Complete and utter bullshit, this. For one thing, how much actual "training" is required for a service employee to "learn" how to read a menu, take and enter an order, prepare it, serve it to a customer, or clean up after them? Unless we're talking a Michelin-starred restaurant with a bunch of "family secret recipes" I would venture, not much. Besides, given the ordinary turnover in the restaurant industry, a significant number of new employees are actually seasoned veterans with many years' work experience. If anything, they probably deserve a higher-than-minimum wage just to compensate them for that.

The limitation to 10% of the workforce seems pretty decent, or am I missing a loophole? That means they're skimping out of a max 10% × 2.50 / 12 = 2.1% of total payroll. They can't exploit it to save 20% of payroll by churning workers aggressively. 10% of employees actually seems probably less than the real turnover per six month period, so it's a real concession.

It does leave an incentive to fire somebody every six months whether they need firing or not, which is shitty.

Yeah, right, it's a "training" wage.

Because nobody would *ever* think of doing *this*: Hire someone at $9.50/hr, employ them for up to six months, lay them off for a week, rehire at $9.50/hr since they're a "new" hire again, rinse, lather, repeat.

But guys, I thought this was all "non-skilled labor" that "any idiot could do" and that's why they didn't deserve high wages to begin with? What happened here?

Come on, Ansel, I know the moneymakers at the Stranger don't like writers disparaging paid advertisers, but to call the Washington Restaurant Association a "lobbying group representing fast food chains like McDonald's and Subway" is a bit disingenuous.

They also sponsor folks like Marcus Charles, owner of the Crocodile, Local 360 and others, like when they funded Charles' PAC supporting Rob McKenna for Governor.

When new hires are in training, they tend to not count as a body on the floor -- they are extra and are not calculated into labor metrics. If they are receiving "training wages", their work should be counted as training hours for those full six months, so the stores are actually staffed properly. Not that that would happen.

Regardless, this is some first class bullshit. Being a new hire likely means you have more need for money, not less -- especially if you are not hopping from one job to another but were unemployed. It would also force workers to stay in a job they would otherwise leave because they can't afford a 20% pay cut.

@4, of course they would think of it, but they're limited to fucking 10% of their workforce, and only one fuck per person. "(b) Employers may pay training wages to a new employee only once per employee"

I would argue that this is a small enough wage exception that no business can seriously need it, frankly.

@10's staffing regulation is smart and on point.