News
Mar 12, 2014 at 4:00 am
Ignore the Overheated Rhetoric—Here Are Actual Policy Ideas Being Discussed Among Business Owners and Activists
This will likely be one of the most contentious issues.
Kelly O
Comments
Please wait...
Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.
More In News
Popular Articles
is a proud member of the
media network
media network
All contents © Index Newspapers LLC
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
All of this is concessions from workers. Not one concession from business. And Holden pretends he's being all grown up reporting this as a "negotiation." Negotiation is when both sides give something up. Extortion is where one side makes demands and the other side gives.
Going down to $12/hr is a concession from workers. A tip exemption is a concession from workers. A health care credit is a concession from workers. Making workers wait while we take baby steps toward $15 means giving inflation time to make $15 worth less and less. We should have $15 now, and cost of living increases in the years to come to compensate for inflation, not the opposite. Every hole in the Swiss cheese is a concession from workers. What is business offering in exchange for these concessions?
Nothing.
They won't even offer historical proof that any business will be harmed by a minimum wage increase. They won't open their books to show any proof that they can't afford it. They do nothing. Nothing, but demand concessions.
And their mouthpiece Holden whines that its' so haaaaaaard to get together and make a concise, clear offer. Poor, poor business. Imagine how hard it is to hold a meeting and cook up a unified strategy when you work two jobs to feed your family. If workers can come together and send a clear message, the 1% can do the same. There's only 1/100th as many of you, after all. Pay one of your flunkies to work out the details for you. Holden will jump to it if you snap your fingers.
The truth is this: Business is taking just as hard a line as 15 Now. Business is stonewalling and credulous hacks like Dominic Holden are carrying their message for them.
Want real negotiation? Offer something in exchange for what you want.
Won't someone think of the wealthy?
#3 is correct. The thesis of this post is basically that workers should concede everything, and businesses should concede nothing because they and the status quo are more important. Very progressive.
we're going to review the paperwork and accounting of every business in seattle? we're going to review whether tom douglas runs his five or ten restaurants as diff. companies, under the revenue cap, or one? jesus every single review would be a major three year litigation with armies of lawyers and forensic accountants. instead of that swiss cheese approach, just say it applies to everyone the way a minimum wage is supposed to do!
Same with compensation. hey you ate a burger at work, now we deduct you $18 from your paycheck. Oh wait we imposed a tip on you, it's $21. Oh and since we provide that benefit twice a day we deduct $42 daily five days a week, that's a $210 benefit to you! don't like it? get a lawyer and see you in court. what? or our health care plan, we value it as worth $200 a month to you. Care to disagree? starting paying a lawyer. how in hell can the government micromanage all these exemptions, we can't even make cars on the road actually have insurance!
no exceptions. you are worth $15 an hour period.
As for tipped positions, I think servers in restaurants will probably see tips shrink somewhat but not disappear, but in places where there is a tip jar on the counter and no real table service, I would expect tips to all but disappear after a huge wage jump. That might be an even swap or even a gain to the employee, but I doubt most cafes include tips in their W-2s, so there is some downside to that from a tax standpoint.
While I would support a "total compensation" approach that included tips in determining wage, it's ridiculous to include healthcare or other benefits in the calculation. Do other industries get to back retirement out of their minimum wage calculations?
The government is negotiating with all the employers over the cost of one hour of human labor. The employers have effectively colluded and used their asymmetric position to negotiate workers en masse to such a low average wage that many workers rely on public assistance.
Yes, it's possible that this artificially low wage has made it possible for some businesses to operate at very low margins, but it simply isn't sustainable. If we want to subsidize businesses we should do so directly rather than allowing them to benefit from a safety net designed for those who have fallen on hard times.
Small businesses often get caught in the trap of basing a business plan on the current price of supplies rather than on a sustainable price of supplies. A restaurant started during a seafood glut might not pencil out when seafood returns to its average price or if there is a shortage. The price of labor is going to rise. Companies who want to remain in business would be well advised to be out in front of it.
I doubt most cafes include tips in their W-2s
With the majority of customers using credit cards to pay and tip, you think the proprietor doesn't keep a record of the tip money and how it's doled out to employees, with appropriate tax payments to the IRS ?
http://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc761.html
Topic 761 - Tips – Withholding and Reporting
it is time to raise the minimum wage. that's the only thing that seems consistently clear.
so here's my arbitrary:
raise it a buck a year with cut-outs for non-profits (monitor the result in unbiased fashion; changing course if disaster looms)
the only absolute certainty is that people will remain irrational, emotional, and apparently unyielding, on both sides.
As much as I understand the desire to get to $15, I don't understand why it must happen in one jump. It's a huge leap that will have all kinds of repercussions that are hard to predict or manage.
Isn't is more responsible to take a quick but graduated approach that will allow businesses to adjust and the city to analyze the repercussions and make whatever adjustments are necessary along the way - i.e. changes to tax laws, regulations, definitions of a small business, etc.
Side note: I still don't understand who is meant to make the counter-proposal. Everyone mentions "the business community", but I'm not aware of a specific group who has been given the mandate to represent them.
So the only counter-offer I can see must be coming from the Mayor's office who I guess we are assuming will take a more nuanced approach based on the differing perspectives of the local businesses and their employees.
Business sat on their hands for decades while the real value of the minimum wage eroded. Where where they with their offer? In the late 60s the Federal minimum wage was equivalent to over $11/hr.
Ending poverty wages is not a perk. It's not a concession from business to pay people enough to live without welfare. It's what wages are supposed to be in the first place.
When they talk about less than $15/hr, they're asking for less than a living wage. If you want to pay less than a living wage, you need to offer something mighty sweet in exchange.
Especially since we could put this to a vote right now and a solid $15/hr would pass with 68% support. The voters know the score; it's just credulous hacks like Dominic Holden who are spewing fantasies.
Then you claim, "Business is stonewalling and credulous hacks like Dominic Holden are carrying their message for them. Want real negotiation? Offer something in exchange for what you want. "
That's also wrong--you get my position exactly backwards. I criticize the business owners who stonewall, saying:
Maybe you should save your invective for situations where someone actually disagrees with you.
...and how many of the staff would agree to work for $12 after having a look at Tim's earnings or Christopher's paycheck?
And how does this stand up in court? Phase it in for everyone.
Also what #8 said. A system of exemptions is going to take an absurd amount of city resources, and it's going to be rife with abuse. Anyone who's seeking an exemption for small business doesn't deserve to be taken seriously.
@21 Then why does the state have a better than average unemployment rate? And what about other economic factors, such as funding for transportation, education and overall health outcomes and other economic factors?
I guess what I'm trying to say here is that you're doing nothing but cherry picking data and filling this thread with incomplete and absolute bullshit.
I am a big believer in the $15/hr minimum wage, but I am also willing to pragmatically accept solutions that advance the "livable wage for all" mantra at the possible expense of line item details.
For instance, we all know that McD employees will never get tipped, so a hardline $15/hr for them is appropriate. But if you are working at a high end restaurant where the serving staff are making $40/hr in tips, then their livable wage has been accomplished already.
That leaves the vast middle. Sure I would like perhaps a European system where the livable wage is standard, and tips are rare, but as a believer in meritocracy, I don't think we should dis-incentivize those who work hard for their tips. Perhaps a standard, where say 25% of a servers "tip wages" could be used as a "Minimum Offset", while the hard base remains the current $9/hr. That would allow workers to *always* benefit from their tips, and by the time they hit $24/hr in tips they start keeping all of it. If they made only $10/hr in tips, $2.50/hr would be used to offset their minimum wage up to $15, giving them a "non-tip" regular base paycheck of $12.50/hr ($15 - $2.50), and $10/hr in take-home tips. The $40/hr tip maker would still be paid the hard base of $9/hr but would be taking home the $40/hr in tips.
A sliding scale as it were. And it could be expanded to other vocations that "pay on commission".
I keep asking this, and no one seems to be able to explain to me why I have to foot the bill so some twee shop owner can pocket profits that should be going to their employees instead.
Why in the fuck should I be paying money to these shop owners?
Afraid that cute waitress is going to stop flirting with you if she's paid a decent wage?
That's a pretty big leap going by what #28 actually wrote. The reality is that bartenders and waiters at upscale bars and restaurants make a ton of money in tips. If you impose a $15/hour wage and abolish tipping, that would be a huge pay cut for them.
Wow, I'm not sure that came from. My proposal guarantees a livable wage (defined as $15/hr, for the sake of argument) without eliminating tip income. If anything, it incentivizes restaurant/bar owners to create the quality and ambiance that maximizes their employees tips, thereby minimizing their labor costs. And it keeps the majority of tips in workers pockets where it belongs.
Is that "lording tip money" over my "inferiors"? I'm sorry, I'm going to give you a "flunk" and ask that you re-check your work.
Honestly, from your post, I can't tell if you would be against it because tipped employees get tips and non-tipped employees don't, or because well tipped employees would in effect be easing the "labor cost" burden of their employers.
Because no one has ever been forced into bankruptcy by a medical issue, accident, or family event they had no control over. No one has ever lost their job unexpectedly and by no fault of their own.
It takes a serious and blinding amount of privilege to just foolishly claim that anyone who has ever required social assistance or made poverty wages did so by choice. A strawman is not an argument, but keep trying.
You wrote:
"The "cost" of a $15/hour minimum wage increase will "paid" for in unemployment, reduced hours, general price increases and decreased opportunity for those whom it was intended to benefit most."
Keynesian economic models in fact suggest that while some individual businesses may suffer downsizing and/or impose price increases, that overall it will result in *increased* opportunity as more disposable income enters the market at the bottom. Businesses come and go all the time, for large numbers of reasons, and a $15/hr min wage would undoubtedly be one more "reason". But it will be a reason both in the negative (downsizing) *and* positive (more money being spent, means more opportunities to earn those new spent dollars, more demand, etc)
Granted, I have not kept up on much of this topic, but has this even been addressed before?
Some quick math on tips:
A mid range restaurant in Seattle has a server who has an average of $20 per guest in pricing (low ball estimate) and has 15 guests in a slower night. He's actually waiting tables for three hours and has one hour before tables get in to set up and one hour after the guests leave for side work.
So, he has $300 in net sales, and they tip 18%. That's $54 in tips. Now, he's been there five hours, so add $9.32 on top of that. But first subtract the 15%, or $8.10, for what he has to "tip out" to the busser and hostess. So, when you add tips and wages and subtract tip out, he is making $16.52/hour.
And that's ON A SLOWER NIGHT AT A LOW END RESTAURANT. I'm not a mathematician, but I think $16.52/hour is more than $15/hour...
I've been working in the restaurant biz for 15 years and anyone who says we tipped restaurant people are the "starving proletariat masses" is on crack.
I make minimum wage plus tips and I DON'T WANT 15/HOUR. Why? Because at that rate, people tip less and I end up making LESS MONEY!
I have yet to see or hear from a single tipped restaurant person advocating for 15now. Why? Because we all know we make good money and that this would put our livelihoods and lifestyles in jeopardy.
If anything happens PLEASE include a tip credit. I don't want to see a pay cut because some idiot in a red shirt doesn't know shit about the restaurant industry.
I mean, right?
If you resent a co-worker that gets a raise when you don't, then yes I could see that you could have a problem with this. Even if that co-worker is still not making as much as you. However, I would point out that you haven't actually gotten a pay cut, so begrudging your co-worker a wage that will feed his family might not be the most compelling argument to make out loud.
On the other hand, I think some credit for companies that provide these benefits is reasonable. In particular, I think Dick's should not be penalized for providing health benefits that McDonalds does not provide. Single payer for all would obviate this whole point, but that's outside of the city's control. One thing you could do would be to cap the credit at a percentage of total income, say 8%-10%. So employers that provided health care could pay $13.50 with a $1.50 health care wage credit. If that's still too much, employers can pay the full $15 and their employees can use the additional wage to offset medical expenses.
I do think some compromises in favor of workers to make up for these exemptions might be in order, too. Like making the total amount $15 or an amount indexed to average rent or inflation, whichever is higher, based upon formulas that currently work out to $15/hour. That means that over time, if housing costs rise faster than inflation, minimum wage will stay at the same level.
A recent poll found that people would tip less to not at all if the Minimum wage went to 15/hour. Source:
http://www.nbcnews.com/business/consumer…
Servers and bartenders already make good money, I out to know, I've been doing it for fifteen years. We don't want or need an idiotic gesture that will result in us making less.
Health care inflation is the least of the problems with that proposal.
Have you ever seen what your company pays for its part of your health insurance? If you're paying $150/month (which is pretty typical for most non-union plans), your employer is paying $500/month. Allowing an employer exemption for a health care burden like that results in paying an employee $11.50/hour, and that's not including the $150 (plus deductibles, co-pays, and co-insurance) the employee is also paying out of pocket.
Good point. If the price of everything goes up than suddenly 15/hour doesn't go as far as it once did.
Also, if the price of groceries and such goes up in Seattle but not outside of city limits, do you really think folks won't go to Shoreline or Burien to get a deal? And if they do, what happens to our local economy then?
The more you sit down and think about it, the more the 15/now people appear to be on crack.
This is vastly overstating the affect of the 1.5% of Seattle Workers who would get a raise, on those already over the 15/hr line.
http://seattletimes.com/html/businesstec…
Direct labor cost is *not* the main driver of inflation. The main drivers are *demand* and *availability*.
If a grocery store thinks it can clear more profit by raising the price of a roll of toilet paper by 5 cents, they will do it whether or not they are paying their cashiers a livable wage.
Yes, perhaps if 1.5% more people can *afford* that roll of toilet paper, then *demand* will go up, but weyerhaeuser will undoubtedly be willing to churn out a few more roles, solving the *availability* issue.
Is it possible that some businesses will try to pass the cost on to consumers directly? Sure. But they probably didn't understand that if the market could bear a "$15 burger" after the min raise hike, then it probably could have beforehand as well. And not to many of the 1.5% are going to be buying those $15 burgers anyway.
The only valid argument is really businesses with margin *so thin* that changes in the cost of direct labor are the actual tipping point between staying in business, and going out of business. And the number of those businesses is extremely small. And those businesses that do fail for that very reason will create a void in the market which can be filled by newcomers, creating a zero sum game at worst.
Immediate raise to $12/hr across the board, large and small businesses included.
Annual $1 increases until the reasonable number is met. (May be higher than $15 at completion)
Once this condition is met, minimum wage is locked to inflation rate.
No base increase for tipped employees but employer must reconcile deficiencies each pay period if necessary.
No additional total compensation benefits are counted against the minimum wage number.
Non-profits can apply for at least temporary exemption with employee notification. (Set up so most small revenue foundations can get the exemption but places like the Gates foundation would be unlikely to receive one)
Union bargained contracts do not need to meet these requirements until they are next negotiated if that date is less than 4 years out.
I feel this does a pretty good job of helping raise the minimum quickly to a better level while allowing businesses the time needed to make adjustments without drastic measures. Some employees will still struggle financially as will some employers, but this can help bridge the gap without too much system shock.
I'm hearing rumors of 3 different minimum wage ballot initiatives.
One is $15Now's immediate raise to $15 across the board, no exemptions for small businesses or non-profits, no phasing, no other forms of compensation.
2nd would be a $15 MW phased in over 3-7 years, different lengths of time for local vs. large national corps. Total compensation with tips, commissions, piece work, and some benefits included. Youth wage and training wage.
3rd is a rumor but from a good source - a statewide $12.50 minimum wage phased in over 3 years with a tip credit, and this would supercede any local laws including Seattle's $15 MW.
If they all three end up on the ballot it would be interesting to watch what Labor would do. Fight against raising wages for tons of people statewide so fewer people just in Seattle could have $15? Argue against $12.50 statewide because it has a tip credit while supporting $10.10 nationally with a tip credit?
And yet that's exactly what you and the other zealots are demanding of business owners (and those who would dare to preach some kind of compromise). Isn't that blindingly obvious?
I would be tempted to vote for all 3. Maybe even 1.... I'd have to think about it. My biggest worry is that the absolutist "15 or bust" crowd will sink *all* of the livable wage proposals.
I think "15 or bust" is a good starting point, but the pragmatist within accepts compromise.
53 has a good model for what's needed. A 5-7 year phase-in is too long. An immediate raise with more phased in over three years is the right pace, but that needs to be met with an indexed wage and a firm line against including the full cost of other benefits. Give both sides something when moving away from a flat $15/hour now.
I don't know what happens if the restaurant union (?) comes out against raising the MW. Does it benefit servers to explain how much they make? Would a tip exclusion look like managers trying to exploit workers? (That's what I thought when I first heard it.) Maybe staying quiet and hoping the voters reject the proposal is the thing to do.
People keep blaming "business" for not having a concise response, but there's no one voice that represents "business". It's easy for the Redshirt posse, led by Sawat to just scream '$15 $15 $15!' and get lots of traction because everyone wants more money, but then they don't lead their people to think about the ramifications of such a rash act. That's y'r job, yo.
This is 101-level shit, Dominic. It's obvious to the small business community, but obviously it's not obvious to most others. Why has no one noticed this? Or, if they have, why have they (and you) not really voiced this reality?
It's a common argument that ignores every other incentive to work hard that non-tipped employees face, such as risk of having hours reduced or being fired. It's a common argument used by folks who like the idea of having someone dance for them to get their tip money.
As for tipping itself? Credits are still shit, because it's really common for employees who claim they're making below minimum wages to just find themselves without hours the next week. No one is stopping someone from being tipped, so I have no idea why this keeps coming up for the handful of bartenders at high end restaurants at the expense of everyone else.
@34 Sorry buddy, but just because someone "gets emotional" doesn't mean their argument is bad. You're still cherry picking the fuck out of your data, and you're still not citing the sources, nor are you citing any data that goes against your hypothesis. Anyone who's read the economic literature knows that there are many competing conclusions - you're ignoring half the story here. If you're going to get all "beep boop I'm a walking rational actor" on us, you should actually deliver the goods.
Given the complaints I've heard from service workers who've worked for shady employers, it seems like the tip credit is an easy avenue for wage theft. It's hard enough to prove wage theft as it is.
Most Americans assume tipping is a reward for working hard, when in fact it's not. I'm not going to hold that against #28 in the absence of other questionable ideas about what kind of service a tip allegedly guarantees (like the idea that withholding a tip is an appropriate response to a lack of "friendliness").
So you took my entire post and boiled it/paraphrased it down to "a lack of tips would dis-incentivize an employee from working hard".
I stand by my harsh judgement of your reading comprehension.
What I don't want to dis-incentivize is tipping in general (by the tipper, not the tippee). It is a very good way for servers/employees to share in their employers success. Flat rate employees will get the same pay per hour regardless of how successful the establishment is. Tipped employees do better as the business (restaurant) does better.
I can see where you could take one sentence out of it's context to make it look like I am in favor of making employees dance like monkeys for scraps. But the post itself is 180 degrees in the opposite direction to where you took it.
The idea is that the minimum hourly income for every employee be at least $15, guaranteed. The tips would have to show up on the employees paycheck, and the check would have to show total hours, total wages, total tips, and total pay per hour. If that total was below $15, the employer would have to adjust it.
Enforcement would be key. It would need to be stiff for the first time offense, stiffer for the 2nd time, and a loss of business license for the 3rd time. Wage theft is totally unacceptable.
This plan means any work a tipped employee does would result in a minimum $15 per hour, whether they were getting tips or not. So no work around for the employer.
The IRS counts tips as income, and so should the City of Seattle. Since 90% of tips are on credit cards these days, this is easy to put into place and enforce.
Given that the city currently can't do anything about wage theft, I'm skeptical. It's already too easy to cook the books, and adding in another factor seems likely to make it worse. Most employees are unable to prove wage theft even with a flat-rate wage. Currently, there are serious consequences for wage theft: real jail time. So where are the arrests and prosecutions?
Everything you're saying is already in place. All credit card tips appear on pay checks and everything is accounted for. Trust me, I've been in the restaurant business for fifteen years and "wage theft" is overblown to say the least when it comes to sit down restaurants.
Anyone can take a look at any server's check and see that they make a lot more than 15/hour already.
I disagree with you like a motherfucker, Dominic.
You and your boss are accusing everyone else of refusing to negotiate. Sawant made it crystal clear to you, in excruciating, repetitive detail, that she will listen to reasonable counteroffers. Your reaction was mindbogglingly pig headed.
You mischaracterize these contrary business positions as mature and reasonable, as if the 15 Now side is acting like children. That's shitty reporting and shitty advocacy. You're back to being a shill after your short Goldy-inspired vacation from shilling.
In short, once again, you and your boss have not given 15 Now a reason to accept less than a solid $15/hr. Instead of admitting you haven't offered any concessions to buy you guys the less than $15 you want, you condescendingly accuse them of overheated rhetoric.
The fact is that 15 Now knows what hand they're holding, and it's a good hand. You and your boss and the businesses you are now shilling for (yes I know you wore different colors way back two months ago, in your younger days. You're so much older now...) have a shitty hand and so you're bluffing.
Tell Keck and Tom Douglas and Dave Meinert to open their books. And tell them to offer something in exchange if they want to pay less than $15 per hour. AND everyone is STILL waiting for you guys to cite one instance of small businesses disappearing after a minimum wage increase. Start with 1988's Initiative 518. What's up with that one, kids? You got a lot of explaining to do right there with 518.
So you don't see a problem with someone who has worked their way up and taken on various responsibilities, getting to know the company, market, products, etc. making the same (or nearly the same) amount as a brand new person who does not have such qualifications?
Sorry, I more than kind of do have a problem with that.
I suppose one could argue, "just go to a company that is paying for that kind of knowledge/qualification"..... but would there be any appropriately paying jobs available? Particularly if you are in a specific field.
I in no way begrudge a person making enough to feed their family. I do have an issue with people who have worked hard to create some semblance of security with their finances suddenly making near minimum wage, and what that means for their buying power.
If an actual co-worker got a raise and I did not, I assume that would be because of something like a performance issue or some such.
I do really wonder what a $15 min. wage would do to that part (people making close to that amount, $15-25)of the market.
I fall within that range, and I can't say I give a shit.
My company doesn't publish pay scales as it is, so I have no idea what my compensation is like compared even to our interns. I also feel stuck due to the fact that all comparable positions asking for my qualifications that I've been able to find lately would require me to take a 25 percent pay cut (even a $15/hour minimum wage would be a 13 percent pay cut for me). That is the reality of the economy right now.
You know what else is the reality of this economy? Zero percent "raises" from 2007 to 2010 and 1-2 percent "raises" thereafter. And we're among the lucky ones.
I should add too, that my company has grown at least 10 percent every year since 2010, and we're supposed to meet a 20 percent growth projection this year. But a 1 percent "raise" is generous.
However much you want to quibble about a $15 minimum wage, the fact remains that this discussion is the logical conclusion to elites in this country bleeding the middle class dry.
Then ask them to tell you what they'd have to do once they got there. Would they change nothing? Shorten hours? Lay people off? Raise their prices? By how much?
Why has no press asked these obvious questions? It would settle once and for all the doubts that businesses are just lying about the effect that WE know would happen.
*Prices at restaurants would go up by no less than 15%.
*Non-wage contributions to salaries (healthcare, education, bonuses, etc.) would be minimized for employees for many businesses.
*Charitable giving would cease.
These are realities. But, you need to CONFIRM that these are realities. Don't take my word at it.
David Meinert @davidmeinert
@GoodJobsSeattle I am against a tip credit. I am for counting tips in compensation, and honestly, there is not deal without that.
Meinert says "fuck you" unless he gets an exemption specifically crafted for his large business again. How shocking.
I also have no idea what others in my company make, except within my department as a manager. I only mentioned the co-worker thing as a reply to #42.
As a manager, responsible for so much more than someone I would hire, I would be pissed to be making little more than they are.....
Frankly your realities look great compared to what I dealt with (and continue to deal with) during this recession and recovery. So, yes you are among the lucky ones. No need to play "who has it worse" to know things have sucked and continue to for many people.
I agree with your assertion that companies are expecting so much while giving so little but, I'm confused how this $15 minimum wage will in any way help the middle class?
Back to the condescension. Did calling yourselves the "adults" keep your guy Richard Conlin in his seat? You think The Seattle Times going to be on the winning side of this?
If you believed 15Now had no chance of winning a solid $15/hr at the ballot box you'd walk away now and stand back and watch it go down in flames. The only reason you're playing this game now is to try to get yourself a better hand than the losing cards you're holding now.
Open your books, Dave. Nobody believes you, so show us your books.
And explain to us, please, why hospitality employment grew after 518 passed in 1988. How come you never talk about that?
And this after fucking Tom Douglas says, oh yeah, cooks, they're white and they're male. Give them a raise. Why? So they can buy a house for the wife and kids! Says Tom Douglas. But wait staff? Women. Coloreds. They don't need a raise. Too child-like to handle money and anyway, shouldn't they have a man to take care of them?
Can you BELIEVE that shit? That's the "adults in the room" talking at you, brothers and sisters.
Fuck this paternalistic condensation. Fuck that.
No. No no no. Two year phase-in, tops. Anything less and we should go straight to the ballot.
City council members are going to be damned if they do, damned if they don't if they actually try to touch this hot potato.
Did The Stranger fire Goldy over the restaurant owners complaints?
@38, This thinking that I can't stand it if there isn't someone else for me to be better than is astounding but surprisingly prevalent. I have seen people prefer to be non-union so they could make more than the other guy even if they made less.
Everybody wants to feel sorry for small business, but look at the real effect of exempting them. First, many of the large national chain hotels, restaurants, etc. are franchises, and the business entity with the actual employees are often small businesses.
Also look at the incentives that you create. If small businesses have a lower wage you will suddenly see all kinds of subcontractor schemes with the employees working for a labor broker. In industries where this has happened like construction and farm work, abuse is now the norm.
Your idea that this is a chose lifestlye and not the result of impersonal social/economic issues makes it impossible for you to enter the debate in good faith since you do not understand the basis of the problem.
Keep trying!
Exempting "small businesses" is also no good. If you can't afford to run a business without exploiting labor, than you should not be running that business, end of story. Small businesses that rely on exploitation to exist should not exist - if they close, that a POSITIVE outcome.
He just said he somehow saw some special quality in cooks and chefs that made him think they deserved to buy a house. And then he said tipped employees, not so much.
So I don't know. What special quality do cooks have that makes them deserving of membership in the middle class that tipped employees lack? Do tipped employees deserve to live in poverty because they're 80% female? Or maybe it's some other reason?
Who knows what special difference Douglas sees in one group and not the other.
But when you look at the outcome, you end up making the sex and race disparity in pay worse. The outcome of his proposal is women and minorities stay in poverty and white males move up a little.
So you can believe that racism and sexism are something that only exist in your heart. Or you can believe that racism is as racism does, and sexism is as sexism does. I see racism and sexism there because the outcome is racist and sexist.
Truth hurts, baby.
Doing something to improve your marketable skills in the labor market, and not having kids you can't afford, are the true ways to avoid poverty.
It isn't a matter of being "better than" it's a matter of putting in the effort to work ones way up and gain skills and have added responsibilities and suddenly be making the same as a brand new employee. I still would have all the responsibilities (stress included) and none of the reward.
A pretty simple question I think, difficult answer, but simple question.
I don't understand where this backlash to my sincere question is coming from. Has no one else ever taken on additional responsibilities at a job specifically for better pay/job advancement? I've worked at my current employer ( in one way or another, recession sucked) for over a decade, and suddenly I would be making similar pay to the next person we hire? My employer would not be able to raise current employee's pay by anywhere near 50%.
Maybe I should just leave my job, start fresh (taking my skills with me) to a new place making similar pay and work up from there. Less responsibility/ similar pay.....
If lots of people did that, how would that be beneficial to less skilled/qualified/experienced employees? Would they even be able to get any job in Seattle?
I think these are very fair questions that seem to be glossed over in this discussion. Making me the "bad guy" because I want to make significantly more than minimum wage, as a seasoned employee with decades of experience doesn't add anything to the discussion.
I have to assume you are not specifically talking to me about exemptions and such since I made no mention of any of that.
I worked in food service until very recently. Now I have a job that pays just under $15/hour. I still struggle a bit, but at least I can afford to eat more than twice a day. I had medical bills and rent to pay each month, which only left me with enough money for breakfast and dinner and nothing else. It wasn't fancy and it sure as hell wasn't an "unsustainable lifestyle." I was thin to begin with, but I lost like 12 pounds because I couldn't afford decent food.
I worked with a woman whose husband left her suddenly. She had two kids in grade school. My boss hired her to clean and maintain two separate restaurants from 2-10am for minimum wage. She had a degree, yet could only find that job. And guess what? When she finally received overtime, my boss said that since she was working in two places instead of one (both of which my boss owned), her pay check would be split and she wouldn't be receiving any overtime. These are the "small business" owners complaining about paying their employees enough to eat. How can anyone with a basic sense of empathy be against an immediate $15/hour raise?
But back to Dave Meinert. Why is this asshole allowed to mess around with our government? When did we elect him? Why are we even listening to this prick? If he's on the minimum wage task force, it's pretty obvious he's not working in good faith.
So your argument is that if minimum wage becomes $15/hr, then your server will need to make $10 in tips, or 3% of their $300 sales for the slow night, in order to tip out and take home the same money as they would today? And you don't believe that will happen? That's an interesting argument, but what evidence have you got for tipping suddenly completely disappearing if minimum wage is raised? Is it that you personally would stop tipping anyone, or people you know are saying that they would?
He's not that successful if paying a living wage will put him out of business. The people who can't afford to feed their children probably have a larger stake in the minimum wage fight than the guy who owns multiple businesses. Human life is more important than profit.
My opinion matters no more than your opinion, or Dave's opinion, or Dominic's opinion. If that's your major point, I'll certainly concede it. But the idea that we must bow down to the wisdom of business owners who are defining the debate right now (as you accuse me of doing), and who are attempting to invalidate a moral argument with a fear-based argument derived from a flawed economic model, is absolutely insane. The fact that this guy gets a free stage in the local media to complain about wages is equally ridiculous.
Congratulations on your poverty tourism, though. Try living it.
Great Cthulhu asks not that we get these college degrees you bleat on about. He only asks we fear Him.
You know what we've heard before? We've heard "when YOU'VE owned a business, then YOU will know better!" You know when we've heard it? Every single fucking time we have raised the minimum wage.
We heard the same shit over the smoking ban. We heard the same shit over health coverage. Always the same fucking shit: WE business owners know better. We business owners will mansplain it to you children. When you've owned a business, you'll know how right we are.
You fuckers are wrong every time. Every fucking time. Nobody here believes this bullshit any more. It's not working.
You know who buys your shit? Idaho. Texas. Oklahoma. Want to pay shit wages with no benefits to non-union chattel? There's the door, baby. Go.
Yet here you are. In the state with the highest wages in the country, some of the highest mandatory benefits, and all that other "COMMUNISM" Fox News lies about every day.
If you believed any of your own rhetoric, you'd not be here. You'd be out in bum fuck Idaho enjoying the "business friendly" government. Why aren't you there? Because Idaho is a shithole? Because Houston is a shithole?
Oops, I think I just figured out what's wrong with "Business Friendly™". Can you guess what it is?
You're still ignoring the simple fact that people can't live a decent life on the current minimum wage, no matter how high it is in relation to the rest of the country. If you work full time, you should, at the very least, be able to afford a decent life, right? I doubt you'd disagree with me on this, especially considering your history.
Claiming that you know better because you've run a business is a silly appeal to authority. Why not concentrate on the facts?
If adjusted for inflation, the national minimum wage would be about $10.50/hour. If adjusted for productivity, it would be about $22.00/hour. $15/hour sits nicely between those two. It is a compromise. There are studies from Berkley, which Dominic posted today, showing that a raise in the minimum will have little to no impact on business. We know from past increases in the minimum that there will be no catastrophic, business-destroying consequences (check out Initiative 518). We know that when the poor/middle class have more money, it's better for the economy as a whole. We know that wages have remained stagnant for years.
If you disagree, I'd love to see your hard evidence. Show me data proving otherwise, not fear-based hypotheticals.
@115
Was the "living wage" comment directed toward me?
"Living wage is defined by the wage that can meet the basic needs to maintain a safe, decent standard of living within the community."
If the minimum doesn't meet a living wage, then explain to me why that fact shouldn't be brought up as a justification to raise the minimum? I'm not disagreeing with your bully sentiment, just wondering why you'd handicap yourself by not bringing up that fact.