The unions of the Washington State Labor Council who paid to get an initiative raising the statewide minimum wage by 40% on the ballot this fall like to use public faces that don’t reflect the big money union bosses. Liberal Seattle ice cream maker Molly Moon has been one of their favorite front people because, after all, who doesn’t like ice cream?
Of course, that hasn’t always been without problems, like when a small business person invited by Molly and the unions to speak at a press conference actually tells the truth about the job losses that come with a higher minimum wage.
Now it appears that the other side is getting into the ice cream act as well, putting forth a Federal Way shop owner to discuss what the minimum wage will mean to businesses like his – an end to hiring teenagers for their first job. As reported by the Puget Sound Business Journal:
“High school and college students looking for part time work in the winter and full time work in the summer often flock to the retail and restaurant industries and Jack Walsh, owner of Sub Zero Ice Cream and Yogurt in Federal Way, has welcomed them the last five years with enthusiasm… Ten of the 12 employees that work in the Federal Way Sub Zero store are in high school or college, and for the majority of them, it is their first job. These employees start at minimum wage and earn raises as they continue on. Additionally they average $2 to $3 dollars an hour in tips, Walsh said. ‘As I see it, it would be a challenge to stay in business,’ Walsh said about increasing the minimum wage. ‘And if I am in business, instead of hiring teenagers, I’ll hire adults that are more productive.’”
Of course, the folks calling the shots at the Labor Council – and high-profile supporters like Jay Inslee – don’t much care if people lose their job opportunities. This is about union power to call policy shots for the Democrats, and put pressure on non-union businesses to accept unions or go out of business.
After all, it was a labor economist who said “why shouldn’t we in fact accept job loss? What’s so bad about getting rid of crappy jobs?”
Labor’s attempt to buy a huge minimum wage increase comes almost two decades after the last time it bought such an increase at the ballot, and after years of Washington State having the highest minimum wage in the country. As noted by the Seattle P-I when the initiative was filed, “the state has indexed its minimum wage to the Consumer Price Index under Initiative 688, a labor-backed measure passed by voters in 1998. The measure has for years given Washington the country’s highest minimum wage. No more. The Washington minimum wage stayed at $9.47 an hour on Jan. 1, while minimum wages in California and Massachusetts reached $10 an hour.”
The union bosses are tired of being number three in statewide minimum wage, hence this initiative. However, as the Business Journal pointed out, in addition to the huge pay increase, the initiative would also add a new leave benefit:
“The initiative, I-1433, asks voters to raise the state minimum wage from $9.47 an hour to $13.50 by 2020 and give all Washington workers the opportunity to earn paid sick leave. Supporters have argued that by putting money back into the pockets of minimum wage workers, business will thrive and the state’s economy will increase. But some opponents have said the minimum wage issue should be handled by the Legislature and that businesses in rural communities may be forced to lay off employees, or worse, shut down, as a result of the increased wages.”
These economic arguments, however, are sometimes hard to get across to voters in an age of soundbites – hence, we have the ice cream wars instead.
Stephen Serafin says
So why do we have another wasted trip to the State Supremes with an initiative that deals with two distinct issues and its suppose to be forbidden. Issue #1 is a wage increase and issue #2 is sick leave. You know that Tim Eyeman initiatives have gone down in flames for the same thing. One can support one and not the other. DOA.
tensor says
Go back and read harder. I-1433 covers exactly one issue: earnings.
SouthernRoots says
One? Voting for higher minimum wage; paid sick leave; or both?
NEW SECTION. Sec. 1. It is the intent of the people to
establish fair labor standards and protect the rights of workers by
increasing the hourly minimum wage to $11.00 (2017), $11.50 (2018),
$12.00 (2019) and $13.50 (2020), and requiring employers to provide
employees with paid sick leave to care for the health of themselves
and their families.
PART I
ESTABLISHING FAIR LABOR STANDARDS BY INCREASING THE MINIMUM HOURLY WAGE TO $11.00 (2017), $11.50 (2018), $12.00 (2019) AND $13.50 (2020)
PART II
ESTABLISHING FAIR LABOR STANDARDS BY REQUIRING EMPLOYERS TO
PROVIDE PAID SICK LEAVE TO EMPLOYEES
tensor says
Both the higher minimum wage and the paid sick leave are part of what workers earn by doing their jobs. Therefore, as already noted, I-1433 covers just one topic: earnings.
(Yes, Tim Eyman promised all of you ponies if you bought his snake oil. You repeatedly bought his snake oil, but you have no ponies. Somehow you blame neither him nor you for this.)
SouthernRoots says
The words “earn” and “earnings” do not appear in the initiative text. The word “earner” appears only once. The initiative is for “ESTABLISHING FAIR LABOR STANDARDS” – plural.
Each section could be implemented in isolation without regard to the other, therefore, combining both into one initiative creates an initiative with two subjects wages and paid sick leave.
tensor says
The words “earn” and “earnings” do not appear in the initiative text.
So what? It’s possible to describe completely a self-starting motor-car without once using the word “automobile.”
The initiative is for “ESTABLISHING FAIR LABOR STANDARDS” – plural.
Which is an even larger category than mere “earnings,” and so the Initiative can address a broader topic than I described. Thank you for this clarification, but it doesn’t exactly bolster your case.
Each section could be implemented in isolation without regard to the other, therefore, combining both into one initiative creates an initiative with two subjects …
If you’re going to get all whinily butthurt about how mean evil liberal judges won’t ever allow you to receive the fantabulous sparkle-ponies Tim Eyman keeps promising you, you could at least give the entire reason. The ruling striking down Timmeh’s latest snake oil includes the reason you gave, but also includes the requirement that the two sections cannot be “part of a rational unity.” Whether narrowly “earnings,” or broadly “labor standards”, I-1433 passes this test.
(You’re improving from the old uSP days, though — now you’re half right.)
SouthernRoots says
The only one “whinily butthurt” appears to be you, just because someone disagrees with your point of view. I would have thought you would be used to that by now.
tensor says
I’m very used to people here disagreeing with my point of view, and for the same reason as back at the old (un)SP: my points of view tend to be reality-based.
You falsely claimed having two separable implementable sections by itself makes an Initiative invalid, when that’s only part of the requirement. You should know by now how I respond to the presence of demonstrably false information in our civic discourse.
Radio Randy says
You’re correct. You can’t “earn” sick leave if an employer doesn’t offer it.
In these cases, employers are being forced to offer it, whether they wish to, or not. Oh, and let’s not forget maternity and paternity leave.
tensor says
So, if we enact I-1433, you’re going to sue to get it overturned on those grounds? Good luck with that, and pass the popcorn!
Radio Randy says
As I said “employers are being forced to offer it”. At no time did I say employers had a choice.
What you socialists refuses to accept is that there are still people with morals out there. Eventually, they are going to have enough and move out of the state, or simply retire. The free stuff IS going to run out, eventually.
tensor says
So, when will that happen? Or, putting it the opposite way, when will you finally admit that it won’t? (I’m guessing the answer to both questions is a solid, “Never.”)
Radio Randy says
I must be reading your charts wrong, because what I’m seeing is that King and Thurston counties are in 1st and 2nd place where General Fund money (what we ALL pay into) is going.
Also, while you continue to press the tired facts of higher welfare and food stamp funds funneling to Eastern Washington (thanks to Mr. Obama’s economic “recovery”), there are still a lot of hard working taxpayers funding grand projects like your over-budget and endlessly-delayed “Tunnel to Nowhere”.
Also…what were you people smoking when you voted in the “Monorail Tax”? There is a boondoggle (yes, I’ve ridden on it) that is even a bigger money loser than Amtrak. And to think pot has only been legal for a couple of years.
As for giving a time frame for the “Exodus”…that would be like trying to guess when the, multi-century overdue “Big One” is going to hit Seattle.
tensor says
I must be reading your charts wrong, because what I’m seeing is that King and Thurston counties are in 1st and 2nd place where General Fund money (what we ALL pay into) is going.
Try reading the entire chart, then do the math. You’ll see that King County does indeed receive the largest amount of state government spending, $4.4646 billion. It also leads in taxes paid — you know, the column on the same line of the same page, which you couldn’t even bother to read — with $6.8962 billion. That difference is well over $2.4 billion.
Also, while you continue to press the tired facts of higher welfare and food stamp funds funneling to Eastern Washington (thanks to Mr. Obama’s economic “recovery”),
Yes, the big-government transfer of wealth, in the form of welfare from King County to Eastern Washington has been going on for a long time, and is tiresome for us liberals to pay. From an article on the 2008 report:
To put this level of dependency in perspective, 83 cents out of every dollar Yakima County sends to Olympia is paid back in DSHS benefits alone. Tiny Ferry County actually receives more in just DSHS benefits—$1.14 on the dollar—than the total tax revenues it pays to the state! Schools, corrections, higher education, everything else… that’s all gravy.
Who was President in 2008?
As for giving a time frame for the “Exodus”…that would be like trying to guess when the, multi-century overdue “Big One” is going to hit Seattle.
Will that be before or after you vocally condemn Republicans in Eastern Washington for being “socialists” who refuse to recognize how “the free stuff IS going to run out, eventually”? Once again, I’m guessing the answer to all of these questions is a resounding “never!!”
Radio Randy says
“Who was President in 2008?”.
Uh, that would be the guy who preceded the guy who DOUBLED the national debt, during his term.
Oh, I did read the entire report and it isn’t just King County taxes that are being spent over here. A sizable chunk of my taxes are part of that equation, as well.
I am curious, however, why Liberals keep voting for more taxes if they are so tired of paying them?
tensor says
My question about the President in 2008 was intended to get you to recognize that Eastern Washington’s severe and chronic welfare dependency upon King County liberals predates the current occupant of our faraway White House. I’m sorry you didn’t pick up on that.
Oh, I did read the entire report and it isn’t just King County taxes that are being spent over here. A sizable chunk of my taxes are part of that equation, as well.
Yes, operating a huge welfare state costs money. But you keep missing the point: King County liberals provide the welfare which Eastern Washington’s conservatives consume. That Eastern Washington’s conservative Republicans actually pay for *some* of what they receive from government should not count as an accomplishment, right? (Please say you agree.)
I am curious, however, why Liberals keep voting for more taxes if they are so tired of paying them?
I didn’t say we were tired of paying them. But if you want to tell us when the “free stuff” should “run out” for Eastern Washington, please go right ahead. That should be little problem for a person with such fine morals as yourself.
Radio Randy says
Tell you what…if you can convince King and Thurston county liberals to vote for true Welfare reform (including downsizing DSHS, substantially), you might just get me and a large percentage of East side conservatives to start agreeing with you.
I may be mistaken (most likely, not), but it’s the liberal Democratic side of our government that refuses to “fix” the problem you keep referring to. In fact, some of our local “recipients” are moving to the West side (I have personal knowledge of this), because the benefits are better, over there.
Who knows…if this trend continues, you might just see King county spending more on Welfare and food stamps, over there than on the East side.
tensor says
There’s no need for whatever “reform” you have in mind. Simply lecture your fellow citizens of Eastern Washington to improve their morals, and stop taking so much “free stuff”. Wouldn’t they agree with you, that it must someday “run out”?
How about you lecture the true socialists the ones who consume the welfare, instead of a liberal who provides it? Or has your neighbors’ the welfare dependency been so bad for so long you have no real hope of ending it?
Radio Randy says
Great idea!
Oh, wait, Tim Eyman already created an initiative for that. The citizens voted it in and a liberal judge ruled it unconstitutional.
Can’t say we didn’t try…
tensor says
Any Initiative which would have both reduced taxes and spending would indeed have been ruled unconstitutional. But the constitutional limits on our Initiative process do not apply to our legislature, so our legislature can enact a law even if the original Initiative was declared unconstitutional. Why give up on a good idea after just one try?
Are you going to ask the Senate Majority Coalition to enact a program of tax cuts and spending reductions?
Or are you just resigned to living in a “socialist” welfare state where the “free stuff” will run out eventually?
Radio Randy says
It has been repeatedly shown how tax cuts help the economy and most, if not, all conservatives are for that. Spending reductions would have to mirror those cuts, obviously.
tensor says
Absolutely. Will you support tax cuts and spending cuts to reduce Eastern Washington’s chronic, severe welfare dependency?
Radio Randy says
I suspect that I am being baited into some kind of trap, here, but will answer…yes, I would happily support tax and spending cuts to relieve severe welfare dependency, anywhere in the state.
tensor says
No trap intended, I assure you. If we voters in Puget Sound enact ST3, we may need a vigorous statewide debate. Sound Transit’s taxing authority resides entirely within the borders of King, Pierce, and Snohomish counties, counties which are providers of more than 60% of our state’s tax revenues. In case of a conflict between the needs of ST3 and the needs of our state, the state may lose. In that case, new tax revenues, spending cuts, or a combination of both may be required, and statewide spending cuts would most likely hit Eastern Washington pretty hard. People used to getting “free stuff” might have some hard choices to make. Those are the entire reasons I’ve persued this line of inquiry.
Radio Randy says
You lost me at “new tax revenues”. I thought we were talking about tax and spending “cuts”.
tensor says
We are. I was merely noting that other residents of your part of the state might not want to give up their “free stuff” so easily. You were surprised to see how much wealth transfer happens from King County to Eastern Washington, and I doubt you’re alone in that. Their immediate reaction could be for more taxes (paid more heavily in King County, of course).
tensor says
I hope every opponent of higher minimum wages puts his money where his mouth is, and consumes multiple helpings of ice cream directly from the hands of low-paid employees who cannot afford sick time. Eat up! (Yummy…)
Morris Jones says
Just shows how low society has sunk. To think that we expect working the drive up window at McDonalds or ice cream scooper to be a career, instead of some cash to help individuals or enjoyment. Shows where government, unions, and economists have taken our country.
tensor says
Or the intent may have been to provide part-time workers who have other pressing demands — college students, for example — with the same money for fewer hours worked, thus allowing more study time. This helps to make this year’s low-wage kitchen help into next year’s tech worker, greatly improving her income — and helping her to obtain a career worthy of the name.
Under that scenario, it is the *opponents* of a higher minimum wage who want to keep low-wage workers stuck there forever.
Biff says
“it is the *opponents* of a higher minimum wage who want to keep low-wage workers stuck there forever”
It’s sad that you’re going to be stuck at $9.47/hr *forever* until Uncle Sugar steps in to help you. Me? I bettered myself and now charge 800%+ of the minimum wage for my time, all without the assistance of a government mandate. You may be able to do the same thing, if you peeled the “I heart big government” bumper sticker off the fender of your bike.
tensor says
We know few, if any, of your beliefs have even the slightest connection to any external reality, but now even your own self-fabricated delusions confuse you. I thought you claimed I rode a “gray bus” to my place of government employment every day?
$9.47/hr
My employer’s main office, where I work most days, is in Seattle (although I don’t wear a “gray” — or any — “uniform” while working, and we’re private sector), so you would have been wrong even if anyone at my employer worked for the minimum wage. I really don’t know how you can rant and rant and rant and rant about Seattle’s minimum wage, state I work
in Seattle, and still manage to get it wrong. It’s just your core competency, I guess.
I bettered myself…
Wait — you actually expect anyone to believe you used to be worse?!? 🙂
Biff says
Let’s see, I haven’t worked for minimum wage in 40+ years and you claim neither you nor anyone else at your “private sector office” works for minimum wage and at the same time state “*opponents* of a higher minimum wage want to keep low-wage workers stuck there forever”. So me, you and everyone else at your “private sector office” must have never started out as low wage workers because we aren’t *stuck there forever* Who exactly are these people that are incapable of bettering themselves without a government mandate? This is your cue to start with the vague generalities, since a specific example doesn’t exist, much like naming just one liberal economic policy that led to Seattle’s robust economy
tensor says
“Let’s see, I haven’t worked for minimum wage in 40+ years …”
I’ve never worked for the minimum wage, not ever, because even when I was a teenager, slicing cold cuts and making sandwiches at the deli, the owners — who worked right there beside me — proudly paid all of us who worked there “more than the minimum.” Why? Because they expected “more than the minimum” from themselves and from everyone who worked for them. That work ethic, borne of their willingness to pay for their higher expectations, remains with me to this day.
As for the rest of your tortured babble, which somehow seems to complain that highly motivated professional consultants actually needed a “government mandate” to get our engineering degrees (?!?), I regret to inform you it made even less sense than your usual output. Thank you for playing, I guess…
loverofliberty says
Actually, Tensor, I do put my money where my mouth is – by avoiding Seattle restaurants as often as I possibly can. We eat out 3-4 times a week, sometimes more, and our 20-25%+ tips currently make it into a Seattle server’s pocket probably 2-3 times a year. Most recently at Jazz Alley last night for a dinner show: a $189 dinner tab for the 2 of us plus $40 tip (close to 25% of the tab not including tax). Now that I think about it (thanks Tensor for initiating this thought), effective immediately we’re going to start going to the late show at Jazz Alley: dinner somewhere outside Seattle, then only drinks at the late show. That will likely be $50 (2 drinks each plus tax) plus approx. $10 tip. That’s a decrease of $30 for the Seattle server. Come to think of it, we’ll also have dinner outside Seattle this Wednesday (probably $80 plus $20 tip) when we go to a concert in Seattle. So, Tensor, you can rest in the quiet satisfaction of knowing you directly inspired one family (and probably more) to spend less, and tip less, at Seattle restaurants. At least their higher minimum wage will make up for a small portion of my lost tips.
Actually, Tensor, you also just helped me realize my mistake of having an ice cream dessert at a Seattle eatery afterward last night. I was struck by the small portion for a high price. Something didn’t feel right about it, and your post caused me to realize I was helping the restaurant owner pay the higher minimum wage. No more. Going forward, my helpings of ice cream (and associated tips) will happen only outside Seattle.Thanks for inspiring me to avoid eating ice cream in Seattle in the future, Tensor.
tensor says
…by avoiding Seattle restaurants as much as I possibly can, solely because of the increased minimum wage.
Many factors might go into the choice of dining out — price, location, type of food — so it must be a refreshing option for you to go instead with blind allegiance to your failed ideology. For you, it’s the preferable option to thinking, which you’re apparently not very good at anyway. For example:
That will likely be $50 (2 drinks each plus tax) plus approx. $10 tip. That’s a decrease of $30 for the Seattle server.
Fetching you two drinks from the bar is a whole lot less work for the server than bringing you two full meals. For the time and effort she’s spending on you, you’re paying her a lot more money.
…to spend much less, and tip less, at Seattle restaurants.
Because the dinner table you chose not to occupy went empty, is that what you think? (If so, do you really believe anyone will accept your claim of familiarity with Jazz Alley?)
You also just helped me realize my mistake of having an ice cream dessert at a Seattle eatery afterward last night. I was struck by the small portion for a high price. Something didn’t feel right about it, and your post caused me to realize I was helping the restaurant owner pay the higher minimum wage. No more. Going forward, my helpings of ice cream (and associated tips) will happen only outside Seattle.Thanks for inspiring me to avoid eating ice cream in Seattle in the future, Tensor.
As I wrote, you should consume many large helpings of ice cream, directly (and I do mean directly) from the hands of low-paid employees who cannot afford sick time, let alone health insurance. Eat up!
loverofliberty says
Tensor, nice try in your unsuccessful effort to once again obfuscate. I will agree, though, it is refreshing to have the option to eat in my local area, in restaurants where we know the waitstaff and owners of the establishment – and pay a significantly lower tab than in Seattle. For example, 8 delicious, large coconut prawns for $11, an excellent wedge salad for under $9 and a generous helping of halibut cheeks with veggies and potatoes for under $25 is an excellent value compared to Seattle.
Then we can top it off with a $3.25 scoop of locally made ice cream at another local eatery served by the business owner or a high school student who has the opportunity to build a work history. Versus $6 or so for a scoop of Molly Moon’s (good for her for building a following who will pay this). If you don’t mind, Tensor, instead of ice cream I think I’ll stick with my normal nice, big chicken salad with apples, nuts and a side of garlic bread for $8.50 from this same local business. It would likely cost $12.95-$14.95 or more in Seattle.
I didn’t spend much time thinking about this till now. Another round of thanks, Tensor, for getting me to focus on the fact that I can spend significantly less for the same dinner on the Eastside vs. in Seattle.
A drink or two at Jazz Alley will suit me just fine. Oh, by the way… while serving drinks does involve less work than serving a meal, the number of visits isn’t that much different: 6 visits to take order/serve 2 drinks/drop check/pay vs. 12 to take 2 drink orders/serve 2 drinks/take dinner order/serve salad/pick up plate/serve dinner/check back/pick up plate/drop tab/pay. 6 visits for $10 tip ($1.67 per visit) vs. 12 visits for $40 ($3.33 per visit). Hmmm, the server gets exactly half as much per visit for drinks only vs. drinks and dinner.
So the Seattle server is getting half as much for their time when I eat dinner on the Eastside, then go to Jazz Alley for drinks only. Tensor, I hear your local community college offers remedial math classes. I’d suggest you look into it.
tensor says
Your ideology states that parking lot attendants in Seatac and wait staff in Seattle do not deserve $15/hour, but despite your total belief in the validity of your loudly self-proclaimed economic expertise, they continue to have their jobs (and work hard at their jobs) anyway. Instead of recognizing that this demonstrates just how obviously your ideology is a failure, and thanking these hard-working folks for their fine service to you — and tipping them appropriately — you go around bitterly handing the former insultingly-small $1 tips for great service, and you calculate the tips you pay to the latter down to the penny (!) before giving them. (You also repeatedly make the empty claim that other people simply must be doing as you are — even though if many other people were in fact following your example, that would mean your ideology was actually valid, and therefore these hard-working folks would not have the jobs you begrudge them for having.)
…when I eat dinner on the Eastside, then go to Jazz Alley …
Now that we voters have enacted I-1433 in a landslide, you can claim you drive to Idaho for dinner before you go to Jazz Alley. Don’t worry — such a claim won’t reduce your credibility by even one little bit:
… for drinks only.
Ordering the item (alcohol) on the menu which has the very highest mark-up and which requires the least amount of labor to prepare, and then tipping the server accordingly: such behavior does not impose any kind of hardship on the establishment or the employees. That you can’t see this obvious point indicates just how utterly unqualified to comment on economic matters you really are.
(I’d suggest you take Introduction to Economics at Bellevue College, but the other students deserve better than having you yell, “NO IT ISN’T!!” every time the instructor makes a basic point.)
SouthernRoots says
Ice cream is on the list of things that contribute to increasing levels of childhood and adult obesity. Probably better for the government to step in and ban it “for our own good”.
jabwocky says
I’m just wondering, why don’t people get paid what the job is worth to them or others??
The minimum wage should be -ZERO-…
Otherwise, why would anybody hire a kid with no experience?? It costs money to train them, to even see if they can do the job… and it’s VERY SIMPLE, it you want to make more money, get better at your job, train to do another, or do something else…
This is a SIMPLE math problem, raises in minimum wage can sometimes even result with a negative buying power…
It can result in the exact opposite reaction of what it does, but just give more $$ to the unions…
Who we can see are only interested in their bottom line, and what increases it.
Radio Randy says
Sounds like food service is the only low paying job, out there…it isn’t.
I was working for $4/hr. in 1980 (below what I made in the military). When I suddenly was let go, I didn’t languish on unemployment or Welfare, I worked at odd jobs while studying for a commercial license. I got my license, then spent the next few months pounding the pavement until I got a better job. Then, I was moonlighting for a little more money to get by…no Welfare, no food stamps, nothing.
When an even better job came along, I took it…then, a better job, which I took. All of this without working at fast food OR a college education.
Nothing beats self determination…nothing! The new minimum wage is a worthless tool of the Liberals as it merely removes any incentive to improve your status in life.