By Doug Porter
Mayor Faulconer and his Chamber of Commerce puppeteers may not be willing to acknowledge it, but the train has left the station when it comes to minimum wages. They may think they can stop it, but they are wrong. The momentum to do something, anything about rampant economic inequality in the US is reaching critical mass.
Hizzoner met privately with advocates for increasing the minimum wage and earned sick leave on Friday, telling them while he appreciated their concerns, he was planning on vetoing an ordinance proposed by City Council President Todd Gloria. Any veto will likely be overridden by the Democratic super-majority on the Council.
From the Dave Rice’s reporting at the Reader:
“We are a country and city of opportunity and if you work full-time you should not be living in poverty,” said rabbi Laurie Coskey of the Interfaith Center for Worker Justice, expressing disappointment. “The mayor’s decision to veto the measure will take away 260 million dollars from the paychecks of hard-working San Diegans…. People’s lives are really going to be affected by this.”
Detractors of the proposal had threatened to move businesses outside city limits, halt expansion plans, and lay off workers or reduce their hours if the measure, which would incrementally raise the minimum wage to $11.50 by 2017.
Opponents of the measure are also threatening an initiative drive, which would have the effect of postponing implementation until a vote takes place in June, 2016. They are pointing to self-sponsored surveys saying as many as 14% of businesses would leave the city should the increases occur.
Cities like San Francisco and San Jose, which have already enacted local minimum wage increases, have not seen employment or retail locations decline, according to a study by the UC Berkeley Institute of Industrial Relations. A 2006 study by the University of New Mexico comparing data between Santa Fe (which enacted a living wage ordinance in 2003) and Albuquerque (which didn’t) found no such correlation.
I’ll take the Chamber-types at their word when they say they intend to fight this out at the ballot box. We can expect the mother of all Big Lies to be told early and often in such a campaign. As with other recent propaganda campaigns paid for by big business, the truth of the matter will be told long after the Big Lie is reported as fact in the local news media.
Fast Food Workers Ready to Up the Ante
A delegation from San Diego attended a nation-wide convention of fast-food workers in Chicago this past weekend, and news reports indicate that San Diego’s business community may have more than a ballot box struggle to contend with.
The weekend ended with a general agreement among participants that it was time to escalate tactics. Instead of informational pickets and one day wildcat strikes, fast food locations around the country may be seeing sit-ins and other forms of civil disobedience in the near future.
The New York Times reports:
It was by far the largest gathering of fast-food workers, and it was largely underwritten by the Service Employees International Union, a powerhouse with two million members known for unionizing hospital workers, home care aides and janitors. Mary Kay Henry, the union’s president, said the S.E.I.U. has adopted the fast-food workers’ cause to lift low-wage workers and combat income inequality…
…Throughout the convention, one overarching strategy was to say the fast-food movement was an economic justice movement comparable to the civil rights movement — a strategy the service employees used to unionize tens of thousands of cleaning workers in its “Justice for Janitors” campaign. Inspired by the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., the fast-food workers debated and discussed using nonviolent civil disobedience to step up pressure on the fast-food companies.
“They’re already slowly killing us with the way they’ve got us living,” said Terrence Wise, a Burger King worker in Kansas City, Mo., who served as M.C. for much of the convention. “Are we going to stand up?” he asked. “I want to see who is willing to do whatever it takes, who is willing to get arrested.”
From Think Progress:
The actions come at a time when job growth has been stronger in low-wage jobs like fast food but the pay is barely enough to live on. The average fast food employee who works full time, year round makes less than $19,000 before taxes. While executives in the industry claim that these jobs serve as entryways for teenagers to get into the job market, the largest share are held by people between the ages of 25 and 54, and more than a quarter have a child to support. The chances of moving up the ladder and making a career in fast food are much slimmer than in other industries.
Executives, on the other hand, are doing well. Fast food CEOs earn about 1,200 times what they pay their workers. The ratio wasn’t always so high, but the industry’s executive pay increased by more than 300 percent since 2000 while pay for workers has only gone up by 0.3 percent.
Beyond staging protests and strikes, fast food workers have taken legal action. Nine out of ten fast food workers report experiencing wage theft, being made to work off the clock or purchase uniforms with their wages, and workers filed seven class-action lawsuits against McDonalds in March alleging these kinds of actions.
Another Report on the Trickle-Down Economy
It’s not just minimum wage workers who have been getting the short end of the voodoo economics stick over the past decade.
From the New York Times:
Economic inequality in the United States has been receiving a lot of attention. But it’s not merely an issue of the rich getting richer. The typical American household has been getting poorer, too.
The inflation-adjusted net worth for the typical household was $87,992 in 2003. Ten years later, it was only $56,335, or a 36 percent decline, according to a study financed by the Russell Sage Foundation. Those are the figures for a household at the median point in the wealth distribution — the level at which there are an equal number of households whose worth is higher and lower. But during the same period, the net worth of wealthy households increased substantially.
Big Brother’s Coming to San Diego Says Tobacco Seller
The San Diego City Council is taking its first pass on regulating e-cigarettes today.
From City News Service:
Deputy City Attorney Linda Peter said the proposed retailing ordinance would require store owners who sell e-cigarettes to obtain a police permit; prohibit sales of the devices, vaping juice and other paraphernalia through vending machines; and restrict advertisements or promotions that are visible in public areas.
Deputy City Attorney Ken So told committee members that the use of vapor inhalers would be prohibited in the same types of places where people aren’t allowed to smoke — such as restaurants, theaters, sports facilities, parks and beaches.
Use of the devices would be allowed in residences, vehicles, e-cigarette shops and vaping lounges, according to So.
The e-Tobacco industry is fighting back. (First it’ll be our smokes, then our big gulps…).
The National Association of Tobacco Outlets (NATO) contends the city ordinance restricting advertising for cigarettes violates the right of free speech under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. And they’ve put the city on notice, with letters to the Mayor, the Council and the City Attorney.
Conserv blog SDRostra, trotted out the “Big Gulp” defense penned by Rafid Moga, owner of a local tobacco retail shop.
Here’s the argument:
Michael Bloomberg’s “big gulp ban” was widely ridiculed for being what it was: local government choosing to micromanage the most personal choices of New York City residents.
Well, it looks like the uncontrollable urge of local politicians to micromanage what we eat, drink and consume is making its way back to San Diego. This time the target is “e-cigarettes” the tobacco-less cigarettes that local government is deciding to treat as…tobacco.
The scientific jury is still out on the long term health effects of e-cigarettes. But we do know that they contain no tobacco, and none of the hundreds of potentially harmful chemicals in tobacco that cause an array of health problems over time.
Now, the same city government that should be focusing on problems in its police department, joblessness, homelessness and other pressing issues is taking time to move San Diego one step closer to Michael Bloomberg’s vision of local government that controls just about every choice we make about what we consume.
Cough, cough.
I’m all about people smoking just about whatever they want in private. I don’t get offended when I’m around it. It’s not that I like smoking, it’s just I can’t stand militant non-smokers. So, “Smoke ‘em if you got ‘em,” as John Wayne used to say.
But don’t tell me the “scientific jury is out.” If you want to sell dicey stuff like that I don’t think it’s unreasonable for government to step in with some rules. Society tried that “jury is out” and “common sense” approach with tobacco products over the past six decades and it did not work.
I’d love to have a public debate with Mr Moga, but my vocal chords were removed a few years back. Enjoy your “freedom.”
The Times Did What?
Speaking of smoking stuff, the New York Times editorial board called for the federal government to repeal the ban on marijuana. In a weekend edition, even.
Here’s a snippet (It’s part of a week-long series):
There are no perfect answers to people’s legitimate concerns about marijuana use. But neither are there such answers about tobacco or alcohol, and we believe that on every level — health effects, the impact on society and law-and-order issues — the balance falls squarely on the side of national legalization. That will put decisions on whether to allow recreational or medicinal production and use where it belongs — at the state level.
This stance doesn’t extend to the NYT’s own corporate policies, however.
From Michael Calderone at Huffington Post:
…A Times spokeswoman told HuffPost that the paper’s policy for drug testing hasn’t changed, despite the editorial board’s decision.
“Our corporate policy on this issue reflects current law,” the spokeswoman said. “We aren’t going to get into details beyond that.”
California’s Six Bird Solution
From the San Francisco Chronicle website:
If Tim Draper‘s dream of dividing California into six separate states comes true, he says, every one of those states will have the opportunity of naming its own state bird.Julian Grant has some suggestions:
Jefferson: Pacific loon; North California: red-breasted nuthatch; Silicon Valley: masked booby; Central California: black vulture; West California: wandering tattler; South California: yellow-billed cuckoo.
If you catch a thread common to those names, says Grant, those references apply to the people in favor of such divisions.
On This Day: 1869- Women shoemakers in Lynn, Mass., created Daughters of St. Crispin, demanding pay equal to that of men 1932 – Federal troops forcibly dispersed the “Bonus Army” of World War I veterans who had gathered in Washington, DC. 1933 – The first singing telegram was sent. It was given to Rudy Vallee on his 32nd birthday.
Did you enjoy this article? Subscribe to “The Starting Line” and get an email every time a new article in this series is posted!
I read the Daily Fishwrap(s) so you don’t have to… Catch “the Starting Line” Monday thru Friday right here at San Diego Free Press (dot) org. Send your hate mail and ideas to DougPorter@
Doug Porter
Latest posts by Doug Porter (see all)
- Last Call. Last Column. - December 14, 2018
- Which Presidential Candidate Will You Support in 2020? - December 13, 2018
- Mounting the Assault on Big Gay and Other Drivel From SDSU’s Minimum Wage Scrooge - December 12, 2018
If the proponents of not raising the minimum wage go the ballot initiative route, would that go on the November ballot? And if so, when would be the start date and end date for collecting signatures? Would they have enough time to get it on the ballot? If so, that’s the route they’ll probably choose. And they’ll probably choose that route in all future progressive things that the City Council chooses to do. What a shame! Then they will outspend by far the other side on TV advertising to make sure the citizens of San Diego go along with them.
They would have to gather enough signatures by August 8th to qualify for the November ballot. So what they’ll do is try to qualify for the next election (June 2016); this will have the effect suspending the law until the voters weigh in.
Of course if they lose in June 2016, businesses will have to swallow two steps of the local increase at once.
But they won’t lose in 2016 after their multi-million dollar ad campaign which can’t hope to be matched by the other side. Net effect: they will have won both by virtue of the delay and by virtue of their huge campaign war chest. I think the rules of this whole thing are stacked against the little guy. If we have to wait till June 2016, the city council decision should prevail until then at least. We shouldn’t just accept the legitimacy of the rules about initiatives and the delay.
What great suggestions for the “6 proposed States”! Perfect!
Hmm… we can only dream that fixing economic inequality is as easy as raising minimum wage. I have recently moved to a new address, my car- and in doing so have to catch most of my meals fast food style. Used to be most had a decent selection of dollar/value meal items now most are near two bucks- what does raising the cost of eating do for anyone? The one guy i know who works fast food wont get much of a raise if any. New hires will make the same wage he does. Are we sure this isnt just a gesture to make activists feel good they “made a difference” but didnt do anything positive- and may even be counterproductive?
I wish I had the solution though I’m sure those making minimum wage who only see as far as their weekly paycheck don’t have it either.
How can you say “the one guy I know who works fast food won’t get much of a raise if any”? Did you read the law? Did he tell you? Did his boss tell you?
There is no magic wand solution, just lots of little steps of which raising min. wage is just one. This is a big problem and big problems, like big meals, are best done one bite at a time. The current wage increase proposal is one step. So is earned sick leave.
It sounds to me like your solution is to throw your hands up and do nothing. I say you get what you give in life. And everybody has something to give.
Geez, John, I lived in my vehicle a couple of periods of time, but I didn’t have to eat at fast food places. I think those making minimum wage almost without exception want a minimum wage raise. That should count for something. In fact I’d be willing to wager that you can’t find one minimum wage worker who doesn’t want a wage increase. Good luck with that.
Thats great John and every five year old wants cupcakes for dinner. When one of those minimum wage workers shows you an economics degree and a comprehensive solution to economic inequality you will have a rebuttal. Thats the whole point-these people know nothing about how the economy works thats why they have minimum wage jobs. Why you think their voices should be weighed in in discussions of solutions is a mystery. Of course they want a raise don’t we all? They can’t see anything beyond their own weekly paycheck. My point was that minimum wage earners represent a small portion of those considered poor myself included and this isnt going to help and will probably hurt them. If its just a gesture to indulge ideologues consider me less than amused.
Beyond trivializing advocacy for living wages that would pull full time workers out of poverty as comparable to infantile wish fulfillment, you have attempted to trivialize the workers themselves. No one needs a degree in economics to be able to capably speak about his or her economic situation or to delineate the pathway out of poverty.
Anna the only one who benefits from a minimum wage hike is that lowest tier worker and for a very short time until the increased purchasing power evaporates. Its going to harm everyone else living under the poverty level by raising living costs across the board. Your useless postulating about perceived offenses against persons working in fast food is not part of any discussion I am or want to be involved. Why shouldn’t I “trivialize” (your term) ANYone who is so short sighted they believe a couple of bucks an hour added to their own pay is going to benrfit everyone living in poverty? Most of the studies on this are just plain absurd. One quoted by the WaPost simply claims that raising min wage $x will result in a 2.4 percent reduction in poverty because x amount of people will now make more than the current poverty level income. How stupid is that?
I can’t sit idly by and let you repeat ill-informed talking points.
There are a multitude of studies about the impact on the economy of increasing the minimum wage; pro or con, they all agree that it’s impact is wide spread.
Here’s one snippet from The Brookings Institution:
A significant 35 million workers from across the country could see their wages rise if the minimum wage were increased, allowing them to earn a better livelihood and lead more economically secure lives. When discussing the minimum wage, this is the magnitude of the impact that policymakers should consider.
http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/up-front/posts/2014/01/10-ripple-effect-of-increasing-the-minimum-wage-kearney-harris
“We hasten to note that a complete analysis of the net effects of a minimum wage increase would also have to account for potential negative employment effects. Our main goal of this empirical exercise is to dispel the notion that the minimum wage is not a relevant policy lever, which is based on the faulty premise that only a small number of workers would be affected.”
Not to mention also the cost of living increases which will eventually negate any additional purchasing power increase they see. What it comes down to Doug is where is this money going to come from for their additional pay? In the imaginations of ideologues, it would all come from the pockets of rich corporations. The reality is they won’t make a penny less and it’s simply going to be tacked on to the costs of everything we all buy and cause man hpurs to be tightened up at these businesses.
John, you conveniently overlook obscene CEO pay and shareholder returns as part of the equation. And your arguments against raising the minimum wage have been around since the Gilded Age when child labor was abolished and the work week was reduced to six ten hour days. The business community cried complete economic ruination then.
Umm… nice try attempting to associate me with rich people, Anna. (with that remark about child labor etc) Excuse me if I err on this but I believe you own your home and retired from a career in a government job? Which places you several rungs on the economic ladder above myself.
I’m sure you can pat yourself on the back at the end of the day with the delusion that these wages will come from the CEO’s paycheck but that’s all it is, a foolish delusion. It’s going to come from the pockets of consumers, especially the ones it purports to assist.
CEO pay disparity is an issue that direly needs to be addressed- do it directly.
John- Your personal attack violates SDFP commenting policy.
My apologies if you perceived it that way. Personal attacks usually consist of derogatory or insulting remarks toward an individual, I can’t see how describing someone as a homeowner and retiree from a government career could possibly go there.
With a super majority of Democrats I’d like to see a bunch of strong, egalitarian legislation from the Council. Two good things might occur: Faulconer will set a veto record that will dog Republicans evermore, and, secondly, local Republican financiers might find that even their own mountains of resources could be tested by these necessary payments to petition gatherers. If the council majority were to set, say, realistic density limits at the Pacific Ocean communities, or to require that city budgets meet a more equal ratio of business tax breaks to neighborhood improvements, or to require that a certain percentage of the transit occupancy tax during the many marathons, ComiCon, Pride, and other tourism blowouts be used for public parks expansions … well, local Republicans would be kept busy with their petition drives to overthrow those Council laws.
Great suggestions, Bob! Let the City Council take on the powers that be. The initiative process as used by former Mayor Sanders and the Chamber of Commerce is emasculating (for lack of a better word) the City Council and they shouldn’t take it lying down.
RE: MINIMUM WAGE
Mary Poppins Quits! Great YouTube Video!
I’m going to stick with the “jury is still out” argument on e-cigarettes for now – while they’ve been around for nearly a decade in some form or another, serious research on the health risks as compared to smoking has really only gotten underway in 2013, with Dr. Konstantinos Farsalinos leading the way out of Greece (FDA lack of regulation makes even study pretty difficult here).
What I can say with some confidence is that personal vaporizers (many users don’t like to even associate their devices with cigarettes, “e-” or otherwise) allowed my wife and I to kick 15-year-long smoking habits and to stay quit well over a year later. They give off an odor that’s far more mild and generally less offensive than tobacco smoke, and one that dissipates within seconds, unlike the old stink sticks I carried since I was a teenager.
It’s unfortunate that people who never smoked decide they want to vape, but there’s a chance a decade ago those are the people who would’ve started smoking anyway. And if there’s some reason to treat vaping like smoking (even if not medically sound, it could just be that a majority of people don’t like the smell of cinnamon rolls or blueberries when they’re out in public), go ahead and ban away – I promise I’ll have just as much respect for any vape ban as I did for smoking bans. But I know I feel a hell of a lot better as a non-smoker, and I’m glad I got in before the thing that helped when other cessation methods didn’t got pushed to the fringe through somewhat nonsensical hysterics.
If the restrictions were to stop at placing age restrictions on purchase and possession, I’m all on board. Even still, I might be accepting of a bulk of the regulation.
Agree with the rest of your column, great read as always Doug.
We now have lot of empirical evidence showing that under the current conditions in the U.S., increasing the minimum wage does not increase unemployment. On the contrary, cities and states that have increased their minimum wages have been seeing decreased unemployment.
That’s not surprising when you think about it. The American economy depends to a great extent on consumption, in other words, people going out and buying stuff. I find it strange that large retailers like Walmart don’t see that they are cutting their own throats by not paying their workers a living wage. Even if their low wages mean that Walmart workers can only afford to shop at Walmart, they still can’t buy much or often and their not being able to spread cash they don’t have around in the general economy will eventually redound back to Walmart, our nation’s largest retailer.
I also find it strange that the Chamber of Commerce can’t get it through their heads that a race to the bottom in the amount of compensation the employers they shill for give their staffs will eventually come back and bite those employers because there won’t be anyone to buy the stuff they produce on the backs of their underpaid workers.