The union in a release responded:
“In an effort to prevent UC workers from standing up for their families, the University sought to stop the strike by going to court. Friday a judge said that workers could not go on strike unless they had given the University the exact strike dates with enough notice. Since UC was served notice of the planned strike dates on Thursday, workers clearly had met the judge’s requirements and expect to prevail in court. UC’s legal action on the eve of the strike was a clear attempt to shift attention away from its refusal to improve poverty wages.”
The workers, who do everything from cleaning and disinfecting hospitals and dorm rooms, to providing cafeteria service to patients and students, to ensuring hospitals and campuses are secure, have been negotiating in good faith with UC executives for almost a year. They have remained deadlocked over poverty wages for months.
Many are forced to take second jobs or go on public assistance just to meet their families’ basic needs. Skyrocketing gas and food prices has deepened the crisis for UC families that are already living paycheck to paycheck. Typically, service workers live in low income communities farther away from campus, forcing a longer commute and higher fuel costs that use a disproportionate portion of their budget.
Poverty wages not only affect workers and their families, but UC executives are pushing the costs of paying poverty wages onto California taxpayers in a difficult budget year. Roughly 96% are eligible for at least one of the following taxpayer-funded program: food stamps, WIC, public housing subsidies, and subsidized child care.
UC wages are dramatically lower than other hospitals and California’s community colleges, which pay 25% higher wages on average. In addition, UC insist on passing on benefit costs, pushing families deeper into poverty. When workers have stood up for better lives for their families and better working conditions, the University has retaliated by violating labor laws.
UPDATE AT NOON
It is beginning to get warm outside, but the strike is going strong. Here are the latest photos from Russell and College where as many as 100 striking workers were marching on the four corners of the intersection.
—Doug Paul Davis reporting
Just curious, since the Enterprise article wasn’t real clear on this.
How much of a pay increase (%) are the workers demanding? How much has the admin offered?
Just curious, since the Enterprise article wasn’t real clear on this.
How much of a pay increase (%) are the workers demanding? How much has the admin offered?
Just curious, since the Enterprise article wasn’t real clear on this.
How much of a pay increase (%) are the workers demanding? How much has the admin offered?
Just curious, since the Enterprise article wasn’t real clear on this.
How much of a pay increase (%) are the workers demanding? How much has the admin offered?
I don’t believe $10/hour is a poverty wage. That may sound insensitive, and I’m sure it’s hard to live a happy life at $10/hour, but this is not The Jungle we’re talking about.
There are plenty of students and others who would be willing to work these jobs (part-time) for less than $10/hour. These people who are striking are not going to get what they want. The university will start hiring people who don’t mind getting paid $10/hour and then these people who are striking will be in real poverty, without a job.
I don’t believe $10/hour is a poverty wage. That may sound insensitive, and I’m sure it’s hard to live a happy life at $10/hour, but this is not The Jungle we’re talking about.
There are plenty of students and others who would be willing to work these jobs (part-time) for less than $10/hour. These people who are striking are not going to get what they want. The university will start hiring people who don’t mind getting paid $10/hour and then these people who are striking will be in real poverty, without a job.
I don’t believe $10/hour is a poverty wage. That may sound insensitive, and I’m sure it’s hard to live a happy life at $10/hour, but this is not The Jungle we’re talking about.
There are plenty of students and others who would be willing to work these jobs (part-time) for less than $10/hour. These people who are striking are not going to get what they want. The university will start hiring people who don’t mind getting paid $10/hour and then these people who are striking will be in real poverty, without a job.
I don’t believe $10/hour is a poverty wage. That may sound insensitive, and I’m sure it’s hard to live a happy life at $10/hour, but this is not The Jungle we’re talking about.
There are plenty of students and others who would be willing to work these jobs (part-time) for less than $10/hour. These people who are striking are not going to get what they want. The university will start hiring people who don’t mind getting paid $10/hour and then these people who are striking will be in real poverty, without a job.
“These people who are striking are not going to get what they want.”
I think they’ll get just what they want. The people paying them, the regents, don’t care if an education costs more. They’ll just pass the bill onto students, like they always do. This will make education more unaffordable. No one cares about that anymore.
“These people who are striking are not going to get what they want.”
I think they’ll get just what they want. The people paying them, the regents, don’t care if an education costs more. They’ll just pass the bill onto students, like they always do. This will make education more unaffordable. No one cares about that anymore.
“These people who are striking are not going to get what they want.”
I think they’ll get just what they want. The people paying them, the regents, don’t care if an education costs more. They’ll just pass the bill onto students, like they always do. This will make education more unaffordable. No one cares about that anymore.
“These people who are striking are not going to get what they want.”
I think they’ll get just what they want. The people paying them, the regents, don’t care if an education costs more. They’ll just pass the bill onto students, like they always do. This will make education more unaffordable. No one cares about that anymore.
So let me get this straight Meaghan: you want people to work for poor wages so you can pay a bit less on your tuition?
But I don’t think it comes down to that. 76% of the funds for these workers do not come from tuition anyway.
You’ve bought into the false choice that has been laid before you by the administration. Why don’t you complain about the regent assistant who is now making $370K per year and got a $60K raise rather than some poor worker who is lucky to bring home $1200 per month.
So let me get this straight Meaghan: you want people to work for poor wages so you can pay a bit less on your tuition?
But I don’t think it comes down to that. 76% of the funds for these workers do not come from tuition anyway.
You’ve bought into the false choice that has been laid before you by the administration. Why don’t you complain about the regent assistant who is now making $370K per year and got a $60K raise rather than some poor worker who is lucky to bring home $1200 per month.
So let me get this straight Meaghan: you want people to work for poor wages so you can pay a bit less on your tuition?
But I don’t think it comes down to that. 76% of the funds for these workers do not come from tuition anyway.
You’ve bought into the false choice that has been laid before you by the administration. Why don’t you complain about the regent assistant who is now making $370K per year and got a $60K raise rather than some poor worker who is lucky to bring home $1200 per month.
So let me get this straight Meaghan: you want people to work for poor wages so you can pay a bit less on your tuition?
But I don’t think it comes down to that. 76% of the funds for these workers do not come from tuition anyway.
You’ve bought into the false choice that has been laid before you by the administration. Why don’t you complain about the regent assistant who is now making $370K per year and got a $60K raise rather than some poor worker who is lucky to bring home $1200 per month.
It doesn’t matter if the most of the money doesn’t come from tuition. That’s how they balance their budget – raise tuition. So if there are new costs (such as higher wages) then those will simply be passed on in tuition costs.
I don’t think Meaghan is saying we shouldn’t support higher wages if we want to keep our tuition low. I think she’s just pointing out that that’s how the university seems to do its business.
The raises that some of the executives get are pretty heinous and that’s something people need to notice.
It doesn’t matter if the most of the money doesn’t come from tuition. That’s how they balance their budget – raise tuition. So if there are new costs (such as higher wages) then those will simply be passed on in tuition costs.
I don’t think Meaghan is saying we shouldn’t support higher wages if we want to keep our tuition low. I think she’s just pointing out that that’s how the university seems to do its business.
The raises that some of the executives get are pretty heinous and that’s something people need to notice.
It doesn’t matter if the most of the money doesn’t come from tuition. That’s how they balance their budget – raise tuition. So if there are new costs (such as higher wages) then those will simply be passed on in tuition costs.
I don’t think Meaghan is saying we shouldn’t support higher wages if we want to keep our tuition low. I think she’s just pointing out that that’s how the university seems to do its business.
The raises that some of the executives get are pretty heinous and that’s something people need to notice.
It doesn’t matter if the most of the money doesn’t come from tuition. That’s how they balance their budget – raise tuition. So if there are new costs (such as higher wages) then those will simply be passed on in tuition costs.
I don’t think Meaghan is saying we shouldn’t support higher wages if we want to keep our tuition low. I think she’s just pointing out that that’s how the university seems to do its business.
The raises that some of the executives get are pretty heinous and that’s something people need to notice.
It should be a crime for any employer to pay such low wages that the taxpayer has to subsidize the worker thru medi-cal and food stamp programs. The employer is getting a taxpayer funded advantage over some other employer who does pay a living wage. I would rather pay higher prices for the goods and services I consume then be forced to subsidize all workers regardless of whether I use their services or not.
It should be a crime for any employer to pay such low wages that the taxpayer has to subsidize the worker thru medi-cal and food stamp programs. The employer is getting a taxpayer funded advantage over some other employer who does pay a living wage. I would rather pay higher prices for the goods and services I consume then be forced to subsidize all workers regardless of whether I use their services or not.
It should be a crime for any employer to pay such low wages that the taxpayer has to subsidize the worker thru medi-cal and food stamp programs. The employer is getting a taxpayer funded advantage over some other employer who does pay a living wage. I would rather pay higher prices for the goods and services I consume then be forced to subsidize all workers regardless of whether I use their services or not.
It should be a crime for any employer to pay such low wages that the taxpayer has to subsidize the worker thru medi-cal and food stamp programs. The employer is getting a taxpayer funded advantage over some other employer who does pay a living wage. I would rather pay higher prices for the goods and services I consume then be forced to subsidize all workers regardless of whether I use their services or not.
“I think she’s just pointing out that that’s how the university seems to do its business.”
Exactly.
We have a choice: we can believe in a fantasy that says that when these wages are increased, the money will come out of the pockets of the heavily entrenched, well paid UC administrators and profs; or we can be realistic and know that the money is going to come directly from the students, which hurts most those kids who come from non-wealthy families.
This was the same thing which happened earlier with the food service workers: they got a big raise in pay and benefits from the regents, and the bill was passed along to poor students.
A UC education is very expensive, just because the bill is always, no matter what fantasies you believe in, passed on to the students. That is just what will happen here, and the union will celebrate this triumph of the little people (whose children will be priced out of the system).
“I think she’s just pointing out that that’s how the university seems to do its business.”
Exactly.
We have a choice: we can believe in a fantasy that says that when these wages are increased, the money will come out of the pockets of the heavily entrenched, well paid UC administrators and profs; or we can be realistic and know that the money is going to come directly from the students, which hurts most those kids who come from non-wealthy families.
This was the same thing which happened earlier with the food service workers: they got a big raise in pay and benefits from the regents, and the bill was passed along to poor students.
A UC education is very expensive, just because the bill is always, no matter what fantasies you believe in, passed on to the students. That is just what will happen here, and the union will celebrate this triumph of the little people (whose children will be priced out of the system).
“I think she’s just pointing out that that’s how the university seems to do its business.”
Exactly.
We have a choice: we can believe in a fantasy that says that when these wages are increased, the money will come out of the pockets of the heavily entrenched, well paid UC administrators and profs; or we can be realistic and know that the money is going to come directly from the students, which hurts most those kids who come from non-wealthy families.
This was the same thing which happened earlier with the food service workers: they got a big raise in pay and benefits from the regents, and the bill was passed along to poor students.
A UC education is very expensive, just because the bill is always, no matter what fantasies you believe in, passed on to the students. That is just what will happen here, and the union will celebrate this triumph of the little people (whose children will be priced out of the system).
“I think she’s just pointing out that that’s how the university seems to do its business.”
Exactly.
We have a choice: we can believe in a fantasy that says that when these wages are increased, the money will come out of the pockets of the heavily entrenched, well paid UC administrators and profs; or we can be realistic and know that the money is going to come directly from the students, which hurts most those kids who come from non-wealthy families.
This was the same thing which happened earlier with the food service workers: they got a big raise in pay and benefits from the regents, and the bill was passed along to poor students.
A UC education is very expensive, just because the bill is always, no matter what fantasies you believe in, passed on to the students. That is just what will happen here, and the union will celebrate this triumph of the little people (whose children will be priced out of the system).
It should be a crime for any employer to pay such low wages that the taxpayer has to subsidize the worker thru medi-cal and food stamp programs.
You should take an economics class. You really have no idea what you are saying.
An employer can never pay an employee more than the marginal product of his labor. In other words, if the employee generates only $5 per hour for the business, that is the most the employer can pay. When you artificially force up that employee’s wage, the employer has no choice but to fire him.
Therefore, it is much better for the employee to let him work for the highest wage his productivity permits, and if that is too little for him to buy enough food, housing, medicine, etc, the rest of us should subsidize him (with food stamps, low-income housing, etc.).
It should be a crime for any employer to pay such low wages that the taxpayer has to subsidize the worker thru medi-cal and food stamp programs.
You should take an economics class. You really have no idea what you are saying.
An employer can never pay an employee more than the marginal product of his labor. In other words, if the employee generates only $5 per hour for the business, that is the most the employer can pay. When you artificially force up that employee’s wage, the employer has no choice but to fire him.
Therefore, it is much better for the employee to let him work for the highest wage his productivity permits, and if that is too little for him to buy enough food, housing, medicine, etc, the rest of us should subsidize him (with food stamps, low-income housing, etc.).
It should be a crime for any employer to pay such low wages that the taxpayer has to subsidize the worker thru medi-cal and food stamp programs.
You should take an economics class. You really have no idea what you are saying.
An employer can never pay an employee more than the marginal product of his labor. In other words, if the employee generates only $5 per hour for the business, that is the most the employer can pay. When you artificially force up that employee’s wage, the employer has no choice but to fire him.
Therefore, it is much better for the employee to let him work for the highest wage his productivity permits, and if that is too little for him to buy enough food, housing, medicine, etc, the rest of us should subsidize him (with food stamps, low-income housing, etc.).
It should be a crime for any employer to pay such low wages that the taxpayer has to subsidize the worker thru medi-cal and food stamp programs.
You should take an economics class. You really have no idea what you are saying.
An employer can never pay an employee more than the marginal product of his labor. In other words, if the employee generates only $5 per hour for the business, that is the most the employer can pay. When you artificially force up that employee’s wage, the employer has no choice but to fire him.
Therefore, it is much better for the employee to let him work for the highest wage his productivity permits, and if that is too little for him to buy enough food, housing, medicine, etc, the rest of us should subsidize him (with food stamps, low-income housing, etc.).
Workers taking to the streets to demand justice:
A great commemoration of Bastille Day.
Workers taking to the streets to demand justice:
A great commemoration of Bastille Day.
Workers taking to the streets to demand justice:
A great commemoration of Bastille Day.
Workers taking to the streets to demand justice:
A great commemoration of Bastille Day.
From a press release just issued by the University of California:
Highlights of UC’s offers include:
— Patient care employees: Wage increases of more than 26 percent over the next five years, totaling $127 million.
— Service employees: Increases in minimum hourly rates from $10.28 to $11.50 or $12 depending on location. If UC’s offer is accepted, increases for service employees would total approximately 8 percent for the October 2007-September 2008 year alone, given other increases already provided.
— Health benefits: UC would continue to pay the vast majority of the cost of employees’ health benefits — more than 93 percent for workers earning $40,000 or less — and employee premiums would be based on a sliding scale so that lower paid employees, like our service workers, pay lower monthly premiums than other staff. UC’s proposals also limit the amount of employee premium costs the university can implement without bargaining.
— Pension benefits: Employees would continue to get UC’s gold-standard pension benefits, which they currently do not contribute toward the cost of — something virtually unheard of among U.S. employers. UC has also stipulated that any employee contributions will be negotiated with AFSCME.
From a press release just issued by the University of California:
Highlights of UC’s offers include:
— Patient care employees: Wage increases of more than 26 percent over the next five years, totaling $127 million.
— Service employees: Increases in minimum hourly rates from $10.28 to $11.50 or $12 depending on location. If UC’s offer is accepted, increases for service employees would total approximately 8 percent for the October 2007-September 2008 year alone, given other increases already provided.
— Health benefits: UC would continue to pay the vast majority of the cost of employees’ health benefits — more than 93 percent for workers earning $40,000 or less — and employee premiums would be based on a sliding scale so that lower paid employees, like our service workers, pay lower monthly premiums than other staff. UC’s proposals also limit the amount of employee premium costs the university can implement without bargaining.
— Pension benefits: Employees would continue to get UC’s gold-standard pension benefits, which they currently do not contribute toward the cost of — something virtually unheard of among U.S. employers. UC has also stipulated that any employee contributions will be negotiated with AFSCME.
From a press release just issued by the University of California:
Highlights of UC’s offers include:
— Patient care employees: Wage increases of more than 26 percent over the next five years, totaling $127 million.
— Service employees: Increases in minimum hourly rates from $10.28 to $11.50 or $12 depending on location. If UC’s offer is accepted, increases for service employees would total approximately 8 percent for the October 2007-September 2008 year alone, given other increases already provided.
— Health benefits: UC would continue to pay the vast majority of the cost of employees’ health benefits — more than 93 percent for workers earning $40,000 or less — and employee premiums would be based on a sliding scale so that lower paid employees, like our service workers, pay lower monthly premiums than other staff. UC’s proposals also limit the amount of employee premium costs the university can implement without bargaining.
— Pension benefits: Employees would continue to get UC’s gold-standard pension benefits, which they currently do not contribute toward the cost of — something virtually unheard of among U.S. employers. UC has also stipulated that any employee contributions will be negotiated with AFSCME.
From a press release just issued by the University of California:
Highlights of UC’s offers include:
— Patient care employees: Wage increases of more than 26 percent over the next five years, totaling $127 million.
— Service employees: Increases in minimum hourly rates from $10.28 to $11.50 or $12 depending on location. If UC’s offer is accepted, increases for service employees would total approximately 8 percent for the October 2007-September 2008 year alone, given other increases already provided.
— Health benefits: UC would continue to pay the vast majority of the cost of employees’ health benefits — more than 93 percent for workers earning $40,000 or less — and employee premiums would be based on a sliding scale so that lower paid employees, like our service workers, pay lower monthly premiums than other staff. UC’s proposals also limit the amount of employee premium costs the university can implement without bargaining.
— Pension benefits: Employees would continue to get UC’s gold-standard pension benefits, which they currently do not contribute toward the cost of — something virtually unheard of among U.S. employers. UC has also stipulated that any employee contributions will be negotiated with AFSCME.
“Employees would continue to get UC’s gold-standard pension benefits, which they currently do not contribute toward the cost of — something virtually unheard of among U.S. employers.”
Unheard of among private U.S. employers. Most governments, including the City of Davis, pay 100% of their employees’ pension contributions. Keep in mind, when the government “negotiates” with unions, the unions always win. If you know of an example where this is wrong, I’d love to hear it.
“Employees would continue to get UC’s gold-standard pension benefits, which they currently do not contribute toward the cost of — something virtually unheard of among U.S. employers.”
Unheard of among private U.S. employers. Most governments, including the City of Davis, pay 100% of their employees’ pension contributions. Keep in mind, when the government “negotiates” with unions, the unions always win. If you know of an example where this is wrong, I’d love to hear it.
“Employees would continue to get UC’s gold-standard pension benefits, which they currently do not contribute toward the cost of — something virtually unheard of among U.S. employers.”
Unheard of among private U.S. employers. Most governments, including the City of Davis, pay 100% of their employees’ pension contributions. Keep in mind, when the government “negotiates” with unions, the unions always win. If you know of an example where this is wrong, I’d love to hear it.
“Employees would continue to get UC’s gold-standard pension benefits, which they currently do not contribute toward the cost of — something virtually unheard of among U.S. employers.”
Unheard of among private U.S. employers. Most governments, including the City of Davis, pay 100% of their employees’ pension contributions. Keep in mind, when the government “negotiates” with unions, the unions always win. If you know of an example where this is wrong, I’d love to hear it.
Anonymous,
I would say the teachers in our district, except they pretty much got what they wanted. So I guess the only times the unions lose vis-a-vis governments is when the governments are broke.
Anonymous,
I would say the teachers in our district, except they pretty much got what they wanted. So I guess the only times the unions lose vis-a-vis governments is when the governments are broke.
Anonymous,
I would say the teachers in our district, except they pretty much got what they wanted. So I guess the only times the unions lose vis-a-vis governments is when the governments are broke.
Anonymous,
I would say the teachers in our district, except they pretty much got what they wanted. So I guess the only times the unions lose vis-a-vis governments is when the governments are broke.
David –
HAPPY ANNIVERSARY TO YOU AND YOUR WIFE CECILIA!!!
I remember you saying that Bastille Day is your anniversary.
David –
HAPPY ANNIVERSARY TO YOU AND YOUR WIFE CECILIA!!!
I remember you saying that Bastille Day is your anniversary.
David –
HAPPY ANNIVERSARY TO YOU AND YOUR WIFE CECILIA!!!
I remember you saying that Bastille Day is your anniversary.
David –
HAPPY ANNIVERSARY TO YOU AND YOUR WIFE CECILIA!!!
I remember you saying that Bastille Day is your anniversary.
So the administration is offering 26% over five years to patient care employees, and an immediate 12 – 17% increase for service employees.
What is the union demand/position?
So the administration is offering 26% over five years to patient care employees, and an immediate 12 – 17% increase for service employees.
What is the union demand/position?
So the administration is offering 26% over five years to patient care employees, and an immediate 12 – 17% increase for service employees.
What is the union demand/position?
So the administration is offering 26% over five years to patient care employees, and an immediate 12 – 17% increase for service employees.
What is the union demand/position?
A 26% increase over 5 years sounds like a lot. And it is if you are already getting paid fairly well (like the Davis Fire Fighters). However, if you are only making $10 per hour, it amounts to very little.
$10 per hour = $20,800 gross per year. Year one would increase to $21,882, year two would increase to $22,963, year three would increase to $24,045, year four would increase to $25,126, year five would reach a whopping $26,208 per year.
This reflects around a 50 cent per hour increase in wages per year.
And we think this is overly generous of the University?
A 26% increase over 5 years sounds like a lot. And it is if you are already getting paid fairly well (like the Davis Fire Fighters). However, if you are only making $10 per hour, it amounts to very little.
$10 per hour = $20,800 gross per year. Year one would increase to $21,882, year two would increase to $22,963, year three would increase to $24,045, year four would increase to $25,126, year five would reach a whopping $26,208 per year.
This reflects around a 50 cent per hour increase in wages per year.
And we think this is overly generous of the University?
A 26% increase over 5 years sounds like a lot. And it is if you are already getting paid fairly well (like the Davis Fire Fighters). However, if you are only making $10 per hour, it amounts to very little.
$10 per hour = $20,800 gross per year. Year one would increase to $21,882, year two would increase to $22,963, year three would increase to $24,045, year four would increase to $25,126, year five would reach a whopping $26,208 per year.
This reflects around a 50 cent per hour increase in wages per year.
And we think this is overly generous of the University?
A 26% increase over 5 years sounds like a lot. And it is if you are already getting paid fairly well (like the Davis Fire Fighters). However, if you are only making $10 per hour, it amounts to very little.
$10 per hour = $20,800 gross per year. Year one would increase to $21,882, year two would increase to $22,963, year three would increase to $24,045, year four would increase to $25,126, year five would reach a whopping $26,208 per year.
This reflects around a 50 cent per hour increase in wages per year.
And we think this is overly generous of the University?
As far as the service workers 17% increase. Remember, they are only making around $9.00 per hour, so a 17% increase is about $1.50 per hour more.
17% sounds like a huge wage increase, but it’s not. This is still poverty wages for someone who works full time.
I would like the University to stop talking in percentages and start talking in dollars and cents.
As far as the service workers 17% increase. Remember, they are only making around $9.00 per hour, so a 17% increase is about $1.50 per hour more.
17% sounds like a huge wage increase, but it’s not. This is still poverty wages for someone who works full time.
I would like the University to stop talking in percentages and start talking in dollars and cents.
As far as the service workers 17% increase. Remember, they are only making around $9.00 per hour, so a 17% increase is about $1.50 per hour more.
17% sounds like a huge wage increase, but it’s not. This is still poverty wages for someone who works full time.
I would like the University to stop talking in percentages and start talking in dollars and cents.
As far as the service workers 17% increase. Remember, they are only making around $9.00 per hour, so a 17% increase is about $1.50 per hour more.
17% sounds like a huge wage increase, but it’s not. This is still poverty wages for someone who works full time.
I would like the University to stop talking in percentages and start talking in dollars and cents.
“And we think this is overly generous of the University?”
How much less are people who have the same jobs in the private sector paid?
“And we think this is overly generous of the University?”
How much less are people who have the same jobs in the private sector paid?
“And we think this is overly generous of the University?”
How much less are people who have the same jobs in the private sector paid?
“And we think this is overly generous of the University?”
How much less are people who have the same jobs in the private sector paid?
The union’s demands are based on private sector compensation for comparable jobs.
The union’s demands are based on private sector compensation for comparable jobs.
The union’s demands are based on private sector compensation for comparable jobs.
The union’s demands are based on private sector compensation for comparable jobs.
Doing a quick search on wages.com, it looks like $10 is the NATIONAL average wage (the median) for a job in personal services such as cleaning – with $8 low and $14 high. It would not let me search using our zip code or even just looking at California.
So it does not look like $12/hour is out of line, really. And some areas of California, even $12 could be considered low.
Doing a quick search on wages.com, it looks like $10 is the NATIONAL average wage (the median) for a job in personal services such as cleaning – with $8 low and $14 high. It would not let me search using our zip code or even just looking at California.
So it does not look like $12/hour is out of line, really. And some areas of California, even $12 could be considered low.
Doing a quick search on wages.com, it looks like $10 is the NATIONAL average wage (the median) for a job in personal services such as cleaning – with $8 low and $14 high. It would not let me search using our zip code or even just looking at California.
So it does not look like $12/hour is out of line, really. And some areas of California, even $12 could be considered low.
Doing a quick search on wages.com, it looks like $10 is the NATIONAL average wage (the median) for a job in personal services such as cleaning – with $8 low and $14 high. It would not let me search using our zip code or even just looking at California.
So it does not look like $12/hour is out of line, really. And some areas of California, even $12 could be considered low.
“This is still poverty wages for someone who works full time.”
It meets the federal poverty guideline if they have a household of 4. Below that, it doesn’t.
“I would like the University to stop talking in percentages and start talking in dollars and cents.”
I would like someone on this blog to start talking in dollars and cents. How much of a pay increase is the union demanding? I can’t seem to get an answer to that question anywhere.
“This is still poverty wages for someone who works full time.”
It meets the federal poverty guideline if they have a household of 4. Below that, it doesn’t.
“I would like the University to stop talking in percentages and start talking in dollars and cents.”
I would like someone on this blog to start talking in dollars and cents. How much of a pay increase is the union demanding? I can’t seem to get an answer to that question anywhere.
“This is still poverty wages for someone who works full time.”
It meets the federal poverty guideline if they have a household of 4. Below that, it doesn’t.
“I would like the University to stop talking in percentages and start talking in dollars and cents.”
I would like someone on this blog to start talking in dollars and cents. How much of a pay increase is the union demanding? I can’t seem to get an answer to that question anywhere.
“This is still poverty wages for someone who works full time.”
It meets the federal poverty guideline if they have a household of 4. Below that, it doesn’t.
“I would like the University to stop talking in percentages and start talking in dollars and cents.”
I would like someone on this blog to start talking in dollars and cents. How much of a pay increase is the union demanding? I can’t seem to get an answer to that question anywhere.
One of the biggest complaints that the union has with the proposal from UC is none of the wage increases are guaranteed, they want them all tied to state budget.
One of the biggest complaints that the union has with the proposal from UC is none of the wage increases are guaranteed, they want them all tied to state budget.
One of the biggest complaints that the union has with the proposal from UC is none of the wage increases are guaranteed, they want them all tied to state budget.
One of the biggest complaints that the union has with the proposal from UC is none of the wage increases are guaranteed, they want them all tied to state budget.
UC Management’s last proposal—0% guaranteed for most service workers.
Workers deserve a contract that will lift families out of poverty.
UC is Trying to Distract from the Main Issue, which is Poverty Wages!
UC obviously doesn’t want employees talking about the insulting bargaining proposals they are making, so they are trying to distract everyone.
The real issue is their offer:
• No guaranteed wage increases for the majority of Service Workers
• Fake, unfunded merit Steps
• Minimum Wage of just $11.50
• No guarantees on Benefits!
This is UC’s last, best, final and worthless offer.
UC Management’s last proposal—0% guaranteed for most service workers.
Workers deserve a contract that will lift families out of poverty.
UC is Trying to Distract from the Main Issue, which is Poverty Wages!
UC obviously doesn’t want employees talking about the insulting bargaining proposals they are making, so they are trying to distract everyone.
The real issue is their offer:
• No guaranteed wage increases for the majority of Service Workers
• Fake, unfunded merit Steps
• Minimum Wage of just $11.50
• No guarantees on Benefits!
This is UC’s last, best, final and worthless offer.
UC Management’s last proposal—0% guaranteed for most service workers.
Workers deserve a contract that will lift families out of poverty.
UC is Trying to Distract from the Main Issue, which is Poverty Wages!
UC obviously doesn’t want employees talking about the insulting bargaining proposals they are making, so they are trying to distract everyone.
The real issue is their offer:
• No guaranteed wage increases for the majority of Service Workers
• Fake, unfunded merit Steps
• Minimum Wage of just $11.50
• No guarantees on Benefits!
This is UC’s last, best, final and worthless offer.
UC Management’s last proposal—0% guaranteed for most service workers.
Workers deserve a contract that will lift families out of poverty.
UC is Trying to Distract from the Main Issue, which is Poverty Wages!
UC obviously doesn’t want employees talking about the insulting bargaining proposals they are making, so they are trying to distract everyone.
The real issue is their offer:
• No guaranteed wage increases for the majority of Service Workers
• Fake, unfunded merit Steps
• Minimum Wage of just $11.50
• No guarantees on Benefits!
This is UC’s last, best, final and worthless offer.
Bill Holmes said,
“Therefore, it is much better for the employee to let him work for the highest wage his productivity permits, and if that is too little for him to buy enough food, housing, medicine, etc, the rest of us should subsidize him (with food stamps, low-income housing, etc.).”
If the rest of us are subsidizing the employee then then the employer is not paying the highest wage the worker’s productivity permits. It is shifting the burden of paying the employee from the end user of that product to the taxpayer. If the product made cannot be sold for enough money to pay the employee adequately then the consumer has made the choice to live without that product. The way it stands now the taxpayer is artificially creating demand for that product by keeping the price artificially low. It would be better for the employer to go out of business for making a product that is not valued then to have all subsidize the product for a few.
Anonymous 12:51 has a much better understanding of real world economics than Bill Holmes will ever have. Thinking like Bill’s is what has created the huge inequities we have today.
Bill Holmes said,
“Therefore, it is much better for the employee to let him work for the highest wage his productivity permits, and if that is too little for him to buy enough food, housing, medicine, etc, the rest of us should subsidize him (with food stamps, low-income housing, etc.).”
If the rest of us are subsidizing the employee then then the employer is not paying the highest wage the worker’s productivity permits. It is shifting the burden of paying the employee from the end user of that product to the taxpayer. If the product made cannot be sold for enough money to pay the employee adequately then the consumer has made the choice to live without that product. The way it stands now the taxpayer is artificially creating demand for that product by keeping the price artificially low. It would be better for the employer to go out of business for making a product that is not valued then to have all subsidize the product for a few.
Anonymous 12:51 has a much better understanding of real world economics than Bill Holmes will ever have. Thinking like Bill’s is what has created the huge inequities we have today.
Bill Holmes said,
“Therefore, it is much better for the employee to let him work for the highest wage his productivity permits, and if that is too little for him to buy enough food, housing, medicine, etc, the rest of us should subsidize him (with food stamps, low-income housing, etc.).”
If the rest of us are subsidizing the employee then then the employer is not paying the highest wage the worker’s productivity permits. It is shifting the burden of paying the employee from the end user of that product to the taxpayer. If the product made cannot be sold for enough money to pay the employee adequately then the consumer has made the choice to live without that product. The way it stands now the taxpayer is artificially creating demand for that product by keeping the price artificially low. It would be better for the employer to go out of business for making a product that is not valued then to have all subsidize the product for a few.
Anonymous 12:51 has a much better understanding of real world economics than Bill Holmes will ever have. Thinking like Bill’s is what has created the huge inequities we have today.
Bill Holmes said,
“Therefore, it is much better for the employee to let him work for the highest wage his productivity permits, and if that is too little for him to buy enough food, housing, medicine, etc, the rest of us should subsidize him (with food stamps, low-income housing, etc.).”
If the rest of us are subsidizing the employee then then the employer is not paying the highest wage the worker’s productivity permits. It is shifting the burden of paying the employee from the end user of that product to the taxpayer. If the product made cannot be sold for enough money to pay the employee adequately then the consumer has made the choice to live without that product. The way it stands now the taxpayer is artificially creating demand for that product by keeping the price artificially low. It would be better for the employer to go out of business for making a product that is not valued then to have all subsidize the product for a few.
Anonymous 12:51 has a much better understanding of real world economics than Bill Holmes will ever have. Thinking like Bill’s is what has created the huge inequities we have today.
While on the City Council, I always supported a living wage for local employees.
UCD should give these people fair living wages. The campus opposition to doing the decent thing makes the campus powers look cheap, and cold. What an unnecessary P.R. disaster for them.
While on the City Council, I always supported a living wage for local employees.
UCD should give these people fair living wages. The campus opposition to doing the decent thing makes the campus powers look cheap, and cold. What an unnecessary P.R. disaster for them.
While on the City Council, I always supported a living wage for local employees.
UCD should give these people fair living wages. The campus opposition to doing the decent thing makes the campus powers look cheap, and cold. What an unnecessary P.R. disaster for them.
While on the City Council, I always supported a living wage for local employees.
UCD should give these people fair living wages. The campus opposition to doing the decent thing makes the campus powers look cheap, and cold. What an unnecessary P.R. disaster for them.
Professor Holmes was correct.
“If the rest of us are subsidizing the employee then then the employer is not paying the highest wage the worker’s productivity permits.”
This is nonsense. I can’t imagine you believe what you wrote or you are too inarticulate to write anything sensible.
As Dr. Holmes wrote, if an employee generates $9 per hour in income to a business and you tell that employer that he must pay him a wage higher than $9 or pay him benefits and a wage which together cost more than $9, the employer will fire that employee. This is a hard and fast law of economics. It’s not theory. It’s real life.
“It is shifting the burden of paying the employee from the end user of that product to the taxpayer.”
Not exactly. It is shifting the burden from the employer to the taxpayer. We should do this if we want low-skilled workers to have benefits greater than their productivity.
“If the product made cannot be sold for enough money to pay the employee adequately then the consumer has made the choice to live without that product.”
That is true, but that results in the employee having no job and no benefits.
“The way it stands now the taxpayer is artificially creating demand for that product by keeping the price artificially low.”
Because of the minimum wage and taxes on labor (FICA, SUTA, FUTA and WC), the price of low-skilled labor is higher than it would be in a free market. This hurts low-skilled workers who are priced out of jobs.
“It would be better for the employer to go out of business for making a product that is not valued then to have all subsidize the product for a few.”
The subsidy is going to the low-skilled worker, not the employer. The low-skilled worker would directly get the food stamps, housing and medical benefits. If you force the employer to pay those added costs, you force marginal workers to be unemployed and thus dependent on society for all of their needs. You also threaten to bankrupt businesses which rely on low-skilled labor, thereby harming our entire economy.
“Thinking like Bill’s is what has created the huge inequities we have today.”
Inequity is the result of some having highly marketable skills and others not having skills.
Professor Holmes was correct.
“If the rest of us are subsidizing the employee then then the employer is not paying the highest wage the worker’s productivity permits.”
This is nonsense. I can’t imagine you believe what you wrote or you are too inarticulate to write anything sensible.
As Dr. Holmes wrote, if an employee generates $9 per hour in income to a business and you tell that employer that he must pay him a wage higher than $9 or pay him benefits and a wage which together cost more than $9, the employer will fire that employee. This is a hard and fast law of economics. It’s not theory. It’s real life.
“It is shifting the burden of paying the employee from the end user of that product to the taxpayer.”
Not exactly. It is shifting the burden from the employer to the taxpayer. We should do this if we want low-skilled workers to have benefits greater than their productivity.
“If the product made cannot be sold for enough money to pay the employee adequately then the consumer has made the choice to live without that product.”
That is true, but that results in the employee having no job and no benefits.
“The way it stands now the taxpayer is artificially creating demand for that product by keeping the price artificially low.”
Because of the minimum wage and taxes on labor (FICA, SUTA, FUTA and WC), the price of low-skilled labor is higher than it would be in a free market. This hurts low-skilled workers who are priced out of jobs.
“It would be better for the employer to go out of business for making a product that is not valued then to have all subsidize the product for a few.”
The subsidy is going to the low-skilled worker, not the employer. The low-skilled worker would directly get the food stamps, housing and medical benefits. If you force the employer to pay those added costs, you force marginal workers to be unemployed and thus dependent on society for all of their needs. You also threaten to bankrupt businesses which rely on low-skilled labor, thereby harming our entire economy.
“Thinking like Bill’s is what has created the huge inequities we have today.”
Inequity is the result of some having highly marketable skills and others not having skills.
Professor Holmes was correct.
“If the rest of us are subsidizing the employee then then the employer is not paying the highest wage the worker’s productivity permits.”
This is nonsense. I can’t imagine you believe what you wrote or you are too inarticulate to write anything sensible.
As Dr. Holmes wrote, if an employee generates $9 per hour in income to a business and you tell that employer that he must pay him a wage higher than $9 or pay him benefits and a wage which together cost more than $9, the employer will fire that employee. This is a hard and fast law of economics. It’s not theory. It’s real life.
“It is shifting the burden of paying the employee from the end user of that product to the taxpayer.”
Not exactly. It is shifting the burden from the employer to the taxpayer. We should do this if we want low-skilled workers to have benefits greater than their productivity.
“If the product made cannot be sold for enough money to pay the employee adequately then the consumer has made the choice to live without that product.”
That is true, but that results in the employee having no job and no benefits.
“The way it stands now the taxpayer is artificially creating demand for that product by keeping the price artificially low.”
Because of the minimum wage and taxes on labor (FICA, SUTA, FUTA and WC), the price of low-skilled labor is higher than it would be in a free market. This hurts low-skilled workers who are priced out of jobs.
“It would be better for the employer to go out of business for making a product that is not valued then to have all subsidize the product for a few.”
The subsidy is going to the low-skilled worker, not the employer. The low-skilled worker would directly get the food stamps, housing and medical benefits. If you force the employer to pay those added costs, you force marginal workers to be unemployed and thus dependent on society for all of their needs. You also threaten to bankrupt businesses which rely on low-skilled labor, thereby harming our entire economy.
“Thinking like Bill’s is what has created the huge inequities we have today.”
Inequity is the result of some having highly marketable skills and others not having skills.
Professor Holmes was correct.
“If the rest of us are subsidizing the employee then then the employer is not paying the highest wage the worker’s productivity permits.”
This is nonsense. I can’t imagine you believe what you wrote or you are too inarticulate to write anything sensible.
As Dr. Holmes wrote, if an employee generates $9 per hour in income to a business and you tell that employer that he must pay him a wage higher than $9 or pay him benefits and a wage which together cost more than $9, the employer will fire that employee. This is a hard and fast law of economics. It’s not theory. It’s real life.
“It is shifting the burden of paying the employee from the end user of that product to the taxpayer.”
Not exactly. It is shifting the burden from the employer to the taxpayer. We should do this if we want low-skilled workers to have benefits greater than their productivity.
“If the product made cannot be sold for enough money to pay the employee adequately then the consumer has made the choice to live without that product.”
That is true, but that results in the employee having no job and no benefits.
“The way it stands now the taxpayer is artificially creating demand for that product by keeping the price artificially low.”
Because of the minimum wage and taxes on labor (FICA, SUTA, FUTA and WC), the price of low-skilled labor is higher than it would be in a free market. This hurts low-skilled workers who are priced out of jobs.
“It would be better for the employer to go out of business for making a product that is not valued then to have all subsidize the product for a few.”
The subsidy is going to the low-skilled worker, not the employer. The low-skilled worker would directly get the food stamps, housing and medical benefits. If you force the employer to pay those added costs, you force marginal workers to be unemployed and thus dependent on society for all of their needs. You also threaten to bankrupt businesses which rely on low-skilled labor, thereby harming our entire economy.
“Thinking like Bill’s is what has created the huge inequities we have today.”
Inequity is the result of some having highly marketable skills and others not having skills.
“While on the City Council, I always supported a living wage for local employees. UCD should give these people fair living wages.”
Somebody said it above: the University will give the union everything it wants. That’s because city council members and UC regents don’t care about the people who are paying the bills.
“While on the City Council, I always supported a living wage for local employees. UCD should give these people fair living wages.”
Somebody said it above: the University will give the union everything it wants. That’s because city council members and UC regents don’t care about the people who are paying the bills.
“While on the City Council, I always supported a living wage for local employees. UCD should give these people fair living wages.”
Somebody said it above: the University will give the union everything it wants. That’s because city council members and UC regents don’t care about the people who are paying the bills.
“While on the City Council, I always supported a living wage for local employees. UCD should give these people fair living wages.”
Somebody said it above: the University will give the union everything it wants. That’s because city council members and UC regents don’t care about the people who are paying the bills.
Economics is extremely useful as a form of employment for economists.
John Kenneth Galbraith
Economics is extremely useful as a form of employment for economists.
John Kenneth Galbraith
Economics is extremely useful as a form of employment for economists.
John Kenneth Galbraith
Economics is extremely useful as a form of employment for economists.
John Kenneth Galbraith
Never was a man so wrong about so much for so long as John Kenneth Galbraith.
There was a review of Galbraith’s life’s work in The Atlantic by Clive Crook after he died. This comes from that article:
“Galbraith had a lot of time for socialism—in practice, not just in principle. In the early 1970s, he called for America’s biggest corporations to be brought directly under government control. On India, which he knew well (he served as ambassador there during the Kennedy administration), Galbraith thought its central-planning regime, modeled on the Soviet Union’s, needed to be more intelligently managed rather than instantly abandoned. (India subsequently decided otherwise, and has been doing well ever since.) As late as 1984, he visited the Soviet Union and, as he wrote in The New Yorker, liked a lot of what he saw. As he was driven around, all the new housing and well-dressed people made a particularly favorable impression.”
Never was a man so wrong about so much for so long as John Kenneth Galbraith.
There was a review of Galbraith’s life’s work in The Atlantic by Clive Crook after he died. This comes from that article:
“Galbraith had a lot of time for socialism—in practice, not just in principle. In the early 1970s, he called for America’s biggest corporations to be brought directly under government control. On India, which he knew well (he served as ambassador there during the Kennedy administration), Galbraith thought its central-planning regime, modeled on the Soviet Union’s, needed to be more intelligently managed rather than instantly abandoned. (India subsequently decided otherwise, and has been doing well ever since.) As late as 1984, he visited the Soviet Union and, as he wrote in The New Yorker, liked a lot of what he saw. As he was driven around, all the new housing and well-dressed people made a particularly favorable impression.”
Never was a man so wrong about so much for so long as John Kenneth Galbraith.
There was a review of Galbraith’s life’s work in The Atlantic by Clive Crook after he died. This comes from that article:
“Galbraith had a lot of time for socialism—in practice, not just in principle. In the early 1970s, he called for America’s biggest corporations to be brought directly under government control. On India, which he knew well (he served as ambassador there during the Kennedy administration), Galbraith thought its central-planning regime, modeled on the Soviet Union’s, needed to be more intelligently managed rather than instantly abandoned. (India subsequently decided otherwise, and has been doing well ever since.) As late as 1984, he visited the Soviet Union and, as he wrote in The New Yorker, liked a lot of what he saw. As he was driven around, all the new housing and well-dressed people made a particularly favorable impression.”
Never was a man so wrong about so much for so long as John Kenneth Galbraith.
There was a review of Galbraith’s life’s work in The Atlantic by Clive Crook after he died. This comes from that article:
“Galbraith had a lot of time for socialism—in practice, not just in principle. In the early 1970s, he called for America’s biggest corporations to be brought directly under government control. On India, which he knew well (he served as ambassador there during the Kennedy administration), Galbraith thought its central-planning regime, modeled on the Soviet Union’s, needed to be more intelligently managed rather than instantly abandoned. (India subsequently decided otherwise, and has been doing well ever since.) As late as 1984, he visited the Soviet Union and, as he wrote in The New Yorker, liked a lot of what he saw. As he was driven around, all the new housing and well-dressed people made a particularly favorable impression.”
“Inequity is the result of some having highly marketable skills and others not having skills.”
I would argue society does not necessarily pay someone according to the inherent “value” of their skills. We have inequity largely because of the unfairness in the market place. People are paying big bucks for CDs and DVDs, giving the movie and music industry far too much profit compared to the inherant value of the service they provide. The average citizen can more easily do without a CD or DVD than they can technicians in a hospital. The average citizen just doesn’t know it or think of it that way!
Let me better explain what I am getting at. It has always bothered me that Hollywood and the music industry makes inordinate amounts of profit, while teachers make fairly low wages relative to the amount of training they must go through. Big rock divas make millions, as do big movie stars – with often no training. Yet teachers are making very little, but School Superintendents make huge salaries relatively speaking, although no where near what movie stars make. Lawyers in the legal aid sector make very low wages (less than teachers sometimes), yet in big law firms an attorney can make megabucks.
However, if you were to ask the average person off the street to rate the importance of someone’s job, I suspect most would rate a teacher more important than a movie star. Yet look at the inequities in payment. It seems as if the average economic model breaks down in the face of reality. We have the President of UC making $800K plus – which seems obscene in light of what food service workers are being paid. Sounds like the unions are not all that effective for one thing. But it also seems as if other forces are at work, like graft, greed, undue influence, the good ol’ boy system, etc.
The average taxpayer would not pay $800K to the President of UC, while paying the food service worker virtually nil. So what economic forces are at work that drive this kind of inequity – beyond the simple explanation of the value of the work product? I have a feeling that model is a bit simplistic.
I guess I am not convinced the market place necessarily determines the value of services. It seems as if other forces are at work – politics, nepotism, fraternity, the ridiculous notion that the offer of huge salaries will somehow translate to a better qualified candidate. I would think in the public sector in particular, there ought to be a more level playing field when it comes to the worth of a service or product, and more scrutiny as to its relative value.
We have enlisted military making below minimum wage, while military officers double and triple dip when it comes to pensions. Sound familiar? Fireman here in Davis are doing the same thing in relation to upper management. I suspect UPPER MANAGEMENT is the key – because they somehow garner the resources to enable them to have more power at the bargaining table when it comes to salaries, benefits and perks. Trust me, they are not so talented that any of them are truly worth the ungodly salaries they sometimes receive. During the Enron scandal, it came out the energy company moguls were spending $2000 of company money on shower curtains, to “keep up with the Jones”. It is unlikely stockholders shared the same view about the necessity for UPPER MANAGEMENT to have expensive shower curtains to show off to business competitors.
Very interesting discussion on economics guys!
“Inequity is the result of some having highly marketable skills and others not having skills.”
I would argue society does not necessarily pay someone according to the inherent “value” of their skills. We have inequity largely because of the unfairness in the market place. People are paying big bucks for CDs and DVDs, giving the movie and music industry far too much profit compared to the inherant value of the service they provide. The average citizen can more easily do without a CD or DVD than they can technicians in a hospital. The average citizen just doesn’t know it or think of it that way!
Let me better explain what I am getting at. It has always bothered me that Hollywood and the music industry makes inordinate amounts of profit, while teachers make fairly low wages relative to the amount of training they must go through. Big rock divas make millions, as do big movie stars – with often no training. Yet teachers are making very little, but School Superintendents make huge salaries relatively speaking, although no where near what movie stars make. Lawyers in the legal aid sector make very low wages (less than teachers sometimes), yet in big law firms an attorney can make megabucks.
However, if you were to ask the average person off the street to rate the importance of someone’s job, I suspect most would rate a teacher more important than a movie star. Yet look at the inequities in payment. It seems as if the average economic model breaks down in the face of reality. We have the President of UC making $800K plus – which seems obscene in light of what food service workers are being paid. Sounds like the unions are not all that effective for one thing. But it also seems as if other forces are at work, like graft, greed, undue influence, the good ol’ boy system, etc.
The average taxpayer would not pay $800K to the President of UC, while paying the food service worker virtually nil. So what economic forces are at work that drive this kind of inequity – beyond the simple explanation of the value of the work product? I have a feeling that model is a bit simplistic.
I guess I am not convinced the market place necessarily determines the value of services. It seems as if other forces are at work – politics, nepotism, fraternity, the ridiculous notion that the offer of huge salaries will somehow translate to a better qualified candidate. I would think in the public sector in particular, there ought to be a more level playing field when it comes to the worth of a service or product, and more scrutiny as to its relative value.
We have enlisted military making below minimum wage, while military officers double and triple dip when it comes to pensions. Sound familiar? Fireman here in Davis are doing the same thing in relation to upper management. I suspect UPPER MANAGEMENT is the key – because they somehow garner the resources to enable them to have more power at the bargaining table when it comes to salaries, benefits and perks. Trust me, they are not so talented that any of them are truly worth the ungodly salaries they sometimes receive. During the Enron scandal, it came out the energy company moguls were spending $2000 of company money on shower curtains, to “keep up with the Jones”. It is unlikely stockholders shared the same view about the necessity for UPPER MANAGEMENT to have expensive shower curtains to show off to business competitors.
Very interesting discussion on economics guys!
“Inequity is the result of some having highly marketable skills and others not having skills.”
I would argue society does not necessarily pay someone according to the inherent “value” of their skills. We have inequity largely because of the unfairness in the market place. People are paying big bucks for CDs and DVDs, giving the movie and music industry far too much profit compared to the inherant value of the service they provide. The average citizen can more easily do without a CD or DVD than they can technicians in a hospital. The average citizen just doesn’t know it or think of it that way!
Let me better explain what I am getting at. It has always bothered me that Hollywood and the music industry makes inordinate amounts of profit, while teachers make fairly low wages relative to the amount of training they must go through. Big rock divas make millions, as do big movie stars – with often no training. Yet teachers are making very little, but School Superintendents make huge salaries relatively speaking, although no where near what movie stars make. Lawyers in the legal aid sector make very low wages (less than teachers sometimes), yet in big law firms an attorney can make megabucks.
However, if you were to ask the average person off the street to rate the importance of someone’s job, I suspect most would rate a teacher more important than a movie star. Yet look at the inequities in payment. It seems as if the average economic model breaks down in the face of reality. We have the President of UC making $800K plus – which seems obscene in light of what food service workers are being paid. Sounds like the unions are not all that effective for one thing. But it also seems as if other forces are at work, like graft, greed, undue influence, the good ol’ boy system, etc.
The average taxpayer would not pay $800K to the President of UC, while paying the food service worker virtually nil. So what economic forces are at work that drive this kind of inequity – beyond the simple explanation of the value of the work product? I have a feeling that model is a bit simplistic.
I guess I am not convinced the market place necessarily determines the value of services. It seems as if other forces are at work – politics, nepotism, fraternity, the ridiculous notion that the offer of huge salaries will somehow translate to a better qualified candidate. I would think in the public sector in particular, there ought to be a more level playing field when it comes to the worth of a service or product, and more scrutiny as to its relative value.
We have enlisted military making below minimum wage, while military officers double and triple dip when it comes to pensions. Sound familiar? Fireman here in Davis are doing the same thing in relation to upper management. I suspect UPPER MANAGEMENT is the key – because they somehow garner the resources to enable them to have more power at the bargaining table when it comes to salaries, benefits and perks. Trust me, they are not so talented that any of them are truly worth the ungodly salaries they sometimes receive. During the Enron scandal, it came out the energy company moguls were spending $2000 of company money on shower curtains, to “keep up with the Jones”. It is unlikely stockholders shared the same view about the necessity for UPPER MANAGEMENT to have expensive shower curtains to show off to business competitors.
Very interesting discussion on economics guys!
“Inequity is the result of some having highly marketable skills and others not having skills.”
I would argue society does not necessarily pay someone according to the inherent “value” of their skills. We have inequity largely because of the unfairness in the market place. People are paying big bucks for CDs and DVDs, giving the movie and music industry far too much profit compared to the inherant value of the service they provide. The average citizen can more easily do without a CD or DVD than they can technicians in a hospital. The average citizen just doesn’t know it or think of it that way!
Let me better explain what I am getting at. It has always bothered me that Hollywood and the music industry makes inordinate amounts of profit, while teachers make fairly low wages relative to the amount of training they must go through. Big rock divas make millions, as do big movie stars – with often no training. Yet teachers are making very little, but School Superintendents make huge salaries relatively speaking, although no where near what movie stars make. Lawyers in the legal aid sector make very low wages (less than teachers sometimes), yet in big law firms an attorney can make megabucks.
However, if you were to ask the average person off the street to rate the importance of someone’s job, I suspect most would rate a teacher more important than a movie star. Yet look at the inequities in payment. It seems as if the average economic model breaks down in the face of reality. We have the President of UC making $800K plus – which seems obscene in light of what food service workers are being paid. Sounds like the unions are not all that effective for one thing. But it also seems as if other forces are at work, like graft, greed, undue influence, the good ol’ boy system, etc.
The average taxpayer would not pay $800K to the President of UC, while paying the food service worker virtually nil. So what economic forces are at work that drive this kind of inequity – beyond the simple explanation of the value of the work product? I have a feeling that model is a bit simplistic.
I guess I am not convinced the market place necessarily determines the value of services. It seems as if other forces are at work – politics, nepotism, fraternity, the ridiculous notion that the offer of huge salaries will somehow translate to a better qualified candidate. I would think in the public sector in particular, there ought to be a more level playing field when it comes to the worth of a service or product, and more scrutiny as to its relative value.
We have enlisted military making below minimum wage, while military officers double and triple dip when it comes to pensions. Sound familiar? Fireman here in Davis are doing the same thing in relation to upper management. I suspect UPPER MANAGEMENT is the key – because they somehow garner the resources to enable them to have more power at the bargaining table when it comes to salaries, benefits and perks. Trust me, they are not so talented that any of them are truly worth the ungodly salaries they sometimes receive. During the Enron scandal, it came out the energy company moguls were spending $2000 of company money on shower curtains, to “keep up with the Jones”. It is unlikely stockholders shared the same view about the necessity for UPPER MANAGEMENT to have expensive shower curtains to show off to business competitors.
Very interesting discussion on economics guys!
Puzzled said…
“Inequity is the result of some having highly marketable skills and others not having skills.”
Then, maybe we need a different sort of “marketplace”.
–Richard Estes
Puzzled said…
“Inequity is the result of some having highly marketable skills and others not having skills.”
Then, maybe we need a different sort of “marketplace”.
–Richard Estes
Puzzled said…
“Inequity is the result of some having highly marketable skills and others not having skills.”
Then, maybe we need a different sort of “marketplace”.
–Richard Estes
Puzzled said…
“Inequity is the result of some having highly marketable skills and others not having skills.”
Then, maybe we need a different sort of “marketplace”.
–Richard Estes
So the UCDMC service workers are on strike. I am not sure what it is over exactly, something about low wages I am sure. Anyways, I still ride the shuttle to work everyday (driven by a scab who is a slow driver, might I add). But now the shuttle drops us off down the street to avoid being harrassed by the strikers. Well, that didn’t stop one jerk striker today. As I walked by the strikers, minding my own business, one said in a jerky sort of way “Is your office clean?” I just nodded by head “yes” and went along my way. But the more I thought about it, the more pissed I became. I hadn’t even NOTICED that the janitors were on strike too. They do such a crappy job cleaning the office, that I couldn’t even TELL, that they hadn’t be doing what they normally don’t do. Furthermore, I am just a worker like them. I am not “THE MAN”. Why should I be a easy target for them to take their frustrations out on?
So the UCDMC service workers are on strike. I am not sure what it is over exactly, something about low wages I am sure. Anyways, I still ride the shuttle to work everyday (driven by a scab who is a slow driver, might I add). But now the shuttle drops us off down the street to avoid being harrassed by the strikers. Well, that didn’t stop one jerk striker today. As I walked by the strikers, minding my own business, one said in a jerky sort of way “Is your office clean?” I just nodded by head “yes” and went along my way. But the more I thought about it, the more pissed I became. I hadn’t even NOTICED that the janitors were on strike too. They do such a crappy job cleaning the office, that I couldn’t even TELL, that they hadn’t be doing what they normally don’t do. Furthermore, I am just a worker like them. I am not “THE MAN”. Why should I be a easy target for them to take their frustrations out on?
So the UCDMC service workers are on strike. I am not sure what it is over exactly, something about low wages I am sure. Anyways, I still ride the shuttle to work everyday (driven by a scab who is a slow driver, might I add). But now the shuttle drops us off down the street to avoid being harrassed by the strikers. Well, that didn’t stop one jerk striker today. As I walked by the strikers, minding my own business, one said in a jerky sort of way “Is your office clean?” I just nodded by head “yes” and went along my way. But the more I thought about it, the more pissed I became. I hadn’t even NOTICED that the janitors were on strike too. They do such a crappy job cleaning the office, that I couldn’t even TELL, that they hadn’t be doing what they normally don’t do. Furthermore, I am just a worker like them. I am not “THE MAN”. Why should I be a easy target for them to take their frustrations out on?
So the UCDMC service workers are on strike. I am not sure what it is over exactly, something about low wages I am sure. Anyways, I still ride the shuttle to work everyday (driven by a scab who is a slow driver, might I add). But now the shuttle drops us off down the street to avoid being harrassed by the strikers. Well, that didn’t stop one jerk striker today. As I walked by the strikers, minding my own business, one said in a jerky sort of way “Is your office clean?” I just nodded by head “yes” and went along my way. But the more I thought about it, the more pissed I became. I hadn’t even NOTICED that the janitors were on strike too. They do such a crappy job cleaning the office, that I couldn’t even TELL, that they hadn’t be doing what they normally don’t do. Furthermore, I am just a worker like them. I am not “THE MAN”. Why should I be a easy target for them to take their frustrations out on?
“Why should I be a easy target for them to take their frustrations out on?”
Why don’t you re-read your post and the dripping disdain in it, I’m sure they can smell it on you.
“Why should I be a easy target for them to take their frustrations out on?”
Why don’t you re-read your post and the dripping disdain in it, I’m sure they can smell it on you.
“Why should I be a easy target for them to take their frustrations out on?”
Why don’t you re-read your post and the dripping disdain in it, I’m sure they can smell it on you.
“Why should I be a easy target for them to take their frustrations out on?”
Why don’t you re-read your post and the dripping disdain in it, I’m sure they can smell it on you.
It’s pretty easy to understand. You crossed a picket line.
It’s pretty easy to understand. You crossed a picket line.
It’s pretty easy to understand. You crossed a picket line.
It’s pretty easy to understand. You crossed a picket line.
It was hard for he/she to tell they were crossing a picket line because their cavernous narcissism got in the way.
It was hard for he/she to tell they were crossing a picket line because their cavernous narcissism got in the way.
It was hard for he/she to tell they were crossing a picket line because their cavernous narcissism got in the way.
It was hard for he/she to tell they were crossing a picket line because their cavernous narcissism got in the way.
“Why don’t you re-read your post and the dripping disdain in it, I’m sure they can smell it on you.”
“It’s pretty easy to understand. You crossed a picket line.”
So what are you saying, this person is not allowed to go to work, because the strikers have decided no one should use the shuttle? That is tyranny of the few. This is the exact thing I cannot stand about unions. When unions decide they have a just cause, they have no problem taking away the freedoms of others. The end justifies the means.
This happened when they had a strike before, and disrupted bus traffic, so some students were late for midterms. Just how disruptive are you going to allow them to be? Shall they be allowed to close down all traffic, to make their point? Is an ambulance allowed to cross the picket line?
When I was a teacher, I crossed picket lines, because I did not agree with the strike. It was illegal, according to the contract we originally signed, and I believe in honoring my promises. I had my car banged on, threats were hurled at me, and strikers would not speak to me when the strike was over (oooooooh, that really hurt – NOT!!!). One “scab” who had crossed the picket line came home one day, to find strikers lined up across her driveway. The strikers threatened dire consequences if she returned to work – so she stayed home.
When I was at a university during the Viet Nam war era, protestors blocked traffic for an entire day, snarling traffic. I missed an exam, infuriated that I was not being allowed to continue my education. School came to almost a standstill for about a week. National Guard had to be called out to restore order – soldiers carrying guns appeared on campus. All because protestors thought their cause was more important than individual rights.
Most of you liberals go on about individual rights, until unions come into the picture. Then that notion seems to go out the window. You can’t have it both ways!!! Either you believe in individual rights or you don’t. A union has the right to demonstrate peaceably, but not the right to interfere with my right to use the road, get to work, or wherever I need to go.
“Why don’t you re-read your post and the dripping disdain in it, I’m sure they can smell it on you.”
“It’s pretty easy to understand. You crossed a picket line.”
So what are you saying, this person is not allowed to go to work, because the strikers have decided no one should use the shuttle? That is tyranny of the few. This is the exact thing I cannot stand about unions. When unions decide they have a just cause, they have no problem taking away the freedoms of others. The end justifies the means.
This happened when they had a strike before, and disrupted bus traffic, so some students were late for midterms. Just how disruptive are you going to allow them to be? Shall they be allowed to close down all traffic, to make their point? Is an ambulance allowed to cross the picket line?
When I was a teacher, I crossed picket lines, because I did not agree with the strike. It was illegal, according to the contract we originally signed, and I believe in honoring my promises. I had my car banged on, threats were hurled at me, and strikers would not speak to me when the strike was over (oooooooh, that really hurt – NOT!!!). One “scab” who had crossed the picket line came home one day, to find strikers lined up across her driveway. The strikers threatened dire consequences if she returned to work – so she stayed home.
When I was at a university during the Viet Nam war era, protestors blocked traffic for an entire day, snarling traffic. I missed an exam, infuriated that I was not being allowed to continue my education. School came to almost a standstill for about a week. National Guard had to be called out to restore order – soldiers carrying guns appeared on campus. All because protestors thought their cause was more important than individual rights.
Most of you liberals go on about individual rights, until unions come into the picture. Then that notion seems to go out the window. You can’t have it both ways!!! Either you believe in individual rights or you don’t. A union has the right to demonstrate peaceably, but not the right to interfere with my right to use the road, get to work, or wherever I need to go.
“Why don’t you re-read your post and the dripping disdain in it, I’m sure they can smell it on you.”
“It’s pretty easy to understand. You crossed a picket line.”
So what are you saying, this person is not allowed to go to work, because the strikers have decided no one should use the shuttle? That is tyranny of the few. This is the exact thing I cannot stand about unions. When unions decide they have a just cause, they have no problem taking away the freedoms of others. The end justifies the means.
This happened when they had a strike before, and disrupted bus traffic, so some students were late for midterms. Just how disruptive are you going to allow them to be? Shall they be allowed to close down all traffic, to make their point? Is an ambulance allowed to cross the picket line?
When I was a teacher, I crossed picket lines, because I did not agree with the strike. It was illegal, according to the contract we originally signed, and I believe in honoring my promises. I had my car banged on, threats were hurled at me, and strikers would not speak to me when the strike was over (oooooooh, that really hurt – NOT!!!). One “scab” who had crossed the picket line came home one day, to find strikers lined up across her driveway. The strikers threatened dire consequences if she returned to work – so she stayed home.
When I was at a university during the Viet Nam war era, protestors blocked traffic for an entire day, snarling traffic. I missed an exam, infuriated that I was not being allowed to continue my education. School came to almost a standstill for about a week. National Guard had to be called out to restore order – soldiers carrying guns appeared on campus. All because protestors thought their cause was more important than individual rights.
Most of you liberals go on about individual rights, until unions come into the picture. Then that notion seems to go out the window. You can’t have it both ways!!! Either you believe in individual rights or you don’t. A union has the right to demonstrate peaceably, but not the right to interfere with my right to use the road, get to work, or wherever I need to go.
“Why don’t you re-read your post and the dripping disdain in it, I’m sure they can smell it on you.”
“It’s pretty easy to understand. You crossed a picket line.”
So what are you saying, this person is not allowed to go to work, because the strikers have decided no one should use the shuttle? That is tyranny of the few. This is the exact thing I cannot stand about unions. When unions decide they have a just cause, they have no problem taking away the freedoms of others. The end justifies the means.
This happened when they had a strike before, and disrupted bus traffic, so some students were late for midterms. Just how disruptive are you going to allow them to be? Shall they be allowed to close down all traffic, to make their point? Is an ambulance allowed to cross the picket line?
When I was a teacher, I crossed picket lines, because I did not agree with the strike. It was illegal, according to the contract we originally signed, and I believe in honoring my promises. I had my car banged on, threats were hurled at me, and strikers would not speak to me when the strike was over (oooooooh, that really hurt – NOT!!!). One “scab” who had crossed the picket line came home one day, to find strikers lined up across her driveway. The strikers threatened dire consequences if she returned to work – so she stayed home.
When I was at a university during the Viet Nam war era, protestors blocked traffic for an entire day, snarling traffic. I missed an exam, infuriated that I was not being allowed to continue my education. School came to almost a standstill for about a week. National Guard had to be called out to restore order – soldiers carrying guns appeared on campus. All because protestors thought their cause was more important than individual rights.
Most of you liberals go on about individual rights, until unions come into the picture. Then that notion seems to go out the window. You can’t have it both ways!!! Either you believe in individual rights or you don’t. A union has the right to demonstrate peaceably, but not the right to interfere with my right to use the road, get to work, or wherever I need to go.
“So what are you saying, this person is not allowed to go to work, because the strikers have decided no one should use the shuttle?”
What I was saying is don’t be surprised when people react to you negatively…
“So what are you saying, this person is not allowed to go to work, because the strikers have decided no one should use the shuttle?”
What I was saying is don’t be surprised when people react to you negatively…
“So what are you saying, this person is not allowed to go to work, because the strikers have decided no one should use the shuttle?”
What I was saying is don’t be surprised when people react to you negatively…
“So what are you saying, this person is not allowed to go to work, because the strikers have decided no one should use the shuttle?”
What I was saying is don’t be surprised when people react to you negatively…
Individual Rights,
The UCDMC worker did not state they were impeded in any way. From the sound of it, I would say UCDMC worker finds something to get offended by every day and blows daily issues way out of proportion. I was just stating that if you cross a picket line getting confronted by picketers comes with the territory. Why do you assume we are liberals? I am actually conservative on most issues, like parcel taxes for instance.
Individual Rights,
The UCDMC worker did not state they were impeded in any way. From the sound of it, I would say UCDMC worker finds something to get offended by every day and blows daily issues way out of proportion. I was just stating that if you cross a picket line getting confronted by picketers comes with the territory. Why do you assume we are liberals? I am actually conservative on most issues, like parcel taxes for instance.
Individual Rights,
The UCDMC worker did not state they were impeded in any way. From the sound of it, I would say UCDMC worker finds something to get offended by every day and blows daily issues way out of proportion. I was just stating that if you cross a picket line getting confronted by picketers comes with the territory. Why do you assume we are liberals? I am actually conservative on most issues, like parcel taxes for instance.
Individual Rights,
The UCDMC worker did not state they were impeded in any way. From the sound of it, I would say UCDMC worker finds something to get offended by every day and blows daily issues way out of proportion. I was just stating that if you cross a picket line getting confronted by picketers comes with the territory. Why do you assume we are liberals? I am actually conservative on most issues, like parcel taxes for instance.
Bill Holmes PHD in Economics…. your comment on 7/14, I have a question. If an employee only generates $5 per hour for the business, and if wages should be substantiated by that productivity, why the hell do we have “minimum wages”?
Bill Holmes PHD in Economics…. your comment on 7/14, I have a question. If an employee only generates $5 per hour for the business, and if wages should be substantiated by that productivity, why the hell do we have “minimum wages”?
Bill Holmes PHD in Economics…. your comment on 7/14, I have a question. If an employee only generates $5 per hour for the business, and if wages should be substantiated by that productivity, why the hell do we have “minimum wages”?
Bill Holmes PHD in Economics…. your comment on 7/14, I have a question. If an employee only generates $5 per hour for the business, and if wages should be substantiated by that productivity, why the hell do we have “minimum wages”?
In reply to the previous comment, I was neutral about the protest until I was harassed on my way to work. I take the shuttle to work, instead of driving, because I try to be environmentally conscious whenever possible. I will not start driving to work to support a week long “strike”. I do not get offended easily, but I do not think I should be demonized when I am just benignly on my way to work.
In reply to the previous comment, I was neutral about the protest until I was harassed on my way to work. I take the shuttle to work, instead of driving, because I try to be environmentally conscious whenever possible. I will not start driving to work to support a week long “strike”. I do not get offended easily, but I do not think I should be demonized when I am just benignly on my way to work.
In reply to the previous comment, I was neutral about the protest until I was harassed on my way to work. I take the shuttle to work, instead of driving, because I try to be environmentally conscious whenever possible. I will not start driving to work to support a week long “strike”. I do not get offended easily, but I do not think I should be demonized when I am just benignly on my way to work.
In reply to the previous comment, I was neutral about the protest until I was harassed on my way to work. I take the shuttle to work, instead of driving, because I try to be environmentally conscious whenever possible. I will not start driving to work to support a week long “strike”. I do not get offended easily, but I do not think I should be demonized when I am just benignly on my way to work.
When you’re obnoxious, you lose support. In one southern campus, the demonstrators were so obnoxious that locals complained and wrote a letter to officials begging them NOT to give the union demonstrators what they want.
The best way to gain respect is to respect the rights of others, even those you disagree with.
When you’re obnoxious, you lose support. In one southern campus, the demonstrators were so obnoxious that locals complained and wrote a letter to officials begging them NOT to give the union demonstrators what they want.
The best way to gain respect is to respect the rights of others, even those you disagree with.
When you’re obnoxious, you lose support. In one southern campus, the demonstrators were so obnoxious that locals complained and wrote a letter to officials begging them NOT to give the union demonstrators what they want.
The best way to gain respect is to respect the rights of others, even those you disagree with.
When you’re obnoxious, you lose support. In one southern campus, the demonstrators were so obnoxious that locals complained and wrote a letter to officials begging them NOT to give the union demonstrators what they want.
The best way to gain respect is to respect the rights of others, even those you disagree with.
Do you have a link or source for that? I couldn’t find anything on google.
Do you have a link or source for that? I couldn’t find anything on google.
Do you have a link or source for that? I couldn’t find anything on google.
Do you have a link or source for that? I couldn’t find anything on google.
Union Strikers who infringe on the rights of others should be told to “F OFF”. When they make a problem over that statement they should be arrested. Union admin scum has to go, along with their very unintelligent supporters.
Freedom of movement is the law.
Union Strikers who infringe on the rights of others should be told to “F OFF”. When they make a problem over that statement they should be arrested. Union admin scum has to go, along with their very unintelligent supporters.
Freedom of movement is the law.
Union Strikers who infringe on the rights of others should be told to “F OFF”. When they make a problem over that statement they should be arrested. Union admin scum has to go, along with their very unintelligent supporters.
Freedom of movement is the law.
Union Strikers who infringe on the rights of others should be told to “F OFF”. When they make a problem over that statement they should be arrested. Union admin scum has to go, along with their very unintelligent supporters.
Freedom of movement is the law.