So which is it?

[detlef]

I have been under the impression that the recently expired CBA was built on a % of shared revenues after a slice was peeled off for the owners. And, at the core of the current stand-still was the owners wanted to carve off a larger chunk. That ultimately, we're at a stalemate over how big a new chunk the owners can peel off.

 

Is that not accurate? Obviously, the way salary caps and floors work, it can't be totally fluid and, thus, certain predictions need to be made on what revenues "should" be in the next year when these things are set. However, not unlike triple net escrows and such, there would be a day of reckoning where one side or the other has to make up the difference if the estimations are off. I mean, it happens to me every year. I pay my triple net at my place of business based on what the shopping center thinks my share of the common costs will be. Then, every year, I either scratch them a make-up check or get a credit against my rent depending on what it works out to be.

 

Is that not how it works? Why wouldn't it?

 

I hear, well not in general, but from one person in particular, that the debate stems from the owners predicting 5% growth and the players seeing 8% growth. How does that matter one bit? If the deal is the divvy up the loot as set forth by a CBA, why does it matter at all what either side thinks is going to happen in terms of revenue growth? Wouldn't the final numbers trump all? And if not, why even have a CBA based on revenue sharing? If you're really just dividing money up based on what you think revenues are going to be. Why not just have a deal where the cap and floor go up by a certain % each year regardless of what happens to revenues? But that's not revenue sharing, that's just a scheduled set of raises.

[bpwallace49]

Great question . . . I cant wait for the answer.

[Bronco Billy]

Why not just have a deal where the cap and floor go up by a certain % each year regardless of what happens to revenues? But that's not revenue sharing, that's just a scheduled set of raises.

 

Now there's a brilliant idea.

 

[detlef]

Now there's a brilliant idea.

 

Right up until scheduled raises start to outpace revenue growth, right? Honestly, provided they can find a good number, revenue sharing is the best way to insure both sides do well. Like I've said, I would love it if my labor costs were directly tied to revenues. "Sorry guys, it was a slow month, looks like you're all getting less money."

[Caveman_Nick]

Right up until scheduled raises start to outpace revenue growth, right? Honestly, provided they can find a good number, revenue sharing is the best way to insure both sides do well. Like I've said, I would love it if my labor costs were directly tied to revenues. "Sorry guys, it was a slow month, looks like you're all getting less money."

 

That is in fact the case in your business with a fair portion of your staff...just maybe not with all of your employees.

[detlef]

That is in fact the case in your business with a fair portion of your staff...just maybe not with all of your employees.

It is indeed. Mind you, by virtue of a random and antiquated system and it really only affects a sliver of my payroll. There's a ton that is either entirely fixed or essentially fixed.

[bpwallace49]

That is in fact the case in your business with a fair portion of your staff...just maybe not with all of your employees.

 

Not Really . . . . kitchen labor costs are fixed if he does 300 covers or 30 . . .