I guess you had to have been there! Deja vu! Same cast of characters,
just 22 years older, a little grayer, a little more around the
waist! Remember the activists for rent control? How we must protect
the low income residents - year 2001 - the workers! How the housing
suppliers . . . rich, greedy landlords - year 2001 - the hospitality
industry, are unfair by providing entry level jobs! I guess there
is no longer such a thing as "apprenticeship". Once
a maid, always a maid; once a bus boy, always a bus boy. Whatever
happened to working your way up instead of starting at the bottom
and earning advancement?
Let's face it, this is not so much about a living wage as it is
to unionize the industry! Oh, it's orchestrated by the same people
preaching the same message. . . . redistribution of the wealth,
but it's being choreographed and paid for by the union.
As you will remember in November, the hotel industry tried, unsuccessfully
to pass a moderate living wage initiative. One that could have
been beneficial to both segments. As we all know, reasonableness
does not count in Santa Monica, where the motto is, "no good
deed shall ever go unpunished"!
While I was
not there, it is my understanding the evening started with a "clergy
march for justice" during the start of Holy Week. Commencing
at City Hall, it continued to Loews where, bitter herbs were left.
As you know, the union is in a battle with the establishment.
From Loews, they went to the Pacific Shores Hotel, where the marchers
left "milk and honey", for this newly unionized establishment.
If you didn't know, the City of Santa Monica owns this land/hotel.
And, if you haven't heard, the city of Santa Monica recently wrote
up a new lease at Pacific Shores. The deal included a lesser rent
over the term of the lease if the lessor would agree to unionize!
Purportedly this deal cost you and me, the taxpayers of Santa
Monica, about $13 million in revenue! How's that for a payoff
for getting our union council members re-elected in November.
But I digress.
Back to the meeting. . . of course there was an overflow crowd.
Many of the marchers lined up on the balcony chanting and parading
through the council chambers. The overflow public got to sit in
the lobby and watch the action on TV. One or two problems, however.
The organizers had set up a food bar in the lobby in back of the
public seating area! Also, the doors were open and those smoking
outside might as well have been inside! Needless to say, it was
impossible to hear the proceedings.
City staff report (abbreviated) went something like this:
Not clear city has power to enact a minimum wage and other benefits
on private employers
CHALLENGE
LIKELY
Hiring Hall: - CHALLENGE LIKELY
Zone:
CHALLENGE LIKELY - Equal protection violation Per City Manager:
city funds to "zone area" not disproportionate Slow
growth Prop S, was advantage to hotels in zone.
City Manager recommendation to council:
 Review progress
to date for mediation between SMART and opponents
Evaluate a
living wage
Identify areas
for staff inquiry
Alternative
for further public process
So, what happened: Motion 5/2 (Katz and Holbrook), prepared
in advance of any public input, by Councilmember McKeown along
the following with draft due in May:
Living Wage
ordinance in zone and downtown core
Cover any
for-profit businesses that gross 3 million in gross receipts,
including anyone that does city contracts (incidentally 72 companies
would be affected, 6 of which are restaurants. Out of 450 food
establishments, ¼ in zone.
(What happens if drop below 3 million?
Change salaries?)
$10.69
(as a starting point, may change) adjusted CPI annually; Health
benefits if not provided, add $2.50 (original proposal $1.50)
(up $1.00 since November).
Notification
of employee rights
Union first
source hiring -jobs must be posted for 60-90 days in Santa Monica
before can go outside notification.
Collective
bargaining agreements between employers and workers to supersede
any ordinance provision.
Develop some
form of "hardship" clause for businesses
Include some
form of concession for youth and seasonal employees, i.e. Pier
Pacific Park
As most
of you know, living wage ordinances have passed in other cities
and are constitutional. The big difference here, and what the
union is fighting for, is that this would be the first and only
place where the city tells a private employer what they must pay
to do business! The union feels that if they can pass it in
Santa Monica, they can get it across the country!
When city
attorney was asked what the cost to city for legal challenges
would be, she gave no estimate - intimating that it would be relatively
inexpensive. Do you believe that? Heard that before? In addition
to legal costs, the union representative stated the city would/should
hire 2 people to administer the ordinance plus, "one hearings
examiner". What were we promised it would take to administer
the rent control? What is the budget now?
When asked why the city doing this, answers were someone has to
be "first"— it's the "morally right thing".
According to staff the nexus for doing this, the city is trying
to help working poor!
Chamber of
Commerce and business representative implored the council to take
into consideration our economic downturn, increased Worker's Comp
rates which have doubled, utility costs, etc. but of course, to
no avail. One hotel manager said it best along these lines. .
. we are about to see a major bureaucracy enacted! (ever notice
that comes out bureau crazy, sic) Ah, yes, rent control. . . .
. the absolute epitome of a bureaucracy. Interesting how other
businesses outside the "zone" are starting to get nervous
- particularly the car wash establishments. If a city can target
one or now two industries, who's next? If they can create one
zone, how about two or three - wherever the city sees someone
making a profit - you too can be targeted.
Sound bitter - darn right! I have no objections to people making
a decent living. However, I do object to a bunch of people that
have never had to meet a payroll or pay the bills, tell me how
much I should give or pay them for the opportunity of supporting/subsidizing
them!
Morally right
to pay a decent wage, yes; morally right for the city council
(5 people) to tell me what I must pay - no!
I really believe we must ALL go down and speak out when this ordinance
comes back for public input! This is just the start, guys. Already
councilmembers are setting things in place for further erosion
of your rights. A manner in which to reform the ballot initiative
is being explored by Mayor Feinstein. The harassment ordinance
is being revised - fines will go up, etc., etc.
Domestic partners issue is on the burner.
Since the demise of The Outlook, you must attend an ACTION meeting,
support
the WAM magazine, pick up the throwaways or log onto Surf Santa
Monica.com, to keep up to date on what the City Council is doing
to you now! 
|
