Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
No on Measure G Campaign for Low Wages!
When we hear reports on raising the minimum wage in Santa Cruz to $9.25/hr, the opponents (such as Bookshop Santa Cruz, Goodwill Industries, the Seaside Company) claim it will "close businesses" "force business owners to cut health care benefits" and "hurt family-owned businesses." But has this happened in the cities where the minimum wage HAS been raised? What about the fate of workers who must try to pay for rent, food, and transportation in one of the most expensive counties in the country? Can a "progressive" really support low wages for workers?
November 5, 2006
Santa Cruz, Ca. -- I received three mailing from the No on Measure G campaign. From the Yes on G campaign, I received 2 black&white postcards. The first glossy, three-colored flyer came from the California Restaurant Association. This said:
"PROTECT LOCAL JOBS, BENEFITS, AND FAMILY-OWNED BUSINESSES."
Under this dire claim is written the following:
"Measure G puts locally- and family-owned businesses in the City of Santa Cruz at risk. Chain stores will have a huge advantage over local establishments because they can more easily manage increased costs associated with Measure G."
Increased costs? From paying extremely-low paid workers a wage closer to a living wage? Is that how they are earning their profits? From the backs of their low-paid workers?
Chain stores would actually be at a DISADVANTAGE over family-owned businesses as Measure G exempts family members from the wage requirement.
And studies in other cities have shown, that with a higher wage, workers stay longer and this reduces retraining costs considerably. Nor did those cities note any businesses closing their doors as a result or laying off workers.
The second mailing came from the No on Measure G Campaign. The treasurer for which is Casey Coonerty-Protti. This flyer, also slick, glossy, and with full color pictures says the following:
"Measure G will force GOODWILL to dramatically reduce valued employment and training programs for those in need and move our donated goods processing center out of the City, taking with it over 70 jobs." --- Michael Paul, Pres. and CEO, Goodwill Industries of Santa Cruz, Monterey, and San Luis Obispo Counties.
How appalling is it for residents who have been donating goods to Goodwill for decades hoping the jobs provided would help homeless, poor, and disabled workers to earn a living, only to find out it's been a scam INTENDED to keep people poor and homeless, refusing even to advocate for decent wages throughout the City.
And now they are using their clout to threaten voters with leaving the City should they approve the $9.25/hr minimum wage.
Santa Cruz Supervisor Neal Coonerty is quoted in the flyer:
"Measure G threatens the viability of Bookshop Santa Cruz (a business he owns) and other locally-owned businesses. It gives a huge advantage to chain stores we compete against every day."
Neil Coonerty has shamefully threatened to cut health care for his under $9.25/hr employees should voters pass Measure G. Another extortion tactic. It reminds me of that old National Lampoon magazine that showed a puppy with a gun held to its head. The caption said "If you don't buy this magazine, we will shoot this puppy."
Where is ANY info from the City's OWN $28,000 study on the possible effects of raising the minimum wage in the City.
With the State raising the statewide minimum wage (eventually) to $8.00/hr, the proposed increase of $9.25/hr for the 2nd most expensive place to live in the country seems even less out of line.
In the third mailing, also from the No on G campaign, Neal Coonerty is quoted as saying:
"Santa Cruz cannot afford to lose jobs at non-profits, force businesses to cut health care..."
(Coonerty is probably the ONLY business affected that even TRIES to provide health care to his low-waged employees.)
... or give an unfair advantage to corporate chains over our locally owned family businesses."
Again, Measure G does not apply to businesses with less than 10 employees, and family members are exempt. Who WILL be affected are large employers who systematically base their profits on employing low paid workers, such as the Seaside Company (who City Council candidate Lynn Robinson's husband is the PR rep), Goodwill Industries, and many restaurants who dramatically underpay workers on the assumption that the tips they earn will compensate for the lack of pay.
The study done last spring by the Locally Owned Business Association determined in a study biased in favor of business-owners that in the first year of operation, their costs would be raised by $12 million!!
What they also determined, is that 12 million dollars amounts to only 0.08 percent of the sum of ALL WAGES in the City of Santa Cruz.
The Yes on G POSTCARD DOES quote from the $28,000.00 study ordered by Rotkin and Mathews (and now buried). It says this:
"Here the vast majority of a wide range of employers in the sectors likely affected state that there would be a positive impact, no impact, or manageable negative impacts."
--- Bay Area Economics (BAE)
independent analysis commissioned by the Santa Cruz City Council
September 2006
Therefore, I recommend a Yes on Measure G vote.
Becky Johnson is a member of
Homeless United for Friendship & Freedom
http://www.huffsantacruz.org
For more information:
http://www.huffsantacruz.org
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
No doubt.
My cousin Stuart worked at Salvation army out of prison.
I'm trying to mentally calculate what the cost of moving the processing center out of town would be vs. paying a little more, given that there will probably be rapid inflation during the next couple of years anyway, because a large national debt essentially forces this to occur in order to diminish the debt load. The federal reserve doesn't really have that much power to halt inflation after it already has lowered interest rates. The monetary value of the dollar has been falling next to the european currency.
What are the Goodwill people being paid now? I know that at UC, some grader positions were pretty close to $9. I wonder if UCSC would have to raise anyone's wages.
My cousin Stuart worked at Salvation army out of prison.
I'm trying to mentally calculate what the cost of moving the processing center out of town would be vs. paying a little more, given that there will probably be rapid inflation during the next couple of years anyway, because a large national debt essentially forces this to occur in order to diminish the debt load. The federal reserve doesn't really have that much power to halt inflation after it already has lowered interest rates. The monetary value of the dollar has been falling next to the european currency.
What are the Goodwill people being paid now? I know that at UC, some grader positions were pretty close to $9. I wonder if UCSC would have to raise anyone's wages.
"Increased costs? From paying extremely-low paid workers a wage closer to a living wage? Is that how they are earning their profits? From the backs of their low-paid workers?"
Last year due to the high cost of doing business here in Santa Cruz my small business with 1 employee allowed me to bring home about $30,000 Hardly a "living wage" here in SC. I pay my employee $8.00 per hour which allows him to bring home around $18,000 a year with full benies. The misnomer that small business owners are rich and making huge profits on the backs of their workers is crazy and not thought out. Of course we do make "profits" that's how we live, just like workers we employ. If G passes it will definitely put a hardship on small businessess like mine. I'm on 7th ave, the city side of the street across the street is county and will not be affected. I'll end up raising prices, not adding other employees, and cutting benifits. So employees are going to lose more. I know one business that will lay off several employees the day after if G passes and anoter business that will cancel benies almost immidiately.
JOHN WRITES: "If G passes it will definitely put a hardship on small businessess like mine."
BECKY: First, the creek is the dividing line, NOT 7th ave. Your business is NOT in the City of Santa Cruz.
Second, this only applies to businesses with 10 employees or more so YOUR business would not be affected even IF you were within the city limits.
THIRD, by your OWN NUMBERS YOU earned $30,000 while your employee earned $18,000 with full benefits. Paying $9.25/hr would ONLY amount to $19, 240. Therefore, under the WORST scenario,
you would earn $28, 760 and your worker would get an increase in their salary of $1, 240 ---hardly a break-the-bank scenario for you, but a huge help for your employee who is already earning far less than a living wage!
As for your friend's business: No business should base their profit scale on hiring workers for a poverty wage. Its not right. Its not fair. MANY HUGE corporate businesses in Santa Cruz (the Boardwalk is just the most egregious example) base their profitability on exploiting their labor force.
Wages such as these lead to poverty, homelessness, poor diet, poor health.
Finally, congratulations on paying benefits for your employee. You are not mandated by law to do this, and few employers pay their low-paid wage earners any benefits at all.
BECKY: First, the creek is the dividing line, NOT 7th ave. Your business is NOT in the City of Santa Cruz.
Second, this only applies to businesses with 10 employees or more so YOUR business would not be affected even IF you were within the city limits.
THIRD, by your OWN NUMBERS YOU earned $30,000 while your employee earned $18,000 with full benefits. Paying $9.25/hr would ONLY amount to $19, 240. Therefore, under the WORST scenario,
you would earn $28, 760 and your worker would get an increase in their salary of $1, 240 ---hardly a break-the-bank scenario for you, but a huge help for your employee who is already earning far less than a living wage!
As for your friend's business: No business should base their profit scale on hiring workers for a poverty wage. Its not right. Its not fair. MANY HUGE corporate businesses in Santa Cruz (the Boardwalk is just the most egregious example) base their profitability on exploiting their labor force.
Wages such as these lead to poverty, homelessness, poor diet, poor health.
Finally, congratulations on paying benefits for your employee. You are not mandated by law to do this, and few employers pay their low-paid wage earners any benefits at all.
Unknown to most people, there's actually a business category below small business -- micro-business.
Small businesses in America aren't, really, that small. When I was running my own business in Maine (just one person, moi) I got reasonably familiar with what the Small Business Administration considers to be a small business. My business -- selling game books online, a business I have since closed so I can pursue other options -- was me, a computer, and a room full of books and did not quality as a "small business". It qualified as a micro-business. A micro-business being any business that employs less than 5 people and has capital assets less than, I think, $250,000.
The reason that G has provisions concerning people with 10 or less employees is to protect micro-businesses, which are very delicate. I know this from experience as well as research; running a microbusiness is hard. I know that running a small business is also hard, but by and large small businesspeople make above average wealth in the US, even ignoring how much capital they own. But, my point here is that a small business isn't exactly what people think -- that there's a category under small business.
Small businesses, on the other hand, by definition, are businesses with capital assets greater than a quarter of a million dollars but less than five million dollars, employing 6 or more people. In short, people who own small businesses, as opposed to those who own micro-businesses, are pretty well off -- even if they've sunk everything they have into a business, it was enough to get a million bucks somewhere. Which definitely puts them far better off than their employees, by and large.
For my own part, I mostly think that business owners who whine about G should go out of business. Fuck 'em. If their business model is so weak that they can't provide a living wage -- and, really, in Santa Cruz $9.25 a hour isn't a living wage -- then why should the community put up with them? We are better off without them.
Small businesses in America aren't, really, that small. When I was running my own business in Maine (just one person, moi) I got reasonably familiar with what the Small Business Administration considers to be a small business. My business -- selling game books online, a business I have since closed so I can pursue other options -- was me, a computer, and a room full of books and did not quality as a "small business". It qualified as a micro-business. A micro-business being any business that employs less than 5 people and has capital assets less than, I think, $250,000.
The reason that G has provisions concerning people with 10 or less employees is to protect micro-businesses, which are very delicate. I know this from experience as well as research; running a microbusiness is hard. I know that running a small business is also hard, but by and large small businesspeople make above average wealth in the US, even ignoring how much capital they own. But, my point here is that a small business isn't exactly what people think -- that there's a category under small business.
Small businesses, on the other hand, by definition, are businesses with capital assets greater than a quarter of a million dollars but less than five million dollars, employing 6 or more people. In short, people who own small businesses, as opposed to those who own micro-businesses, are pretty well off -- even if they've sunk everything they have into a business, it was enough to get a million bucks somewhere. Which definitely puts them far better off than their employees, by and large.
For my own part, I mostly think that business owners who whine about G should go out of business. Fuck 'em. If their business model is so weak that they can't provide a living wage -- and, really, in Santa Cruz $9.25 a hour isn't a living wage -- then why should the community put up with them? We are better off without them.
Actually I didn't want to give away anything about my business specifically, but there is a small waver in the dividing line around Lake street. At least according to the BOE. The city differs in opinion. Call em. I guess I should read it thoroughly. Are you sure it won't affect my small business with one employee?
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$330.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network