Teamsters Say Minimum Wage Hike Not Enough To Make Congress Pro-Labor

http://www.laborradio.org/node/5071

Teamsters Say Minimum Wage Hike Not Enough To Make Congress Pro-Labor

By Doug Cunningham

Teamsters Legislative Director Fred McLuckie says simply voting for a minimum wage hike isn’t enough to make members of Congress truly pro-labor. They must come through on a variety of pro working family legislation including the Employee Free Choice Act to make it easier to join unions without employer anti-union intimidation.

: “We view this as a vital part of a broader program to examine the middle class squeeze and to assist working families. If you make it easier for people to have a voice on the job then it leads to better wages, affordable health care, a better retirement security and certainly safer working conditions.”

McLuckie says it’s vital that this Congress move toward universal health coverage.

: “We really need health care that’s affordable and offers quality care to everyone. And we also want to make sure there’s not a disincentive for employers who now provide coverage to continue that coverage for their employees.”

I think that's about what its 1968 level would equal in today's dollars.

against poverty in this country and thats with husband and wife both working.

Maybe it would help in NYC or SF, but having it at $10.00 WOULD hurt business elsewhere. Having it at $7.25 or at $8.00 would help because you need to have an area of moderation, where the Minimum Wage can be raised to help with purchasing power, but not force employers (small businesses, mind you) to raisee their prices by too much or be forced to make layoffs.

unless you want to live on Cheerios and Trix

where I live in Wisconsin a family of 4 could survive with both parents making $10 an hour if one of their jobs offered health insurance. Along with low wages here, the cost of living is also lower. Every place is different and one size does not fit all.

The world has enough people.

A family of 4 or 6 or 8 is irrelevant.

If you want to support more than just yourself, make yourself marketable so you are worth more than $10 an hour.

In May 1999 The Cambridge City Council passes the city living wage ordinance, establishing a living wage of $10 per hour, adjustable for inflation, for city workers and employees of firms with large city contracts. In the same month, the Board of Aldermen of Somerville (immediately north of Cambridge) unanimously passes a living wage of $8.23 an hour for its direct and subcontracted employees.

Harvard has had demonstrations, etc. and has been forced to raise wages to something closer to the Living Wage (an endowment well over $20 billion is a bit of an embarrassment in these discussion), but continues to have jobs that pay less than the living wage.

Not with a set number, but basically a federal law that is worded so that its required for employers to pay a living wage to people in the nation, based on WHERE they work and the standard of living within that area, adjusted for inflation. Basically based on a combination of Census and other Economic data.

n/t

The Federal Minimum Wage should not be raised to $10.00 or $11.00 because to do so is being over-simplistic. Businesses in more expensive areas can afford to pay such a wage (and big businesses such as Wal Mart) but in most areas of the country, having a minimum wage that high would have a negative effect. If NY, CA, OR, VT, or MA want to pass higher minimum wages, then by all means they should do it. However, the federal minimum wage should be just that: a MINIMUM for how each state can allow companies to pay employees.

Any congress elected with the current political system, which is bought and controlled by "capital", would never legislate/pass/enact a true "living wage". There would always be overwhelming concern for "small & medium sized businesses", like "mom & pop" enterprises. No USA President would sign it...

A true "living wage" would be closer to $25/hour today anywhere in the USA. Of course it all depends on what one considers to be "living". The life of quiet desperation, which the majority of us endure, is hardly living. One or two paychecks away from "going under" is not living, except in the minds of the politicians in both major "parties".

$25/hr would return us to the halcyon days when one "bread winner" could finance a family, save for unforeseen circumstances, buy a home (or two) and hope for a secure retirement, etc. I can remember (I'm 60y.o.) when this was the case in the late 50s and early 60s. Money was money, there was almost no inflation, people were optimistic with good reason, everything seemed to be getting better every year.

And then: The war in Vietnam ruined everything and we are revisiting those dynamics over and over again. We actually have a "war president"!!!

We are all screwed basically, well those of us who are not rich, very rich! You are truly doomed and probably should be agitating in the streets but, I know, your favorite program is on TV or "your" team is heading for the play offs...



(I am living a lot of the time in Vietnam, the most optimistic place on Earth, according to an International Gallup Poll. In fact Vietnam has been the most optimistic country for the last four years. Ironic isn't it?)

As a national body they voted Republican in last two elections, at least according to Jimmie Hoffa their leader. The Local Teamsters in Houston TX in 2000 hired scab labor to build their new Teamster Hall. They said they could not afford to pay Union wages. They can kiss my ass. I will never honor any teamster picket and they can have all the Republican desert they want....

Interesting times...

Still, it's true. Minimum wage needs to be higher than what Congress is raising it to.

and Kerry in 2004. Hoffa worked for the Kerry campaign.
The Houston situation seems to be a case of local corruption:

Indicted -
Whistleblowers at Houston Local Leads to Boss’s Indictment
http://www.nlpc.org/view.asp?action=viewArticle&aid=1592

and convicted -
Charles Crawley, the former president of Houston-based International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 988, was convicted Dec. 8 of embezzlement, mail fraud and falsifying official union records.

http://www.shortnews.com/start.cfm?id=58953&rubrik1=Regional&rubrik2=United%20States&rubrik3=Texas&sort=1&start=1

With minimum wage, everyone at the bottom gets a raise. Unfortunately, many or even most of those earning minimum wage don't rely on it for living expenses. More than half are middle-class teenagers, comfortable retirees picking up supplemental income, people who enter the work force seasonally (Christmas help, for example), and so on.

Meanwhile, increased labor costs across the board cause employers to hire fewer people to do the same work to keep costs down, or increase their prices to cover the new expense. Further, SS taxes computed upon wage magnify the effective cost to employers. End result is fewer jobs, and those who keep them have to work harder.

Additionally, higher prices caused by higher labor costs move out through the economy, eroding the gains by inflating prices. What good is a higher wage if everything moves up in price?

It would be more effective, more directly compassionate, and less wasteful to identify those who need extra money and give it to them through the Earned Income Tax Credit. This either eliminates taxes on earnings or sends money as a grant. Because it's based on the tax return, the people who need the money are readily apparent.

There are few economists, regardless of their politics, who don't privately think that minimum wage is doing surgery with a rusty butterknife. Why not use a scalpel instead?

I want EVERY PERSON WHO NEEDS A LIVING WAGE to have one. I think we have more intelligent tools at our disposal.

Peace.

I'm tired of explaining why the EITC does not make up for a low minimum wage. Here is a blog that sums it up nicely:
http://www.halfsigma.com/2007/01/ten_reasons_to_.html

Some excerpts:


Another reason is that the EITC is a lump-sum payment and does not make up for a small paycheque. Very few people have the discipline to make a lump-sum payment last for a whole year. It's especially difficult for people who don't have savings lying around to cover unexpected expenses such as visits to the emergency room.

But don't pretend that giving money to people who don't need it for basic living doesn't take it away from people who do.

Give to the people who need basic support in addition to their low-wage job. Make it once a month...hell, once a day...if that resolves the problem of no self-discipline.

Consider researching the statistics of who earns minimum wage. I used to be in favor of it myself until I read up. Less than half of minimum wage earners support themselves or others with their earnings. Fewer than one in three will still be earning minimum wage a year later. Those who are stuck at minimum wage long-term are the ones we should rightly target with support.

Minimum wage jobs are entry points, not dead ends, for most people. Removing entry points to the job market means delayed or denied enfranchisement for many who otherwise would be earning the first line on their new resume.

If money were in abundant supply I'd say what the hell, give some to everybody - but it's not. So let's make sure those who actually need it are the ones who get it. And let's do that in a way that doesn't push up prices (hurting the poor through eroded purchasing power) and decrease job openings (hurting the poor through lessened opportunity to enter the job market and gain experience for a better job). Seems smart to me.

Peace.

1. Are you for abolishing the minimum wage completely? Should an employer be allowed to hire a worker for $1/day?
2. How do you feel about the astronomical incomes, stock options, and startup and retirement benefits that CEOs are getting? Are they really worth thousands of times as much as the lower-income workers?

When the minimum wage goes up, other wages go up, too. A person making $5.50 would not be counted as a minimum-wage worker, but s/he would still benefit from a minimum-wage increase. This probably skews the statistics used to claim that an increase in the minimum wage does not benefit workers.

"Replace EITC with a better mechanism" is not a good argument against raising the minimum wage. Those who oppose minimum-wage increases are usually also against increasing taxes on higher-income workers -- something that would be necessary to increase the EITC.

It's a band-aid - a needed one, but still just a band-aid.

And it's a hell of a lot better than chimpenomics.

$1.25 an hour covered back in 1960. Part of the problem is the expense of housing. In 1960, there was plenty of inexpensive but comfortable rentals available. I think this is the other side of the problem that needs to be addressed. Another problem is cheap transportation wherem in many places, the only way one can get around is in a car.

Unions are a necessity, though, precisely because of the government's failure to protect workers. McLuckie is right.