Total bullshit. They deserve a raise. $45,000 isn't a living wage for a family in this city. Asking them to "be reasonable" is just another way out of the hundreds of ways wages for working people are being driven down in this society while the few at the top earn everything.
It's not fair how they use the fact that we really need them as leverage to demand a living wage! It's almost like they're using some idea of the "market value" of their labor to set its price based on how much demand there is for it.
Shorter Teabaggers: "Anybody who makes more money than I do is a Godless Commie-pinko Socialist and needs to have all their hoity-toity "collective bargaining rights" stripped from them."
I've done the job. It's always either hold, freezing, snowing, or raining. It stinks, even in the dead of winter. It's pretty damn stressful on your body, involving not just weight but lots more moving up and down and twisting than is really good for you. And you're always looked down upon for it, even though you're doing something everyone needs done.
@5: Many of them do make significantly more than $45k, depending of course on where they're doing it and what the OT opportunities are. But that's just it; they're making that extra time & half working on holidays, overnights, and after storms. They aren't sitting at a desk to do it.
They are supposed to be worthless people, who commute two hours each day from Podunk, because you cannot live in Seattle on that money. Gotta have enough to pay the execs and the shareholders! That's what privatization is all about. FREEDOM!
I assume those that think their trash haulers are grossly overpaid been taking their bins to the transfer station themselves, since it's no big thing, right?
Rotten666, it will take longer than one second for me to tell you that $45,000 a year is very difficult to live on in Seattle in the year 2012. I make 36,000 a year with no car, no kids, no tv, and thrift store clothing and I'm still living paycheck to paycheck.
Depends on the circumstances. For a single individual with no dependents living in King County, $45K is more than adequate; for a married couple with one child, it's just barely so; and if you have more than one child, it doesn't even come close.
@12 If a had a place to store my waste so I can make a once a month run to South Park,you bet you sweet ass I would. Holy shit that might be a great idea. I'm gonna see if I can cancel my service.
What are we calling a living wage? ( leaving out union benefits, which tend to be pretty decent )
There are tons of mid level office workers who would love to make 53k, but they probably can't do the job, physically or mentally ( getting up at 5am sucks )
Waste management is a iffy employer at best, they make plenty of money, but thats their job, like all companies to increase shareholder value.
The teamsters started this fight by deciding that the recycle guys should make the same as the garbage, for whatever reason.
Both sides are behaving selfishly, in their own way, but ultimately the striking workers will lose when they are replaced. A unfair practices lawsuit seems iffy if WM is willing to hire replacement drivers.
45K in most major cities in the US isn't shit. Even for a single person. Not if you want to get anywhere in life or face even the most modest set backs. The type of health plans you can afford on a 45K salary are expensive (even a city contract worker plan) and paper thin coverage wise.
45K is great if you're planning on dying at 60, never have a vacation, never have kids, or plan on eating dog food when you're 65 and want to live in a trailer. With a roommate.
For a family, 45K means a declining standard of living over time because you won't be able to send your kids to anything but the worst public schools and you sure as hell won't be able to send to them to college. Forget about retirement. And don't ever get sick.
45K might be a reasonable living in Seattle IF healthcare costs (and transportation, to some degree) was not an undue burden.
This is our vision for the average working class person in 2012: Scrape by? Consume, but do so on massive amounts of increasing difficult to get debt? Get sick, and lose your home? And don't educate your kids? Beg crumbs from a unimaginative, bitter and shrinking middle class?
The sum total of our collective hopes and dreams for the future is this?
This is some dystopian sci-fi Robocop shit right here. I was kinda hoping for Star Trek, myself.
@23 - people have tried that, as well as the one or two "zero waste" mega-composting minimalists out there.
I might remember it wrong, but I think the courts decided that you're responsible for your garage bill whether or not you actually require the service.
Problem is people hear they make $17 an hour and think wow for an unskill laborer that is pretty good, and not all the people that say that are rich republicans.
@18 I've been living in the city since 2004. But only in a studio apartment, because that's what I can afford. It's liveable, I assure you. The ladies aren't impressed, and it's getting kind of sad now that I'm in my 30s, but I'm still putting money in the bank in each month. Work hard, live frugally, accumulate wealth, and invest in yourself. The secrets to the American Dream...
You have to be stoned to say that $45k isn't a livable wage. I was able to go to UW full-time, and I could get by with bartending a few nights a week for far less.
That said, they totally deserve $45k, and until I see some of the people who wrote that opinion out picking up my trash, they should continue to get it. Take the money from your fucking shareholders, you dicks, and stop acting like labor costs are keeping you in the red.
@30, did you miss the fact that their health benefits are not included in that wage? Its in the article and every other one on the subject. The total compensation has been valued in the 85k range by the times and other papers when you add up salary, pension and health benefits.
I read the times article again, and it asks for both sides to find a solution. The liberal bais here is not shocking, but the reading comprehension is making the stupid burn again.
I smell hypocrites in this tread. Either 45k buys a nice small apartment near transit, or its "low income" and requires welfare, so that people can buy holmes with cars.
Exactly, many economists claim that we'll stay in recession until Americans start spending again. The Republican response? Reduce wages, because people with less money will buy new houses and other big-ticket items. The right-wing lives on Bizarro World.
How many married couples are single income? Even if the spouse works full time at a relatively low wage, their combined income would be about $65,000. You can raise a family in Seattle on that much. Many make do with less.
And, to be clear, I don't think these guys should take a pay cut, but the argument that $45,000 isn't a living wage is laughable, at least if you have even the most basic concept of how most Americans live.
The Times article explicitly states that Waste Management pays nearly $1,100 per employee for health benefits. If WM is paying that much, its employees are likely paying very little of their health care costs out of pocket. They also get a pension, which is not included in the $45,000 figure.
"Waste Management is offering a six-year deal it says would raise average salaries from $58,000 to $68,000 a year. If benefits are included, the offer is worth $98,000 a year to a driver at the end of the sixth year."
While I think 45K is a damn good salary ( I barely make half that if at all), I wholeheartedly support raises for the waste management employees. Sometimes I can barely breath taking my own garbage out to our bins, so I can't imagine having to haul around other peoples foul garbage for a living. Much thanks for what they do.
Also, I get that people arguing how health care, transportation, family/housing costs, etc aren't considered when talking about a 45K salary but c'mon -- we all fall under those responsibilities and costs so if that's the criteria, where the hell is my raise?
45k is a livable wage, I know this because I make 37k a year, wife and newborn daughter (no car). But going to a 2 bedroom apt is going to cost me a bit more, if I made 45k a year, I could easily afford to move to Greenwood or Lake City and get a 2-3 bedroom house. If recycling is making a profit, they deserve a wage increase, but not double.
@51 Maybe you shouldn't be so personal in your insults. I know I'm asking a lot, considering your comment history is really just an collection of ad hominem attacks on other sloggers.
So you can live on 45K/Year living in Seattle. You can pay rent and eat. Can you save money? Can you fund an IRA and contribute significantly to a 401(K)? Because if you can't, you may be getting by, but you're really fucked if you ever plan on being old, infirm or otherwise disadvantaged when it comes to bringing home that bacon.
@54 you can if you know how to manage money, and learn how to cook for yourself. Investing in pots and pans will pay dividends over time. Use coupons, avoid impulse buying, live a healthy lifestyle to mitigate future health costs basically be responsible and you can make 45K go very far! If you like to work hard and play hard 45k ain't much.
Whenever I read threads like this, I'm reminded how no one outside of HR or Finance understands how compensation is constructed or how benefits are paid.
And to all the judgmental poops talking about how other people manage their money: get over yourselves! The idea that if people just made the right choices nothing bad would ever happen is such a fucked up way of looking at the world and borders on sociopathy.
@58:
Claiming that "if you are smart with your money you will not starve on 45k a year plus full benefits" is a bit different than saying "if you are smart with your money nothing bad will ever happen to you."
I love how it's the same folks that scream $250k is not "rich" regarding ending a tax break also talk about how $45k is more than a living wage if you are "smart" with your money. C'mon folks how about a bit of intellectual consistency.
@62: You can do it as a single person living lean/having roommates. I think what infuriates me about this is like, this is their career, it's something we don't want to do, and they're demonstrating that the value of what they do is worth more. Which it is. Waste Management can afford it. You can't do that value judgement like WELL, THEY PICK UP MY GARBAGE, BUT THEY CAN FEED THEIR FAMILY SO IT IS FINE. You don't know their expenses, and shit, they deserve to have a savings account and some fun. They PICK UP OUR GARBAGE, for chrissakes.
The idea that if people just made the right choices nothing bad would ever happen is such a fucked up way of looking at the world and borders on sociopathy.
How is this relevant to a discussion over what constitutes a living wage?
My brother's been working for Cleanscapes for a couple years, and while it's galling to see him make more money than me (I'm a grad student, everyone makes more money than me), he deserves it. He barely gets sick time (he worked with pertussis last year), he works six days a week (and had to bargain for only six), and he's generally working 5am-6 or 7pm. He's been threatened in alleys by attempted muggers, he smells like trash 13 hours a day, and when the city was shut down for SNOWPOCALYPSE, he still commuted from the U-district to Sodo each day because they didn't get time off or forgiveness for being late. Sure, it's union, but it also means that he's gone as far as he can without becoming a manager, and he's not in line for management, so his pay is stuck at the same rate for the foreseeable future.
Yeah. Kiss my ass they make too much money.
Depends on the circumstances. For a single individual with no dependents living in King County, $45K is more than adequate; for a married couple with one child, it's just barely so; and if you have more than one child, it doesn't even come close.
http://livingwage.mit.edu/places/5303363…
What are we calling a living wage? ( leaving out union benefits, which tend to be pretty decent )
There are tons of mid level office workers who would love to make 53k, but they probably can't do the job, physically or mentally ( getting up at 5am sucks )
Waste management is a iffy employer at best, they make plenty of money, but thats their job, like all companies to increase shareholder value.
The teamsters started this fight by deciding that the recycle guys should make the same as the garbage, for whatever reason.
Both sides are behaving selfishly, in their own way, but ultimately the striking workers will lose when they are replaced. A unfair practices lawsuit seems iffy if WM is willing to hire replacement drivers.
Fucking Seattle.
45K is great if you're planning on dying at 60, never have a vacation, never have kids, or plan on eating dog food when you're 65 and want to live in a trailer. With a roommate.
For a family, 45K means a declining standard of living over time because you won't be able to send your kids to anything but the worst public schools and you sure as hell won't be able to send to them to college. Forget about retirement. And don't ever get sick.
45K might be a reasonable living in Seattle IF healthcare costs (and transportation, to some degree) was not an undue burden.
This is our vision for the average working class person in 2012: Scrape by? Consume, but do so on massive amounts of increasing difficult to get debt? Get sick, and lose your home? And don't educate your kids? Beg crumbs from a unimaginative, bitter and shrinking middle class?
The sum total of our collective hopes and dreams for the future is this?
This is some dystopian sci-fi Robocop shit right here. I was kinda hoping for Star Trek, myself.
I might remember it wrong, but I think the courts decided that you're responsible for your garage bill whether or not you actually require the service.
I asked them how in hell they think the people teaching our children deserve to make less money.
Their only reply was "well, i still think they
make too much."
More an I make as a head of household. I'm with @13 on this one.
That said, they totally deserve $45k, and until I see some of the people who wrote that opinion out picking up my trash, they should continue to get it. Take the money from your fucking shareholders, you dicks, and stop acting like labor costs are keeping you in the red.
I read the times article again, and it asks for both sides to find a solution. The liberal bais here is not shocking, but the reading comprehension is making the stupid burn again.
I smell hypocrites in this tread. Either 45k buys a nice small apartment near transit, or its "low income" and requires welfare, so that people can buy holmes with cars.
How many married couples are single income? Even if the spouse works full time at a relatively low wage, their combined income would be about $65,000. You can raise a family in Seattle on that much. Many make do with less.
And, to be clear, I don't think these guys should take a pay cut, but the argument that $45,000 isn't a living wage is laughable, at least if you have even the most basic concept of how most Americans live.
The Times article explicitly states that Waste Management pays nearly $1,100 per employee for health benefits. If WM is paying that much, its employees are likely paying very little of their health care costs out of pocket. They also get a pension, which is not included in the $45,000 figure.
"Waste Management is offering a six-year deal it says would raise average salaries from $58,000 to $68,000 a year. If benefits are included, the offer is worth $98,000 a year to a driver at the end of the sixth year."
Also, I get that people arguing how health care, transportation, family/housing costs, etc aren't considered when talking about a 45K salary but c'mon -- we all fall under those responsibilities and costs so if that's the criteria, where the hell is my raise?
And to all the judgmental poops talking about how other people manage their money: get over yourselves! The idea that if people just made the right choices nothing bad would ever happen is such a fucked up way of looking at the world and borders on sociopathy.
Bleurgh.
Claiming that "if you are smart with your money you will not starve on 45k a year plus full benefits" is a bit different than saying "if you are smart with your money nothing bad will ever happen to you."
How is this relevant to a discussion over what constitutes a living wage?
http://www.city-data.com/city/Seattle-Wa…
So, who still wants to argue $43,000 for one worker is not well above "living wage"?
(*remember, household income measures the combined earnings of members.)