 pm
You must have made a trip to Colorado recently or something.  ;)


Not yet.  Want to.  A civilized State of being....if the trend continues people won't have to keep moving to Canada.



Title: Re: Government Regulation and Jimmy John's
Post by: nathanm on November 30, 2012, 01:22:51 pm
:) Why not just equally upset?

Because is actually happening right now and the other is mostly mythical.