Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

San Francisco Voting on Minimum Wage
Yahoo ^ | 11/4/03 | Lisa Leff

Posted on 11/04/2003 2:31:34 PM PST by Tumbleweed_Connection

Voters here must decide whether employers should have to pay their workers a minimum wage that mirrors the cost of living in one of the nation's most expensive cities.

Proposition L, one of 14 measures on the city ballot Tuesday, would impose an $8.50-per-hour minimum wage on all employers in the city, not just those awarded municipal contracts. The state's hourly minimum wage is $6.75, and the minimum required under federal law is $5.15.

The initiative's backers, who include advocates for the poor, labor unions and San Francisco's elected supervisors, maintain that a city-specific pay mandate is long overdue in a place where working parents need to earn about twice the proposed amount to meet basic expenses.

"A full-time worker making $8.50 an hour makes less than $17,000 a year, and people say that seems like a lot. A lot to who?" asked Beth Shulman, the author of "The Betrayal of Work," a book about low-wage workers.

Spearheaded by the city's restaurant industry, opponents argue the measure is ill-timed during an economic recession. They say it is also unnecessary because it would primarily benefit food servers who earn well above the minimum wage when tips are included.

"There is not a cushion to absorb a minimum wage increase, especially a 26 percent increase that is going to some of our most highly paid employees," said Patricia Breslin, president of the Golden Gate Restaurant Association.

If it passes as expected, San Francisco would be the first California city and only the third in the nation to set its own minimum wage. Washington, D.C., guarantees its workers $1 more than the federal minimum, which Congress last raised in 1997. Earlier this year in New Mexico, the Santa Fe City Council set a local minimum wage of $8.50 for all businesses with at least 25 employees.

San Francisco's measure is a little more ambitious because it doesn't exempt small businesses from the mandate. The new wage would take effect in three months for for-profit businesses, but would be phased in over two years for nonprofit organizations and firms with fewer than 10 employees.

City contractors already are required to pay their employees an hourly "living wage" of $9 for nonprofits and $10.25 for for-profit companies.



TOPICS: Culture/Society; Politics/Elections; US: California
KEYWORDS: 2003; minwage; sanfrancisco

1 posted on 11/04/2003 2:31:41 PM PST by Tumbleweed_Connection
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection
If the minimum wage passes many people will be layed off.

Too bad.

They should lower the minimum wage so employers can add workers.

You can't get a better job if you don't have a job in the first place.......duh.

2 posted on 11/04/2003 2:35:43 PM PST by CROSSHIGHWAYMAN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection
Now don't think about moving here for the wages (much less the politics)I just bought a 1100 sq ft 2 bedroom home on a 20x125 ft lot built in 1949 (and not worked on since the day it was built) for $525,000. Property taxes are 1% per year(those nice suits Willie Brown wears ain't cheap)
3 posted on 11/04/2003 2:36:50 PM PST by SF Republican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CROSSHIGHWAYMAN
Better yet, end the "minimum wage".
4 posted on 11/04/2003 2:37:19 PM PST by Former Proud Canadian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection
This will help the CRIMINAL INVADERS as Americans are layed
off they will be replaced by CRIMINAL INVADERS ?
5 posted on 11/04/2003 2:43:12 PM PST by HuntsvilleTxVeteran (CCCP = clinton, chiraq, chretien, and putin = stalin wannabes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection
If California ever gets a Republican legislature again, the first thing it should do is split SF off and hopefully the Congress will grant it statehood.

It really wouldn't have any downside at all for us. The Dems would loose 2 seats in the Senate--since without SF California is as conservative as Texas--and the Senators from SF would probably come from the Green party and Socialist Workers party. They hate the Dems about as much as we do, so it's a win-win.
6 posted on 11/04/2003 2:45:04 PM PST by BlueString
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Former Proud Canadian
Former Proud Canadian

Is that former proud Canadian or

formerly proud Canadian?

7 posted on 11/04/2003 2:55:17 PM PST by CROSSHIGHWAYMAN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection
These Mensa graduates really amuse me.

If it is legal to do this, why stop at $8.50?
Why not $85.00? Everybody wins!

I'm serious. Why not higher?

8 posted on 11/04/2003 3:00:35 PM PST by Publius6961 (40% of Californians are as dumb as a sack of rocks.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BlueString
If California ever gets a Republican legislature again, the first thing it should do is split SF off and hopefully the Congress will grant it statehood.

Or perhaps it can become a province of The Peoples Republic of China.

9 posted on 11/04/2003 3:01:17 PM PST by reg45
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Publius6961
Like, $8.50 an hour is going to help somebody trying to make it there anyway.

Criminy, I almost moved there 10 years ago and then $1000 a month would get me a one bedroom in the ghetto. I went into Safeway and saw that orange juice was about $5 for a half gallon and that homeless people were all around in packs of 10 or more.

Id din't want to join the ranks so I hopped in the SUV and left. Smartest thing I ever did.

10 posted on 11/04/2003 3:04:36 PM PST by riri
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection
"Proposition L, one of 14 measures on the city ballot Tuesday, would impose an $8.50-per-hour minimum wage on all employers in the city, not just those awarded municipal contracts."

Amendment V

"...nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation."

This measure is blatantly and unambiguously unconstitutional unless there is a mechanism in the measure to compensate private property owners.

11 posted on 11/04/2003 3:11:08 PM PST by tahiti
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection
And I'm willing to bet good money that this thing wins by a landslide.

Beware, the law of unintended consequences. I, as most of my FReeper brethern, can see it all now,but the shortsighted lefties see nothing except the "worker's paradise".

I've seen Frisco and I don't need to go back. I got propositioned by a man, called a a$$hole by a woman (simply for being from Texas) and saw a guy defacating in a garbage can in broad day light. That was all in one day. No thanks, I'll take good old "fly over" country any day.

12 posted on 11/04/2003 3:17:11 PM PST by timydnuc (qFR)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection
"The initiative's backers, who include advocates for the poor, labor unions and San Francisco's elected supervisors..."

You can bet none of the backers has ever employed anyone using their own captital. After promoting this costly red-tape nightmare for employers, these same idiots will start screaming bloody murder when they move their operations overseas....Duuuh!

13 posted on 11/04/2003 3:18:57 PM PST by shteebo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CROSSHIGHWAYMAN
If the minimum wage passes many people will be layed off.

Well, yes and no.

Actual citizens will likely get laid off. They will probably be replaced by illegal aliens who know enough to keep their mouths shut and take whatever they can get under the table, without records or taxes.

14 posted on 11/04/2003 3:19:48 PM PST by Gritty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection
New incentive to hire illegals.
15 posted on 11/04/2003 3:20:11 PM PST by John Jorsett
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CROSSHIGHWAYMAN
The latter.
16 posted on 11/05/2003 7:41:47 AM PST by Former Proud Canadian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson