The Young Turks: New Law Could DESTROY Independent Music

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwpx-8Rl7lM

 

March 17, 2020. Tags: , , , , . Unions. Leave a comment.

California Wedding Industry Turned ‘On Top of Its Head’ by Freelancing Law

https://www.theepochtimes.com/california-wedding-industry-turned-on-top-of-its-head-by-freelancing-law_3222935.html

California Wedding Industry Turned ‘On Top of Its Head’ by Freelancing Law

By Jamie Joseph

January 31, 2020

TEMECULA, Calif.—Temecula-based destination wedding and event planner Michelle Garibay has run her business for the past 14 years without employees. Garibay has appeared in some of the nation’s most prestigious bridal magazines, including Style Me Pretty, The Knot, and Southern California Bride.

However, Assembly Bill 5 (AB5) has impeded her latest business operations, along with many others in her industry who use independent contractors. AB5 essentially prohibits freelance work, with a few exceptions; it mandates that businesses hire employees instead of paying contractors.

“This industry isn’t well suited to having employees, because the work isn’t steady,” Garibay said. “And the contractors I have working for me have their own businesses as well, and they’re moms with kids—they left full-time employment to be able to have the freedom to work as a contractor.”

In effect since Jan. 1, AB5 was passed by lawmakers in September to clarify a 2018 case, Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Lawmakers intended for the bill to protect employees from companies that label them as independent contractors to avoid giving them the benefits due to employees.

But the bill has had a collateral effect on small business owners and independent freelancers who have made this business model their livelihood.

“A lot of the businesses in the wedding industry are women-owned,” Garibay said. “This is a female-dominated industry, so it takes away our freedom. It really does negatively impact the women in the workforce who want the freedom to work at home and be with their families.”

The law was originally backed by unionized gig-economy workers, such as those working for ride-share companies Uber and Lyft. One of the main writers of the bill, Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez (D-San Diego), has received both praise and criticism for the bill.

“I’m sorry you feel that way. This is not a bad bill. Without it there would be no ability to freelancers to work under Dynamex. Also, thousands of workers would not have the protections they need. You want changes, that doesn’t mean the bill is bad.”

— Lorena (@LorenaSGonzalez) December 13, 2019

Due to the outcry and lawsuits from business owners and contractors in various industries, lawmakers are scrambling to write in exemptions. Earlier this month, Governor Gavin Newsom allotted $20 million in his proposed 2020 budget to enforce AB5.

Like many freelance-dominated industries, the wedding industry does not have a traditional work schedule.

Owners of small-scale wedding businesses hire contractors based on each wedding’s specific needs, Garibay said. It depends on the scale of the event. Both Garibay and her freelance workers are uninterested in forging a permanent employment contract, since those workers also have their own businesses.

When Garibay first heard about the bill, her reaction was to think about her team and “how unwelcoming this news would be.”

“They don’t want to be employees, they left full time jobs to do what they do now,” Garibay said.

Regarding the business owners who will have to hire their contractors as employees, Garibay said, “My heart goes out to those people who are going to be forced to bring in so much more [money] in order to pay the taxes that full employment requires.”

Small business owners in California already pay a lot of tax, and they will have to pay more to cover a portion of their employees’ taxes if they hire their freelancers.

California imposes both business and personal income taxes on small business owners who establish limited liability companies (LLCs), creating a double taxation on pass-through net income and the business itself.

Virtually all businesses in California are subject to at least one of three state income taxes on businesses: a corporate tax, a franchise tax, and an alternative minimum tax. Sometimes, small businesses are subject to all three.

To pay all these taxes, plus the added costs of hiring freelancers as employees, small business owners would have to increase their prices, Garibay said.

“This state is not very small-business friendly,” she said. “This is our main source of income to put food on the table for our families. It’s really cost-prohibitive when the state starts demanding that we now hire these people as employees because it’s going to completely throw this industry on top of its head.”

According to attorney Braden Drake, there’s an exception for business-to-business relationships within AB5 and there will likely be more exceptions carved out in coming months. However, in the wedding business freelancers who own their own businesses would not be exempted; they are hired for one day by the couple getting married, rather than another business.

Drake is working with small business owners to help them navigate the future of their businesses with AB5 in mind. “I’m trying to guide those business owners on how to meet those exceptions,” Drake said.

“We don’t know yet if they are going to enforce the law on California businesses who start hiring contractors outside of California,” Drake said. “What could happen is businesses could decide to relocate outside of California.”

Conversely, there are businesses in other states who are now refusing to work with freelancers in California, Drake said.

Small business owner Carla Kayes, a wedding and event florist in Riverside County—who has also been in the wedding industry for 14 years—is concerned about the industry’s future. Kayes has three part-time employees, but often hires freelance florists for high-end gigs, and said she was “sick to her stomach” when she first heard about the bill.

AB5 is “very unsustainable for my business,” Kayes said. “It’s kind of wiped out a whole industry of people here, and now people are hiring from out of state to get around it. The people that are in the state aren’t working. Literally everyone I know who is in wedding and events, they have to use freelancers consistently. It affects everyone.”

The freelancers Kayes hires “have their own floral businesses as well and fill in with work when they don’t have their own client bookings,” she said.

She plans to convert one of her freelance workers into a full-time employee, but can’t afford to convert more than one. Luxury wedding florists in Orange County, San Francisco, and more affluent cities who have to raise their prices to cover employee costs, presumably won’t experience a major negative impact, Kayes said.

“But for someone like me, who lives in Temecula, people are going to look at my work and say, ‘Oh, I can’t afford that,’” she said. “I think the lawmakers were completely unaware. I completely get the Dynamex case, and I think the employees winning that case were right, but I don’t think the lawmakers even knew how many industries would be affected.”

March 17, 2020. Tags: , , , , , . Unions. Leave a comment.

California’s AB 5 kills off 40-year Lake Tahoe Music Festival

https://californiaglobe.com/section-2/californias-ab-5-kills-off-40-year-lake-tahoe-music-festival/

California’s AB 5 kills off 40-year Lake Tahoe Music Festival

Another casualty in the quest to ‘save’ workers from ‘misclassification’

By Katy Grimes

March 1, 2020

California’s AB 5 has taken another life: The new law has now killed off the 40-year old Lake Tahoe Music Festival.

“After 40+ years of classical music concerts offered outside with family and friends, the Lake Tahoe Music Festival will call a wrap to our summer festival with two performances in August of 2020,” the official festival website says. The Festival also posted the announcement on their Facebook page.

Assembly Bill 5 by former labor leader Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez (D-San Diego), has already significantly limited Californians’ ability to work as independent contractors and freelancers. It was revealed during Senate debate in September that the AFL-CIO wrote AB 5.

The California Legislative Analyst’s Office estimates that AB 5 has already affected more than 1 million independent contractor and freelance working Californians.

Gonzalez can now add one more casualty to the growing list of 300+ industries impacted by the new law.

The Lake Tahoe Music Festival explained their decision:

New CA employment law AB-5 requirements add to the challenge of meeting our financial goals and create the final stressor on our small non-profit organization. For several years we have experienced the same slowly eroding philanthropic support of cultural life faced by other small arts organizations in our state. We now join many who also face increased uncertainty regarding employment costs and infrastructure needs associated with AB-5. So we will bring our festival to a close with pride in our long-time contribution to community life in North Tahoe and Truckee.

How is this “protecting” workers?

The new law, effective January 1, 2020, was passed under the guise of protecting “misclassified” employees. Instead, the law has caused thousands of freelance journalists, musicians, actors, Uber and Lyft drivers, and  millions of gig workers, to suddenly find themselves out of work.

Gonzalez and Democrats who supported AB 5 say the “unintended” consequences of the law now need legislative fixes. But that’s bunk. California Globe attended the legislative committee hearings on AB 5, and witnessed how lawmakers were warned over and over by hundreds of freelance and independent contractors of the consequences.

But California’s Democrats’ devotion to Big Labor Unions always wins.

While Gonzalez has finally reluctantly acknowledged that freelance journalists and photographers will get an exemption from AB 5 and its randomly chosen 35 freelance articles per year, there are now more than 30 bills in the Legislature changing or removing aspects of the law — at what cost? This was totally unnecessary.

Most recently, AB 1850, authored by AB 5 backer Assemblywoman Gonzalez, would exempt freelance and independent contractor writers and photographers and remove the controversial ’35 content submissions a year’ rule, California Globe reported. Assemblywoman Gonzalez and other lawmakers had been considering such changes since December of last year, before AB 5 was even law. So they knew this was a disaster-in-waiting.

Thursday morning, the the California Assembly rejected a motion by Assemblyman Kevin Kiley (R-Rocklin) to suspend AB 5 while corrective legislation is under consideration. Kiley’s Assembly Bill 1928 is an urgency measure to repeal AB 5 and would return the legal standard for independent contracting to what it was for decades before AB 5 and the Dynamex decision. Kiley proposed the Legislature suspend those recent changes pending further legislative consideration, but his bill was voted down by Democrats.

March 17, 2020. Tags: , , , , , . Unions. Leave a comment.

The Young Turks’ Progressive Founder Urged His Staff Not To Unionize

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/the-young-turks-progressive-founder-urged-his-staff-not-to-unionize_n_5e540686c5b6ad3de3823a32

The Young Turks’ Progressive Founder Urged His Staff Not To Unionize

In a tense meeting with employees, Cenk Uygur argued that a union doesn’t belong at a small news network struggling to make profits.

February 24, 2020

Top leadership at the progressive news network The Young Turks held an all-staff meeting at its office in Culver City, California, on Feb. 12. The regularly scheduled gathering was supposed to deal with personnel matters, but instead the focus turned to the staff’s nascent union campaign, which had just gone public.

Earlier that day, a Twitter handle claiming to represent TYT employees had announced on the social media platform their intention to form a union. In the staff meeting, the network’s co-founder and influential host, Cenk Uygur, urged employees not to do so, arguing that a union does not belong at a small, independent outlet like TYT, according to two workers who were present. He said if there had been a union at the network it would not have grown the way it has.

His talk ― at times emotional, the staffers said, with Uygur throwing his papers to the ground at one point, and chastising an employee ― seemed to contradict the progressive, worker-first ethos that TYT broadcasts to its millions of lefty followers. Jack Gerard, who is acting as the company’s chief operating officer as Uygur runs for Congress in California, told the staff they were not discouraging unionization.

But the message from Uygur was clear ― and, to at least some staffers, discouraging.

“We generally feel disappointed, but unshaken,” said one staffer, who spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of retaliation. “We feel it’s the right thing to do because of what TYT values.”

In an interview with HuffPost, Uygur said he is a strong supporter of unions, especially at large corporations that aren’t sharing profits with their workers. But he said he worries a unionized workforce would bring new legal and bureaucratic costs that TYT can’t sustain. The network has a growing subscription base and has raised venture capital money, but faces many of the same headwinds as other online media dealing with the collapse of ad revenue.

“The reality is we’re in a precarious position,” Uygur said. “We’re in a digital media landscape where almost no one makes money or is sustainable.”
He added, “For a smaller digital media company, those are absolutely real considerations. It doesn’t mean you shouldn’t have a union. Everyone should know the full context … If folks say they don’t believe we’re in a precarious position, OK. And that’s their decision to make.”

Uygur said he was caught off guard by the union effort that appeared on Twitter the day of the meeting, and that it was so early in the process he wasn’t sure if it was real or if he was “being punked.” He acknowledged that he threw papers in the meeting ― in a downward direction, not toward anyone, he noted ― and that he reprimanded an employee whom he believed to be smiling. According to staffers, Ugyer said it would be funny “later” — an ominous statement they found unsettling. He told HuffPost it wasn’t meant to be a threat.

“The person smiling seemed to be openly mocking the idea that the company might not survive after 18 years. And we put all this blood, sweat and tears into it,” he said. “I don’t find the idea of us going down funny.”

Media has become fertile ground for union organizing in recent years, with workers at both old, legacy newspapers and newer, web-only outlets seeking the protections of a collective bargaining agreement. The union push has made for some awkwardness at organizations with liberal reputations, where management may resist collective bargaining despite overseeing labor-friendly coverage.

The campaign at TYT comes with another wrinkle: Uygur’s attempt to fill the Congressional seat vacated by former Rep. Katie Hill, a Democrat who resigned in October amid an ethics probe into her relationship with a staffer. Uygur is running to the left in the Democratic primary. The front-runner, Christy Smith, a California assemblywoman, generally has the backing of the party establishment and many labor unions.

As the union spat became more public, Uygur suggested on Twitter that the union campaign was politically motivated by the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees, the union trying to organize TYT employees. IATSE endorsed Smith in the race. But staffers said their first organizing discussions date back more than two years, and their recent attempt to round up support began shortly before Uygur declared his candidacy ― a timeline confirmed by a union organizer.

IATSE has asked TYT management to voluntarily recognize the union through “card check,” saying a clear majority of staffers who would be represented have signed union cards. That has often been the course at liberal media organizations, so staff can avoid the pressures of a union election. IATSE would represent the production and post-production staff ― about a quarter of the company’s 65-employee workforce.

But TYT management has proposed having the workers vote in a secret-ballot election to be administered by a third party, outside the National Labor Relations Board. Management has also disputed the union’s proposed bargaining unit, saying some of the employees should be considered managers.

Uygur told HuffPost he wants a secret-ballot election because a few employees told him after the meeting that they do not support a union ― “some, not all,” he said.

“Am I supposed to say, ‘I don’t care what you want?’” he said. “That’s crazy.”

In recent cases where liberal outlets have resisted a union drive, such as at Slate, employees have typically ended up unionizing anyway, either through an election or a public pressure campaign that wears down the employer. Uygur acknowledged his position on the union poses a political problem in his Congressional bid ― indeed, Smith has already dinged him for it ― but said he wants staff to know the potential downsides of unionizing.

“Look, at the end of the day, my opinion on it is irrelevant,” he said. “It’s the employees who get to decide and who should decide.”

The TYT staffer who spoke on condition of anonymity described support for the union as “a solid majority,” and said it hasn’t frayed despite the turmoil of the past week and a half. The staffer also said colleagues are insistent on the company recognizing the union without a secret-ballot election, and including all the staff they believe should be part of it. They expected plenty of disagreements in bargaining a contract, but not a fight over the formation of the union.

“We love the company,” the staffer said. “We’re just getting the company to live by its principles.”

February 25, 2020. Tags: , , , . Unions. Leave a comment.

Democrats Threaten to Skip Next Week’s Debate Over Union Dispute

https://www.yahoo.com/news/warren-sanders-yang-threaten-skip-191620412.html

Democrats Threaten to Skip Next Week’s Debate Over Union Dispute

December 13, 2019

All of the Democratic presidential candidates who have qualified for next week’s debate say they will skip the event rather than cross a planned picket line at the venue.

The seven candidates — Joe Biden, Pete Buttigieg, Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Amy Klobuchar, Tom Steyer and Andrew Yang — all said Friday that they would not show up for the debate at Loyola Marymount University in Los Angeles next Thursday if the Unite Here Local 11 goes forward with its protest of food service contractor Sodexo SA.

The union, which represents about 150 Sodexo employees at the LMU campus, reached out to the campaigns on Friday to inform them they planned to demonstrate. The union and the food-services company have been negotiating for months but their talks stalled this week.

This is the second labor issue to complicate plans for the December debate. It had been set to be held at the University of California at Los Angeles’s Luskin School of Public Affairs. But the Democratic National Committee asked the debate’s media sponsors to find a new location because the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees demanded that the candidates to boycott it over a contract dispute involving patient care workers at the university’s hospital system.

“The DNC should find a solution that lives up to our party’s commitment to fight for working people,” Warren wrote on Twitter. “I will not cross the union’s picket line even if it means missing the debate.”

Biden said he would not cross a picket line and had to stand with the union’s members “for affordable health care and fair wages.”

Xochitl Hinjosa, the DNC’s communications director, said late Friday that the group’s chairman, Tom Perez, “would absolutely not cross a picket line and would never expect our candidates to either.” She added that the DNC was trying to find a solution that “will enable us to proceed as scheduled with next week’s debate.”

(Michael Bloomberg is also seeking the Democratic presidential nomination. Bloomberg is the founder and majority owner of Bloomberg LP, the parent company of Bloomberg News.)

December 16, 2019. Tags: , , , . Unions. Leave a comment.

Hypocrite labor unions are exempt from the very same local minimum wage laws that they helped to pass

Labor unions are responsible for passing local minimum wage laws in cities all over the U.S.

But in many of these cities, unions are exempt from the very same minimum wage laws that they helped to pass.

According to this article from the Washington Examiner, hypocrite unions are exempt from the local minimum wage laws in Chicago, Illinois, SeaTac, Washington, and Milwaukee County, Wisconsin, as well as the California cities of Los Angeles, San Francisco, Long Beach, San Jose, Richmond, and Oakland.

Why would unions support the passage of local minimum wage laws while simultaneously getting exemptions for themselves?

Something sinister must be going on. I don’t trust anyone who isn’t willing to live by the same rules that they expect everyone else to live under.

Apparently, the equal protection clause doesn’t apply to liberal hypocrites.

Shame on unions for not living by the same rules that they expect everyone else to follow.

December 31, 2018. Tags: , , , . Economics, Unions. Leave a comment.

Hypocrite liberals have rejected my challenge for them to buy a McDonald’s franchise and pay the workers $15 an hour

It’s been more than three years since I wrote the following:

I dare liberals to buy a McDonald’s franchise, and pay the workers $15 an hour

Liberals are always talking about how easy it would be for McDonald’s to pay its workers $15 an hour.

However, so far, no liberal has actually bought a McDonald’s franchise and paid those wages.

So, I dare liberals to prove that it’s as easy as they claim it is. I dare liberals to buy a McDonald’s franchise, and pay the workers $15 an hour.

Unfortunately, liberals have rejected my challenge.

 

May 24, 2017. Tags: , , , , , . Economics, Unions. 3 comments.

Italian court bans Uber because it’s BETTER than traditional taxis

Well this takes the cake. In Italy, a court has banned Uber.

Not because it’s dangerous.

And not because its customers were complaining about it.

Instead, the court banned Uber because – get this – it is BETTER than traditional taxis.

The legal term for this is “unfair competition.”

The complaint against Uber was filed by taxi driver unions.

I support unions when they do things that actually make sense, such as protecting the safety of coal miners.

I oppose unions when they do ridiculous things, such as trying to ban “unfair competition.”

If “unfair competition” was never allowed to exist, we would all be cavemen.

May 5, 2017. Tags: , , , , , , , , , . Police state, Technology, Unions. Leave a comment.

Why are California Democrats against letting union members see how their mandatory union dues are being spent?

In California, the government uses taxpayers’ money to pay a crossing guard to work in an area where pedestrians never actually cross the street, because there is an underground tunnel for them to cross. This job is a concession to unions.

One union member wanted to see how her mandatory union dues were being spent. There was a vote, strictly across party lines, against opening up the union’s books for people to see.

What is in those book that the Democrats are so afraid of letting people see?

 

May 5, 2016. Tags: , , , , , . Government waste, Politics, Unions. 1 comment.

Social justice warriors harass fast food employee who is just trying to do her job

This one fast food employee has more work ethic, integrity, and respect, than all of these social justice warriors combined:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E9trsPlvLnQ

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/04/15/fight-for-15-protesters-invade-fast-food-restaurant-invite-worker-to-go-on-strike-listen-to-her-instant-response/

‘Fight for 15′ Protesters Invade Fast Food Restaurant, Invite Worker to Go on ‘Strike’ — Just Watch How She Responds

April 15, 2016

A group of “Fight for 15” protesters invaded a Taco Bell restaurant in Austin, Texas, on Thursday and invited a worker to go on “strike” to demand more money and better working conditions.

The protesters’ message wasn’t well received by the employee, who said she just wanted to do her job.

After one protester informed her it was a “day of action,” the employee responded sharply, “This is also a job that I am trying to do.”

“Y’all are hindering my work, you may leave the building,” she added.

The apparent leader of the protest still finished his speech and invited her to go on “strike” and join the protest — but she didn’t seem interested in the least.

April 15, 2016. Tags: , , , , , , , , . Economics, Politics, Unions. Leave a comment.

Los Angeles unions that support $15 minimum wage want an exemption for themselves

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-los-angeles-minimum-wage-unions-20150526-story.html

L.A. labor leaders seek minimum wage exemption for firms with union workers

May 27, 2015

Labor leaders, who were among the strongest supporters of the citywide minimum wage increase approved last week by the Los Angeles City Council, are advocating last-minute changes to the law that could create an exemption for companies with unionized workforces.

The push to include an exception to the mandated wage increase for companies that let their employees collectively bargain was the latest unexpected detour as the city nears approval of its landmark legislation to raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour by 2020.

The City Council voted last week to gradually increase the hourly minimum wage to $15 over the next five years.

Last fall, the council approved an ordinance increasing the minimum wage at large hotels to $15.37 per hour. That law says that provisions of the hotel wage hike may be waived in workplaces that have collective bargaining agreements.

June 4, 2015. Tags: , , , , , , , . Economics, Politics, Unions. Leave a comment.

Would liberals please explain why union workplaces are exempt from SeaTac’s $15 minimum wage law?

The Washington Post recently published this article on the new $15 minimum wage law in SeaTac, Washington. The article states:

“… union workplaces are exempt…”

This exemption is wrong because the law is supposed to treat everyone equally.

But also, it is an extreme example of hypocrisy. It was unions who got the ball rolling on this $15 minimum wage. It was unions who said that all workers should be paid at least $15 an hour.

But now, these very same unions are getting an exemption from the very same law that they so strongly supported.

Would liberals please explain why union workshops got an exemption from SeaTac’s $15 minimum wage law that was initiated and supported by these very same unions?

 

September 7, 2014. Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Economics, Politics, Unions. 2 comments.

Unite Here says Obamacare “threatens the middle class with higher premiums, loss of hours, and a shift to part-time work and less comprehensive coverage.”

Unite Here is a union that represents 300,000 employees in the hotel and restaurant industries. It supported Obama in both elections.

In March 2014, Unite Here said:

“If employers follow the incentives in the law, they will push families onto the exchanges to buy coverage. This will force low-wage service industry employees to spend $2.00, $3.00 or even $5.00 an hour of their pay to buy similar coverage.”

“… the ACA threatens the middle class with higher premiums, loss of hours, and a shift to part-time work and less comprehensive coverage.”

“Obamacare will cost our members the equivalent of a significant pay cut to keep their hard-won benefits.”

“… it will inevitably lead to the destruction of the health care plans we were promised we could keep.”

April 1, 2014. Tags: , , , , . Health care, Politics, Unions. 1 comment.

SEIU, NAACP, and other left wing groups protest Koch brothers’ $100 million donation to hospital

In the past, donations from the Koch brothers were used to fund the invention of a cancer drug called Yervoy, which has saved the lives of cancer patients.

Now, the SEIU, the NAACP, the Working Families Party, and other left wing organizations are protesting against the Koch brothers’ recent $100 million donation to New York-Presbyterian Hospital. You can read about this absurd protest, and see pictures of it, here, here, and here.

March 17, 2014. Tags: , , , , , , . Health care, Politics, Unions. 3 comments.

Obama illegally gives unions an exemption from Obamacare’s “reinsurance” tax

Obamacare includes a so-called “reinsurance” tax.

In March 2014, Obama gave unions an exemption from this tax.

This was illegal for two reasons.

First, Obama made this change without approval from Congress.

And second, the Constitution requires that laws apply equally to everyone.

March 16, 2014. Tags: , , , , , . Barack Obama, Health care, Politics, Unions. Leave a comment.

New York Times: “Public Sector Cuts Part-Time Shifts to Bypass Insurance Law”

Before I get to the new article from the New York Times, I’d like to point out a few other things from the past.

In front of the U.S. Supreme Court, the Obama administration argued that Obamacare’s employer mandate is a tax.

This particular Obamacare tax only applies to “full time” jobs, which Obamacare defines as 30 or more hours per week.

So, Obamacare is a tax on full time employment.

Everyone knows that whatever you tax, you get less of. For example, after Obama increased the cigarette tax by 61 cents per pack in 2009, John Seffrin, chief executive officer of the American Cancer Society, said:

“Raising the price of tobacco products is one of the most effective approaches to encouraging people to quit and preventing kids from picking up the deadly habit in the first place.”

In July 2013, leaders of the Teamsters, UFCW, and UNITE-HERE, all of whom endorsed Obama in both elections, sent a letter to Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi which said that Obamacare will

“destroy the foundation of the 40 hour work week that is the backbone of the American middle class… the law creates an incentive for employers to keep employees’ work hours below 30 hours a week. Numerous employers have begun to cut workers’ hours to avoid this obligation.”

Now, The New York Times, which also endorsed Obama in both elections, is reporting:

Public Sector Cuts Part-Time Shifts to Bypass Insurance Law

Cities, counties, public schools and community colleges around the country have limited or reduced the work hours of part-time employees to avoid having to provide them with health insurance under the Affordable Care Act, state and local officials say.

Among those whose hours have been restricted in recent months are police dispatchers, prison guards, substitute teachers, bus drivers, athletic coaches, school custodians, cafeteria workers and part-time professors.

In Medina, Ohio, about 30 miles south of Cleveland, Mayor Dennis Hanwell said the city had lowered the limit for part-time employees to 29 hours a week, from 35. Workers’ wages were reduced accordingly, he said.

Lawrence County, in western Pennsylvania, reduced the limit for part-time employees to 28 hours a week, from 32. Dan Vogler, the Republican chairman of the county Board of Commissioners, said the cuts affected prison guards and emergency service personnel at the county’s 911 call center.

In Virginia, part-time state employees are generally not allowed to work more than 29 hours a week on average over a 12-month period. Thousands of part-time state employees had been working more than that

To hold down the work hours of school bus drivers, Vigo County has reduced field trips for children and cut back transportation to athletic events. School employees who had two part-time jobs totaling more than 30 hours a week — for example, bus driver and basketball coach — were required to give up one of the jobs.

The Obama administration says “there is absolutely no evidence” of any job loss related to the Affordable Care Act.

The American Federation of Teachers lists on its website three dozen public colleges and universities in 15 states that it says have restricted the work assignments of adjunct or part-time faculty members to avoid the cost of providing health insurance.

The University of Akron, in Ohio, has cut back the hours of 400 part-time faculty members who were teaching more than 29 hours a week, said Eileen Korey, a spokeswoman for the school.

February 28, 2014. Tags: , , , , , , , . Economics, Health care, Politics, Unions. Leave a comment.

Shaniqua Davis, it’s not McDonald’s fault that you chose to become an unmarried, teenage mother

By Daniel Alman (aka Dan from Squirrel Hill)

August 29, 2013

Recently, McDonald’s employees have been going on strike to try to get paid $15 an hour. Associated Press reports:

Shaniqua Davis, 20, lives in the Bronx with her boyfriend, who is unemployed, and their 1-year-old daughter. Davis has worked at a McDonald’s a few blocks from her apartment for the past three months, earning $7.25 an hour. Her schedule varies, but she never gets close to 40 hours a week. “Forty? Never. They refuse to let you get to that (many) hours.”

Her weekly paycheck is $150 or much lower. “One of my paychecks, I only got $71 on there. So I wasn’t able to do much with that. My daughter needs stuff, I need to get stuff for my apartment,” said Davis, who plans to take part in the strike Thursday.

She pays the rent with public assistance but struggles to afford food, diapers, subway and taxi fares, cable TV and other expenses with her paycheck.

“It’s really hard,” she said. “If I didn’t have public assistance to help me out, I think I would have been out on the street already with the money I make at McDonald’s.”

So, Shaniqua Davis says that it’s “really hard” to take care of a baby on what McDonald’s pays.

She’s right.

So why did she try to do such a thing in the first place?

Why did she choose to become an unmarried teenage mother?

Whatever her reasons were, it’s not McDonald’s fault.

Of course you can’t raise a family on what McDonald’s pays its cashiers. But that kind of job was never intended to be for people who are trying to raise a family. Instead, that kind of job is supposed to be for a teenager trying to get money to pay for the prom, or for a student who is working their way through college.

And what is this nonsense of having a baby out of wedlock, and then being surprised as how hard it is? Of course it’s hard. That’s why the institution of marriage has existed, in every society, all over the world, for thousands of years.

The article also says that Ms. Davis “struggles” to pay for her cable TV. This just shows how much things have changed in this country. In the past, being poor meant that you couldn’t get 2,000 calories per day, or that you didn’t have indoor plumbing, or that your roof leaked. But now, being poor means that you have difficulty paying for cable TV. My, how things have changed.

Ms. Davis and the other strikers want to get paid $15 an hour, but they don’t want to acquire the education and job skills that would justify such a salary. McDonald’s already pays some of its employees more than $15 an hour, such as its accountants, lawyers, and computer programmers. Those employees didn’t get those higher wages by going on strike. Instead, they got those higher wages by putting in the time and effort to acquire the education and job skills that justify those higher wages. Ms. Davis and the other strikers want higher wages, but they don’t want to provide anything in exchange for the extra pay.

What would happen if the government did require McDonald’s to pay all of its employees $15 an hour? One possibility is that McDonald’s would only hire people who had a college degree. If that were to be the case, Ms. Davis would end up getting paid nothing. Another possibility is that McDonald’s would replace its human workers with robots and self-serve checkouts. And again, if that were to be the case, Ms. Davis would end up getting paid nothing.

Note from Daniel Alman: If you like this blog post that I wrote, you can buy my books from amazon, and/or donate to me via PayPal, using the links below:

amazon logo

August 29, 2013. Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , . Economics, Education, Unions. 11 comments.

Unions that helped pass Obamacare now say it will “shatter our hard-earned health benefits” and “destroy the foundation of the 40 hour work week”

Three unions that supported the passage of Obamacare in 2010 (Teamsters, UFCW, and UNITE-HERE) have just sent a letter to Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi which is very heavily critical of Obamacare. Among other things, the letter states:

The ACA will shatter not only our hard-earned health benefits, but destroy the foundation of the 40 hour work week that is the backbone of the American middle class.

The law creates an incentive for employers to keep employees’ work hours below 30 hours a week. Numerous employers have begun to cut workers’ hours to avoid this obligation, and many of them are doing so openly. The impact is two-fold: fewer hours means less pay while also losing our current health benefits.

Our health plans have been built over decades by working men and women. Under the ACA as interpreted by the Administration, our employees will treated differently and not be eligible for subsidies afforded other citizens. As such, many employees will be relegated to second-class status and shut out of the help the law offers to for-profit insurance plans.

These restrictions will make non-profit plans like ours unsustainable.

We can no longer stand silent in the face of elements of the Affordable Care Act that will destroy the very health and wellbeing of our members along with millions of other hardworking Americans.

This is hypocrisy at its worth. All three of these unions supported the passage of Obamacare. All three of these unions supported Obama in both presidential elections. For them to now portray themselves as victims is absurd.

I’m not denying that Obamacare does all the bad things which they say it does. I think their claims about the harm caused by Obamacare are accurate.

What I am denying, however, is that these unions are “victims.” They are not victims. Instead, these unions are experiencing the consequences of their own actions. They chose to support the passage of Obamacare. They chose to help make Obamacare become reality. For them to now complain about its harmful effects is the height of hypocrisy.

July 16, 2013. Tags: , , , , , , , , , . Health care, Unions. 1 comment.

Unions that praised “free stuff” from Obamacare are now claiming that it’s “too expensive”

Associated Press reports:

Some unions now angry about health care overhaul

Obama’s Affordable Care Act has added to that cost – for the unions’ and other plans – by requiring health plans to cover dependents up to age 26, eliminate annual or lifetime coverage limits and extend coverage to people with pre-existing conditions.

When the unions were trying to help pass Obamacare, they said that those were good things. Coverage for children up to age 26! No lifetime limits on benefits! Coverage for pre-existing conditions! Yippee!

But now they are complaining that it will raise the cost of insurance?

Well, duh!

Did they really believe that those things were going to be “free”?

As time goes on, I am sensing more and more hypocrisy from the supporters of Obamacare.

Here are some previous examples:

Obamacare supporters are shocked that its opponents’ predictions of job destruction are coming true

Obamacare forces union to drop health insurance for children of more than 30,000 of its members

Al Franken, Elizabeth Warren, John Kerry, and 15 other Democratic hypocrites ask for delay in Obamacare tax that they themselves voted for!

Obamacare is encouraging restaurants to replace full time jobs with part time jobs

May 25, 2013. Tags: , , , , , , . Health care, Politics, Unions. Leave a comment.

Hypocrite unions that supported the passage of Obamacare three years ago are now complaining about its negative effects

Ha!

This is hilarious!

Some of the unions that backed passage of Obamacare three years ago are now saying they are worried about the negative effects that it will have on them.

The Wall Street Journal reports:

Some Unions Grow Wary of Health Law They Backed

Labor unions enthusiastically backed the Obama administration’s health-care overhaul when it was up for debate. Now that the law is rolling out, some are turning sour.

Union leaders say many of the law’s requirements will drive up the costs for their health-care plans and make unionized workers less competitive. Among other things, the law eliminates the caps on medical benefits and prescription drugs used as cost-containment measures in many health-care plans. It also allows children to stay on their parents’ plans until they turn 26.

Some 20 million Americans are covered by the health-care plans at issue

Top officers at the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, the AFL-CIO and other large labor groups plan to keep pressing the Obama administration to expand the federal subsidies to these jointly run plans, warning that unionized employers may otherwise drop coverage. A handful of unions say they already have examined whether it makes sense to shift workers off their current plans

“We are going back to the administration to say that this is not acceptable,” said Ken Hall, general secretary-treasurer for the Teamsters, which has 1.6 million members and dependents in health-care plans. Other unions involved in the push include the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union and Unite Here

Sheet Metal Workers Local 85 in Atlanta, which has about 1,900 members. Next year it must lift the $250,000 annual cap on the amount it will pay for medical claims. The law’s requirements will add between 50 cents to $1 an hour to the cost of members’ compensation package

These are the “low information” voters who backed Obamacare without knowing what was in it – and who chose to ignore the critics who pointed out these problems before the law was passed – the very same problems that the unions are now complaining about. The critics pointed out that these problems were timed so as to not take effect until after the 2012 election.

This reminds me of the Simpsons episode “Last Exit to Springfield” from season 4 where the union at the nuclear power plant agreed to give up their dental coverage in exchange for a keg of beer.

April 23, 2013. Tags: , , , , , , , . Health care, Politics, Unions. 1 comment.