Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.
-------------------------
This post first appeared at Jobs with Justice on July 29, 2014.
Despite its high minimum wage, San Francisco has the second-highest rate of income inequality among major US cities. That's interesting. San Francisco, that bastion of liberal sensibilities, controlled by the extreme Left, the city where every cause celebre is implemented in the name of fairness, tolerance, and bigger better government; San Francisco, the model city of managed growth and unmanaged government, has the second highest rate of income inequality? How is this possible? How can it be that those who care-more-than-you have allowed this to happen?)
One of the reasons why people aren’t earning enough money to make ends meet in the Bay Area, and across the country, is because they can’t get sufficient hours at their jobs. (Oh, THAT'S it. Here I thought it might be because the median home price there is $999,400, while the median rent is $3600/mo., or $43,200/yr. Commensurate with high home prices are property taxes that have just increased to $1.1880 per $100 of assessed value, which makes the annual tax bill for the afore-mentioned median home a staggering $11,872.
Currently, the minimum wage in San Francisco is $10.74/hr, or $22,339/yr. There is a proposal to gradually increase it to $15/hr., or $31,200/yr. So the care-more-than-you Left is going to help the downtrodden in San Francisco by forcing others to pay them more, leaving only a small gap of $12,000 left to cover the rent. Um, yeah.
But more specifically, the problem is, according to the author, that people aren't being able to work enough hours. However, if they're already working 40 hours, they would have to work an additional 21.5 hours per week, and that just covers the rent.
So the author thinks that more hours would help, while S.F. wants to help by raising the minimum wage. Unfortunately, neither solution is going to help, but sounding compassionate is much easier than having results. In addition, we need to note that the author is simply providing talking points designed not to enlighten, but to paint her villain in a bad light.)
And then there are workers facing unpredictable schedules that make it impossible for them to properly care for their families, hold down second jobs or pursue an education. (Again, it's the eeevil employers' fault, for it is their obligation to provide hours that facilitate home life, apparently. It clearly hasn't occurred to the author that the proper care of one's family is one's own responsibility, no matter the circumstances of life.)
That’s why it’s so exciting that a coalition of workers, labor, community and advocacy groups in the Bay Area has come together (That is, agitators, community organizers, and various and sundry Leftist front groups bused in from out of town to sow seeds of discontent and gin up the outrage of the gullible.) to tackle the escalating crisis of unjust hours (Notice how the issue has escalated to the level of justice.) and unstable schedules that workers in the low-wage retail sector face. (Ah, the tacit admission that these are minimum wage workers who have no chance of being able to live in an expensive city like S.F.. I wonder if the author will get around to asking why it is so expensive to live there...)
This coalition, led by Jobs With Justice San Francisco, is teaming up with Supervisors Eric Mar and David Chiu (These men are elected representatives to the city council.) to introduce the Retail Workers Bill of Rights to hold the city’s largest retailers, restaurant chains, hotels and banks accountable for creating better quality jobs. (Apparently the author does not realize that employment is a voluntary contract between parties, in order that value can be exchanged. The worker is being hired and paid to perform certain tasks. "Better quality jobs" come only when there is "better quality work" being performed.
One would think this is obvious, but it isn't to the Left. To them, employers are holding back people from what their entitled to, they're oppressors and cheats. In classic socialist fashion, these advocacy groups are simply engaging in a veiled attempt to agitate for the proletariat to rise up against the bourgeois. That's their motivation, that's their world view.)
The proposed ordinance aims to strengthen protections for retail workers held hostage by on-call scheduling, diminished hours and discriminatory treatment by employers on the basis of their part-time employment status. (It sounds like these people are chained to their workplace, doesn't it? As if someone can't just stand up and resign.)
Why is the Retail Workers Bill of Rights a solution? Too many people aren’t just living paycheck to paycheck, they’re living hour to hour. Large companies like Wal-Mart and McDonald’s schedule workers with too few hours on too short notice, putting them in a no-win situation. Not only do these jobs typically pay poorly, but workers are regularly required to be on call or maintain open availability without being guaranteed a shift. Not knowing their hours means not knowing how much money they’ll make in a week or month. For these workers, being at the beck and call of their employers makes it that much harder to take care of everyday life responsibilities. (Because these workers are virtually slaves, they aren't free to leave for other work, they are treated so poorly by eeevil taskmasters wielding whips, right? If it's so awful, why do they continue to work? Why not find another job? Oh, is it because no one else would hire a lazy malcontent who complains all day about the people who are giving them money for doing literally nothing? Well, that makes perfect sense.
How can I say these things? Because I know. I have a close relative who works at Wal-Mart with personal knowledge. These people are everywhere, malcontents making $14/hr for sitting around whining about their jobs. They are sloppy, lacking a work ethic or interpersonal skills, yet Wal-Mart generously continues their employment despite the fact that they aren't worth minimum wage.
These are the people the author thinks ought to be making big enough money to live in S.F., a place that one would be hard pressed to find a more expensive place to live.)
The Retail Workers Bill of Rights would specifically ensure that people employed at any of the city’s “formula retail” chain stores (Notice it targets a specific class of business to single out for punishment, no matter how well they treat their employees. Classic Leftist micromanaging of the economy, lacking both the training and the experience to attempt to control the millions of daily transactions that occur in the economy. It has never worked, but never are they dissuaded from their quest to impose their control.) have the right to:
Full-Time Hours: Retail store, restaurant and bank workers have the right to be offered more hours before an employer may hire additional part-time workers. (See? In their arrogance they presume to know the staffing needs of employers. But even worse, they presume that they have or should have the power to force these things upon employers, as if their prescriptions will have the intended results. Of course, this never happens, and the situation invariably gets worse.)
On-Call Pay: Retail store, restaurant and bank workers have the right to a minimum of four hours of pay if they are required to be “on-call” for a shift, their shift is canceled with less than 24 hours’ notice, or they work less than four hours. (Regardless of how long they're needed. If an employee has agreed to the terms of their employment, why should anyone expect things to actually turn out differently?)
Equal Treatment for Part-Time Workers: Part-time retail store, restaurant and bank workers have the right to equal treatment by their employer with respect to their rate of pay, access to time off or opportunities for promotion. (On what basis? What makes these legislators experts in this field, and where do they derive the power to negate mutually agreed terms and conditions of employment?)
Job Security: Retail store, restaurant and bank workers have the right to keep their job for at least 90 days if their company is bought or sold. (In other words, the employment agreement persists even if the parties to the agreement change. Traditionally, a contract ceases when one of the participants is no longer a party to the contract. No more, apparently. These people would suspend the laws of physics if they thought they could do so for political advantage.)
This effort reflects the growing recognition that raising wages alone isn’t enough to pull families out of poverty if employers are under no obligation to provide their workforce with enough hours to make ends meet. (Since when is it an obligation of an employer to fulfill an obligation beyond paying a worker for their work? This is truly nuts, unless you are a quasi-socialist who believes that employers have an obligation to society.) That’s why workers and their supporters at both the local and national levels are going beyond the call for higher wages to demand just hours and fair schedules as well.
US Representatives George Miller (D-CA) and Rosa DeLauro (D-CT), along with Senators Tom Harkin (D-IA) and Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) introduced the Schedules That Work Act (HR 5159/SB 2642) to give all workers the right to request a predictable or flexible schedule. This federal proposal would also help eradicate the abusive scheduling practices in the restaurant, retail and cleaning industries.
The Retail Workers Bill of Rights is one of many steps we must take to bring balance to our economy. (Now, we have just seen the author explain that one of the most leftist cities in the country is imbalanced. After all the programs, taxes, legislation, financial controls, intervention, and rights advocacy the Left has implemented in S.F., somehow things are worse than ever. Does the author have any curiosity as to why? Has it even dawned on the author that the imbalance is as a RESULT of what she advocates?
But this is the typical leftist mindset. Every solution comes from government. Government fixes everything. There are no ripple effects or changes to the behavior of those people the new law affects. No, it's a closed system, so raising hours and pay affects nothing else. It's pink unicorns and rainbows kind of thinking.
And when things don't work, they declare that eeevil business is oppressing the worker, so we need a law. Never mind there are many existing laws. No, we need a law. More intervention, more tangled webs, more loss of liberty, more central planning.
This is a peek into the mind of a true believer.)
The campaign also hopes to create new organizing opportunities for workers in the greater San Francisco area who are activated through the effort. (Ah, see. It isn't really about workers, it is about organizing. And where there is organizing, there are organizers. And organizers make damn good money agitating and creating discontent. Once they're entrenched, they;ve got it made for life. Living large on the forced dues of their members.)
Arguably, winning in San Francisco, where the job conditions of more than 28,000 workers in chain stores and restaurants are at stake, could set a precedent that creates new standards for the entire region. (Big dreams for big control.) As the national conversation about low-wage work and income inequality continues to escalate, it’s time we add to that dialogue the challenge and the emerging solutions to unjust and unfair hours.
For more information on the Retail Workers Bill of Rights, visitwww.retailworkerrights.com. To read the Top Ten Reasons Why Retail Workers Need a Bill of Rights, click here.
The views expressed in this post are the author’s alone, and presented here to offer a variety of perspectives to our readers.
Mackenzie Baris
No comments:
Post a Comment