About twenty organizers and union workers protested on Thursday outside of the Target Store on Second Street in Davis. They held signs, chanted, and approached and educated customers about Target policies and the $15/hour minimum wage campaign in Davis.
In its Facebook message, it stated, “Target does not want to pay its workers a decent wage. It would rather spend its money on bigoted politicians like Michele Bachman.”
They noted, “Two weeks ago, Target management threatened to call the police to remove our petitioners from their storefront. In the past, Target has permitted people to gather signatures at this store front. Target management does not want a living wage for its employees. It’s time to show them that low pay is not OK!”
Organizer Bernie Goldsmith told the Vanguard that the incident two weeks ago was one of the developments that prompted the protest as a show of support for petitioners who were in a vulnerable position.
For their part, the Target store sent out a representative to let the organizers know that they should not obstruct or disrupt customers’ shopping experience.
They handed out leaflets stating, “Target Pays Poverty Wages.” It continued, “If you work hard and play by the rules, you deserve a fair wage. But right now, working at Target means being paid less than what it takes to live. This Target alone is responsible for keeping at least 500 local workers in poverty. Target is no better than Walmart.”
The leaflet continues, “It’s time to bring a $15/hr minimum wage to Davis. We can change things. Right now, the minimum wage is just $8 per hour. This translates to less than $17,000 per year. We’re trying to put an initiative on ballot for a $15 minimum wage in Davis. This ensures that nobody who works full time should have to live in poverty.”
The organizers need to get 20% of all registered voters, about 7000 signatures, by May 1.
Their notice of intention to sign the petition states their reason, “Someone who works hard and plays by the rules deserves a fair wage. Our current minimum wage subjects workers in our city to economic hardship, sacrifice, and dependence.”
“At a time when our workforce has never been more productive and profitable, we expect our low wage workers to take multiple jobs, be subject to uncertain schedules, and work without health or retirement benefits,” they write. “They are paid so little that they can maintain no hope of improvement. They must rely on government and community resources to make ends meet. Those who work hard for a legal wage should be paid enough to support themselves in comfort and dignity.”
They add, “Furthermore, decades of research has shown that increasing the minimum wage improves the economic climate and the health of small businesses. Providing workers with fairer wages and economic security does not significantly impact the number of jobs. Therefore, we propose an increase in the minimum wage in Davis, implemented in stepwise fashion, to reach $15 by January 1, 2016. It’s smart, fair, and overdue.”
They write, “The state minimum wage has not kept pace with cost of living in California, including in the City,” “worker productivity has dramatically increased during the same period of time that the purchasing power of the state minimum wage has declined,” and “families and workers in the City need to earn a living wage and public policies which help achieve that goal are beneficial.”
The Enterprise this weekend in an editorial argues that “Davis businesses should not be saddled with a $15 minimum wage,” and that “good intentions don’t fund the payroll.”
The Enterprise notes, “If it lands on the June ballot, and gets approved by Davis voters, the measure would set the minimum wage at $11 an hour in January 2015, $13 in July 2015 and $15 at the start of 2016. At that point, the minimum wage would be 50 percent higher than the state rate of $10, with further increases linked to inflation.”
The organizers were originally looking to land it on the November ballot.
Kari Fry of the Centaur Group wrote a letter, claiming to be in favor of minimum wage “increases that are already scheduled by the state of California and proposed by the president of the United States.” But she writes, “I do not support a localized minimum wage that inevitably will put our community at an economic disadvantage.”
She writes, “I do not support the $15-per-hour minimum wage initiative petition that is being circulated and my company has not and will not provide any services to the organizers of that initiative.”
She adds, “I have spoken with several of my fellow small business owners (some of whom are my clients) and they are, without exception, fearful that they will have to close their doors, lay off employees and/or drastically increase prices if the minimum wage is almost doubled in the course of one year.”
In addition, she argues, “The issue of livable wages is macro-economic in scale, but this proposed initiative does not recognize the unintended consequences on our small community.” She further argues, “This topic has lacked the necessary community dialogue and thorough research that is a hallmark of the Davis political process.”
Here are two short video clips from the protest:
—David M. Greenwald reporting
In my opinion they came off looking foolish.
Given where you stand on the issue, I’m not sure that’s surprising. In fact, I’d be surprised if you thought otherwise.
My concern is not whether or not the protesters look foolish. It is with the ability of a full time worker at Target,
or WalMart, or any number of other companies not put at risk by increasing their wages, to provide for themselves and their families.
If companies paid a living wage, or if we as a society chose to provide a living compensation for all members of our society, the government intervention that some oppose so strongly would be entirely unnecessary.
Please define a “living wage.”
One that allows for the individual and those they support to obtain housing, adequate food, health care, clothing….the essentials. I leave it to you Don to propose what that might actually come to in dollar amount both in our community, and in the surrounding communities.
Please forgive me for my aversion to the numbers…..I won’t expect you to deal with “the blood and guts” ; )
That is $9.50 – $11.50 per hour for an individual, depending on whether they live alone or share a rental. Here’s the basis for my statement: http://www.insightcced.org/index.php/insight-communities/cfess/calculator
If they have children, the rate goes well over $20 an hour.
So that would mean that the $15.00 per hour gets us closer, but not to the goal for many folks. This is precisely why I prefer a “living allowance” for all. By your numbers that might fall within the range of $10 -$11/hr for each man, woman, and child.
No, it means that $15 is higher than the living wage for most people who are working at entry-level jobs, and lower than what people with children need. So why would you mandate that all employers pay all employees $15 an hour?
Don, it seems compliance with some kind of means testing or life situation would be intrusive and possibly unverifiable not to mention illegal under present law. In any case, would you as an employer arbitrarily pay one employee $15/hour and the other $10/hour based solely on marital status or if they have kids? That could get very complicated.
The discussion of a “Living Wage” is pointless and irrelevant when it comes to the move to raise the minimum wage in Davis to $15.
If organizations are forced to pay 50% more than the State minimum wage, there will be far less opportunity in Davis for low skilled and disadvantaged people to work and be productive members of society.
As a society, we should provide opportunities for productive employment for as many people as possible. This includes teenagers looking for Summer jobs, mildly disabled individuals with mental illnesses or developmental disabilities, recovering alcoholics and drug abusers and ex0-cons trying to get back on their feet.
I don’t think that a low skilled or mildly disabled worker will be better off working no hours at $15 than 40 hours at $10 per hour.
No it isn’t. Those inclined to support this initiative, which includes a lot of well-meaning people in this community, should know what a living wage (a self-sustaining income) actually is.
When it comes to the discussion of whether to raise the local minimum wage in Davis to $15 per hour it does not matter what someone considers to be a “Living Wage”. If the employee cannot provide at least $15 of value to the employer, then there will be no job and no income.
I’ve asked it before but gotten no answer to the question: How is a low skilled worker better off at NO hours at $15 per hour than they are at 40 hours at $10 per hour?
“I’ve asked it before but gotten no answer to the question: How is a low skilled worker better off at NO hours at $15 per hour than they are at 40 hours at $10 per hour?”
I suspect that no one has responded because this is perceived as a straw man question since this is not an idea that anyone is supporting nor is it an outcome that many of us believe is inevitable.
“I don’t think that a low skilled or mildly disabled worker will be better off working no hours at $15 than 40 hours at $10 per hour.”
that’s the argument that’s always been used to suppress wages. it fails to taken into account: (1) whether there is a way to ramp up wages to avoid this problem; (2) whether employers really are willing to make due with fewer workers to buttress their bottom line; (3) whether job expansion is a product of wage law or the overall economy; and (4) whether ramping up wages actually helps the employers because low end workers have more disposable income to spend on their products. so far your analysis has been very superficial and assumes what it needs to prove.
Topcat
“As a society, we should provide opportunities for productive employment for as many people as possible”
So far so good. So what should we do for the remainder of folks for whom
“productive employment” as we currently define it cannot be found ?
How about we elect a president who, unlike the guy in office now, embraces capitalism and lets the free market grow?
Bravo.
And a governor.
And a city council.
Tia Will Wrote: “So far so good. So what should we do for the remainder of folks for whom
“productive employment” as we currently define it cannot be found?”
This issue is much too complicated to address in a discussion of a raise in Davis’ minimum wage to $15. What I can tell you is that the best way to provide employment for as many people as possible is to have a robust and vibrant economy. Over the course of history many people including my ancestors and probably yours have migrated to seek out better opportunity.
As far as Davis city policy, I think the best course of action is to stay with the California State minimum wage which is set to go to $10 per hour.
Tia wrote:
> If companies paid a living wage, or if we as a society chose to provide a
> living compensation for all members of our society, the government
> intervention that some oppose so strongly would be entirely unnecessary.
Does that mean that you would be in favor of cutting off government hand outs/government
intervention for anyone making $15/hr (~$30K/year)?
If not what is the “living wage” we need to mandate before we cut off food stamps/EBT/discounted housing/WIC/free lunches/free tutoring/earned income credit…….?
South of Davis
I have actually answered this question previously.
First, I do not see the provision of the necessities of life to anyone as a “hand out”. Given my choice, I would structure our society entirely differently so that each individual, by virtue of living here, would receive enough to obtain the basics of human life within our society. This would be automatic, thus eliminating the need for the plethora of disorganized means of providing for food, housing , health care….
If we chose to do this, we would have no need to “cut anyone off”.
I think that our choices of words largely define our differences of how we view the world.
Tia wrote:
> I have actually answered this question previously.
You have REFUSED to answer this question multiple times.
You keep telling us we need to have a “living wage”, but (unlike Don) are afraid to tell us what you think it should be, WHY?
> I would structure our society entirely differently so that each
> individual, by virtue of living here, would receive enough to
> obtain the basics of human life within our society.
We would have a lot more people in Davis if you were to give people “enough to
obtain the basics of human life” for doing nothing in return.
If I decided that I liked watching daytime TV more than working and my family went on welfare and food stamps wouldn’t we be getting a government “hand out”?
Is it a good idea for a government to say “well it looks like we need to raise taxes on the people still working so we can now feed South of Davis’ family forever”?
Your points are worth replying to since none of them reflect my position.
1) No fear. I can’t answer what I have not calculated. I will accept Don’s numbers.
2)”for doing nothing in return.’ I have never suggested a stipend for
“doing nothing”. I have proposed a stipend for doing whatever one is capable of doing with their unique set of skills and talents and whatever is appropriate to contribute to our society for their stage of life. For a child, it would be being in pre school, or school or some learning environment appropriate to their age. For an adult, it might be a job outside their home, or it might be in home child or elder care.
3)In my proposed system, there would not be welfare or food stamps for your family members to “go on”.
4) I have never promoted the idea that there would be no accountability.
I would have each individual account for their contribution just like we have workers account for how they spend their time now.
Tia wrote:
> I have proposed a stipend for doing whatever one is
> capable of doing with their unique set of skills and talents
> and whatever is appropriate to contribute to our society for
> their stage of life. For a child, it would be being in pre
> school, or school or some learning environment appropriate
> to their age. For an adult, it might be a job outside their
> home, or it might be in home child or elder care.
I know you have a good heart, but this is just another example of (to quote the brilliant Thomas Sowell) “replacing what worked with what sounded good”.
I was not joking when I said I would like to “take classes” and even get a PhD (and write my thesis on California history), but since someone has to put food on the table I just have an hour or two a day (after everyone is in bed) to read and study on my own.
I know a lot of guys that spend a ton of time working out of state or on the road (commuting to the Bay Area) that would love to take care of their kids or do something else if they didn’t have to worry about money and feeding their kids.
Our system of working for what people want to pay us and buying things for what people want to sell it for is not perfect, but it is the only system that works. For an example of how well your system works put a box with one hundred $1.00 bills in a box in front of your house with a sign that says “take what you need” and I bet the first guy walking by takes all 100 of them (we tried a similar test with a similar result using a bowl of candy when we walked down the street last Halloween for 10 minutes last year).
Anyone that needs money can work to get it and they will work as much as they have to get the money they need. Most people will realize that if they learn a skill they can work less to get the money they need.
P.S. I’m pretty sure Frankly will be jumping out his chair screaming yes, yes, yes if he clicks the link below to read more Sowell quotes:
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/t/thomas_sowell.html
Yes, Yes, Yes..!!!
I love Mr. Sowell. He get it.
Ben Carson for President with Thomas Sowell as VP. Now that would be a ticket!
” it is the only system that works.”
This could have been said about travel in a conveyance pulled by an animal prior to the development of the gas burning engine.
Please note that I did not say that I believe that this system has ever been shown to work. I also did not say that there would be an easy or smooth road from what we have now to what we could have. However, there is a major misunderstanding which you seem to be deliberately clinging to with your choice of examples.
Again, I did not say that an individual would be provided with anything “for free” as in the case of the box with money or candy. What I said was there would be compensation for contribution. I happen to feel that raising happy, healthy, educated children with a desire to serve and contribute to their society is a major contribution and should be compensated.
Likewise, those who wish to spend their time contributing intellectually to our society should be able to do so.
Just because something is not currently in existence does not mean that it could not be. Imagination, the ability to envision a different and better future are the hallmarks of being human. I think that in the area of support for our fellow humans, the only ones holding us back are ourselves.
Tia… would your ideal include enough for home ownership, or would it suffice to cover rent in decent housing?
hpierce
I think that being able to rent would be fine. Having done both at various times in my life, I can clearly see how some might prefer ownership while others might prefer to rent. The advantage I see is that if it did allow enough for home ownership, individuals would truly have a choice which eludes many today. Also, if someone prioritized home ownership over their spare time, they could earn more money by putting in more hours.
What I am proposing is a floor beneath which no one could ever sink, not a ceiling beyond which they could not climb.
If the backers of the $15 minimum wage feel so strongly about this, I have a suggestion. They should open a business themselves and they can pay their workers what they want as long as it complies with the California State minimum wage which is set to rise to $10 per hour.
Topcat
I have a parallel suggestion. If business owners feel so strongly that the government should not be in the business of specifying minimum wages and providing benefits to individuals then they should also eschew any government “benefits” such as tax breaks, bail outs, “incentives” for particular behaviors as my friend Frankly is so apt to call them in a favorable light when wanting government to give businesses a hand.
Tia wrote:
> I have a parallel suggestion. If business owners feel so strongly
> that the government should not be in the business of specifying
> minimum wages and providing benefits to individuals then they
> should also eschew any government “benefits” such as tax breaks,
> bail outs, “incentives”
As a (small not politically connected) business owner I don’t get any government “benefits”, “tax breaks”, “bail outs” or “incentives” and I bet that few other SMALL Davis business got a penny from the federal government (unlike the BIG business that give BILLIONS to politicians and get even more in return). I’m not happy that many HUGE companies pay less in taxes than I do.
South of Davis
Then perhaps the target of your dissatisfaction and efforts should be the disparity in how large vs small business are treated rather than supporting holding down the wages of the lowest wage earners.
Truly I empathize with your situation just as I empathize with the situation of the low end earners. I do not know what the best solution may be.
But I guarantee that the best solution is not to pit the lowest paid workers and the smallest business owners against one another.
so your view is that someone who believes that people at the low end of the wage scale are being exploited should open their own business and not exploit? countless people do that every day, but that doesn’t remedy the problem.
I agree with Tia, well written post.
The backers of the minimum wage increase do not seem to realize the consequences. They do not understand basic economics. If the minimum wage in Davis were increased to $15 in Davis, many businesses would have to reduce their number of employees and/or decrease the hours they have employees working. Some businesses would not be able to survive and would close up. Other businesses would move to surrounding communities that are less hostile to business. People considering opening a business would avoid opening in Davis.
Another aspect that the backers have not considered is the loss of social services due to non-profit organizations having to cut back. Think about the effect on the City of Davis that employs summer lifeguards at the pools and playground leaders. How about the people that work for the food banks, homeless shelters and organizations that assist the elderly, disabled, mentally ill, and those recovering from substance abuse?
Those that will be hurt most by a minimum wage increase are the lowest skilled, most vulnerable people in society. As opportunities to work and get ahead disappear these people will have a difficult time getting by in Davis. Some make take up panhandling or working in the underground economy. Some may take up burglary or robbery or prostitution. Some may find dealing drugs to be a way to make money. Some will leave Davis.
As a closing thought for the backers I would ask this question: How is a low skilled worker better off at $15 an hour working zero hours than working 40 hours at $10?
Topcat wrote:
> If the minimum wage in Davis were increased to $15 in Davis,
> many businesses would have to reduce their number of employees
> and/or decrease the hours they have employees working.
Don’t forget the HUGE number of business that will CLOSE
A retail store with two minimum wage employees open 8-8 going from $8 to $15 will cost ~$40K a year (after adding in the cost of the wages and higher taxes and workman’s comp).
A store like Davis ACE with close to 20 workers will take a $400K hit and might not make it when they increase the (already higher than Home Depot) prices even higher.
Yes, many businesses will find that they can’t survive if they have to pay employees 50% more than the State minimum wage. Some non-profit social service organizations may have to close too. Think food banks, homeless shelters, and thrift stores. These organizations employee people too.
As I have said before, the backers of this local raise fail to understand basic economics. They people who will be hurt most by this will be the lowest skilled and most disadvantaged people. Is this really what we want for Davis?
It would be a shame to see lots of vacant retail space in Davis while us residents travel to Woodland, Dixon, and West Sacramento to do our shopping.
Again, none of these detrimental effects would be seen if we chose as a society to provide the essentials for all of our population.
Tia Will Wrote: “Again, none of these detrimental effects would be seen if we chose as a society to provide the essentials for all of our population.”
If we lived in a utopian society where everyone had everything they needed, there would be no need for any of these discussions. Unfortunately we don’t live in Utopia and we are not likely to. We have to deal with the reality of what we have.
For Davis to raise the local minimum wage to $15 while the State of California minimum is $10 will hurt the lowest skilled and most disadvantaged members of society the most.
Utopia- an interesting concept. My idea re: Utopia is to start with your neighbor on each side of you, as I’ve mentioned before. Look at recent studies that show people who have good friendships (and pets) live longer. If people are healthier, they spend less time in the ER. They spend less time on disability. They are more alert, and have less work-related injuries. They deal with their children and partners better. They are nicer to civilians when they are arresting them. Utopia- it starts with your little community of people who are your neighbors. Get to know the neighbors on each side of you. This world will be a nicer, healthier place.
Topcat
“If we lived in a utopian society where everyone had everything they needed, there would be no need for any of these discussions”
I believe that we create the world that we live in. Each one of us has the ability to say for ourselves, with each decision I make, I will move myself and my society closer to the ideal that I envision. For me, that ideal happens to be one in which
everyone is fed, clothed, housed, educated and provided medical care. When I make my decisions, I start with this in mind. I do not happen to mind being taxed more, or working more if I feel that my efforts are moving me in that direction.
I also agree with D.D.’s point that a good starting point is with one’s neighbors. I feel that most of us already have the concept since most of us honor this principle already with those that we regard as family. It is a small step to expand this to our immediate neighbors.
“They noted, “Two weeks ago, Target management threatened to call the police to remove our petitioners from their storefront. In the past, Target has permitted people to gather signatures at this store front.”
As evidenced by the videos, this was far more intrusive than just gathering signatures.
True. They weren’t gathering signatures at this event.
BP wrote:
> As evidenced by the videos, this was far more intrusive
> than just gathering signatures.
I’m a big supporter of free speech, but I think they should keep the protest on public property. Just like I don’t think that small business owners against the increase should be able have a dozen protestors on Bernie’s front yard blocking his Mom from getting out the front door I don’t see why the protestors get to stand on Target’s private property and harass the people trying to get in and buy some storage bins.
You know that the Supreme Court has ruled that protests are allowed in places of public access.
I agree. Americans are allowed to protest in public American places.
“As evidenced by the videos, this was far more intrusive than just gathering signatures.”
No wonder why younger generations think democracy is dead. Standing outside and peacefully expressing your opinion is “intrusive.” Activists are treated like dirt.