DISQUS

John_B Dave: Been busy writing.

We're referring to different markets. You're talking about the travel, tourism, convention and hospitality markets and I'm talking about the labor market.

They're inter-related, certainly, but separate nonetheless.

The various hotel development subsidies do not, and should not, provide strings that the City can later tug upon for the sole purpose of furthering the unapologetically pro-union and "living wage" agendas of special interest groups like LAANE and LBCGJHC.

I would argue that it is precisely *because* of some of these subsidies that many low-income workers have decent jobs at all. Absent some of these subsidies some of these hotels may not have been built or may well have failed after opening for business.

Hundreds of jobs would therefore never have existed or thus been maintained.

I disagree with your assertion that acceptance of a government subsidy completely eliminates risk. Any business venture involves risk, especially in the past two decades, and the City’s subsidies have served to mitigate that risk for some businesses for various reasons, not the least of which is so that many of our residents could, indeed, find and maintain decent and gainful employment.

There is much fault to be found with this LAANE study but, as mentioned, I’ll develop that in my own column elsewhere.

Keep up the great work, Dave!

John_B Dave: I disagree with you and others on several points here and I say that even as I, myself, currently benefit in some ways from union membership.

I'm working on a column on another site that will explain...at least to the best of my admittedly limited abilities...where I part philosophical company with you as well as with the LAANE study you are citing.

But for now I'll simply offer this: The deplorable wages and abysmal working conditions prevalent when unions were originally formed to address them have long since been mitigated if not altogether eradicated...at least in this country.

Public and private sector employees are now protected by literally thousands of federal and state laws that mandate everything from minimum workplace safety standards to minimum wages and everything in between.

The primary purpose that labor unions now serve is as a vehicle through which employees may engage in collective bargaining with employers. This can be a valuable and sometimes extremely effective tool in negotiating for *better* (not basic...not minimal...and not so-called "living") wages and working conditions, and all persons who are so inclined should have an opportunity to participate in such a process if they so choose.

But, thankfully, there remains in this great nation the concept of a free labor market, wherein the buyer of labor and the seller of labor are supposed to be able to come together and negotiate in good faith for terms and conditions that best suit each. And each should be able to engage in such negotiations free from undue governmental interference.

This LAANE study is advocating that, among other things, City Leaders explore policy options for raising standards at hotels.

This recommendation is double-speak that, in essence, means that they would like the Long Beach to pass a so-called living wage ordinance similar to that enacted in Los Angeles in 1997.

Such legislative mandates (above and beyond existing minimum wage limit and safe working condition laws) have the net effect of harming the very same low-skilled, low paid, employment sector that they are intended to help.

To quote a PPIC Study on this very topic from 2005: “…Although living wages offer some assistance to some low-income families, they are not a panacea for the problem of low-wage work and poverty”.

I submit that the better approach is to allow prospective employers who refuse to offer competitive wages to suffer by their own hands. Eventually their good employees will seek employment elsewhere, where they can be paid what they feel they should be.

Thus the recalcitrant employer's product and or service will ultimately suffer and, likewise, so will its business. This condition will ultimately cost the employer more (in lost business) to continue to refuse to offer competitive wages than it would to simply raise its salaries.

This is a free market solution that does not involve artificial government interventions and has no down side for either party.

Individual liberty is thus enhanced and upheld, rather than circumvented and eroded.

lbresident I never said I was better than a poor person. Your comment is insulting.

All I'm saying is if you're poor, and you don't like it, do something about it. Improve your skills and get a better paying job. Don't say, I have this low paying job and I should be paid more just because I feel like I should make more money.

Dave Wielenga Actually, here are the points I ought to make. First, that you really can't positively refer to workers in industries that are unionized as examples of why unions are bad. Find other examples, I guess. But the other thing is that I believe that a world with unions is a second-best word---second best to a world in which workers are treated well enough that they don't have to go through the time-and-dues-consuming hassle of forming and operating unions. Unions are a response to poor management, and often a last resort. That's why they are so difficult to organize. If these hotel workers were being paid a living wage with basic benefits there would be no argument. But the hotels in Long Beach are being subsidized by taxpayer money to create jobs that bring down the quality of life and further burden the taxpayer. That's my only point; spend taxpayer dollars more wisely. And don't look at a poor person and use them as a way to make yourself feel better---as some kind of measuring stick that says that because you are not poor you are somehow better. That's not the point of the American experience; it's contrary to what's written on the Statue of Liberty.

lbresident First, that isn't true. Union or no union, Kobe would be making lots of money. He has tons of leverage because he is arguably the best at what he does in the world and has a skillset that is not easily replaceable. The union is irrelevant.

Second, my point is not that unions prevent people from making money. My point is that unions largely result in environments where performance is not rewarded as much as tenure. (Ex. teacher's union. There is no incentive to be a good teacher. As long as you don't steal or moleste a kid you won't get fired and you will make as much money as any other teacher. The teacher's union has created a horrible system that hurts education.)

If you have differentiated skills you will make more money. If you don't you will and should make less. Artificially creating wage floors results in many problems including higher prices, inflation, and reduced incentive to achieve.

Really, I'm just so tired of all the whining. If you want to make more money, improve yourself and do it. Nobody is stopping you unless you're in the teacher's union. Then you can't make more money for being great.

We're not going to agree on this. You think unions are good for the economy and workers. I think they slow the economy and encourage workers to make excuses for failure and accept mediocrity in themselves.

RJ_in_LB I do agree that there is a direct correlation between one's wages and the fair value of their skill set (the message that I think LBRESIDENT was trying to send). But, I do not think that Kobe or Brad are good examples to support your or LBRESIDENT's point - they would be doing just as well without a union due to the nature of their industries (entertainment).

Fundamentally, I think there is a problem. The problem is that there are so many LB residence that only qualify for jobs that fall into the unskilled and low income categories. This in itself is an issue. Note: These pay rates do not break any wage laws, nor do they underrepresent the value that I believe the employees are delivering.

By increasing the minimum wage for unskilled jobs, we would be positively reinforcing the pursuit of such jobs. This will make our community and its individuals less productive, less successful economically, and less educated.

LB should be incentivising its low income / unskilled population to obtain the education necessary to build a more valueable skillset, which they could then leverage into a more economically rewarding career. Instead, they are supplementing the income of these employees to make it more comfortable (but still a long way from comfortable) to exist as an unskilled / low income resident.

Furthermore, LBs incentive to build a newly valuable skillset through education should tie into the education of these individuals' children. What are these folks doing to ensure that their kids do not pursue a similar unskilled / low income future which would place the same burden on themselves, and an even greater burden on LB (larger population of unskilled workers). Unfortunately, parents' lifestyle creates a cycle with their children that repeats itself. Many unskilled workers today would most commonly suggest that we will have even more from the next generation. That's a big problem.

To completment its incentive for a higher skilled workforce, LB should refocus their incentives / subsidies to the high growth industries that the new economy is forecasting - new energy / high tech / new media. By attacting such businesses to LB, it will providing an environment in which the pursuit of higher skilled jobs is a reality. Without this aspect, LB will not be able to create a realistic roadmap toward healthy, sustainable job creation and such a local economy.

With that said, it is important for LB to maintain diversity in its community. This is because diverse environments are always the most enriching in which to exist. Among other types of diversity, this includes economic diversity. While not encouraging low income / unskilled roles in our community, we must also make sure that we never exclude them - make available mixed use housing, public education, etc).

RJ_in_LB I do agree that there is a direct correlation between one's wages and the fair value of their skill set (the message that I think LBRESIDENT was trying to send). But, I do not think that Kobe or Brad are good examples to support your or LBRESIDENT's point - they would be doing just as well without a union due to the nature of their industries (entertainment).

Fundamentally, I think there is a problem. The problem is that there are so many LB residence that only qualify for jobs that fall into the unskilled and low income categories. This in itself is an issue. Note: These pay rates do not break any wage laws, nor do they underrepresent the value that I believe the employees are delivering.

By increasing the minimum wage for unskilled jobs, we would be positively reinforcing the pursuit of such jobs. This will make our community and its individuals less productive, less successful economically, and less educated.

LB should be incentivising its low income / unskilled population to obtain the education necessary to build a more valueable skillset, which they could then leverage into a more economically rewarding career. Instead, they are supplementing the income of these employees to make it more comfortable (but still a long way from comfortable) to exist as an unskilled / low income resident.

Furthermore, LBs incentive to build a newly valuable skillset through education should tie into the education of these individuals' children. What are these folks doing to ensure that their kids do not pursue a similar unskilled / low income future which would place the same burden on themselves, and an even greater burden on LB (larger population of unskilled workers). Unfortunately, parents' lifestyle creates a cycle with their children that repeats itself. Many unskilled workers today would most commonly suggest that we will have even more from the next generation. That's a big problem.

To completment its incentive for a higher skilled workforce, LB should refocus their incentives / subsidies to the high growth industries that the new economy is forecasting - new energy / high tech / new media. By attacting such businesses to LB, it will providing an environment in which the pursuit of higher skilled jobs is a reality. Without this aspect, LB will not be able to create a realistic roadmap toward healthy, sustainable job creation and such a local economy.

With that said, it is important for LB to maintain diversity in its community. This is because diverse environments are always the most enriching in which to exist. Among other types of diversity, this includes economic diversity. While not encouraging low income / unskilled roles in our community, we must also make sure that we never exclude them - make available mixed use housing, public education, etc).

TheShore What changes have been made as a result of the Land Trust's questions? They have provided no meaningful contribution that I can see. The Land Trust should learn to work with the City where possible and work together on behalf of Long Beach residents.

I want to take advantage of this opportunity now to acquire the Wetlands. Things change and this deal might not be available a month or a year from now.

In response to Gordana (who I know in the community and like), what has the LCWLT provided towards restoration goals? Nothing as far as I can tell. In fact, when Councilman DeLong proposed at the last LCWA meeting that the LCWA move forward with developing a high level Wetlands restoration plan so that he could continue to work on Port funding for the restoration, his motion didn't pass. Did the LCWLT support his efforts to proceed with a restoration plan? No.

Let's stay focused on the goals - acquire the Wetlands and then restore them - and don't worry about whether it is Councilman DeLong, or Councilman O'Donnell or city staff or the LCWA or whoever gets it done. Let's not even worry about whether Tom Dean makes a buck. Let's just accomplish the goal.