Whistleblower hotline: (213) 785-6098

Wednesday, November 22, 2006

Clowncil Ignores "Equal Protection" Clause, Targets Handful Of Businesses For Higher Wages

The Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution declares that no state shall "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

The City Clowncil will be hearing and reading more about that clause, because today, apparently in honor of Thanksgiving, the Clowncil enacted a real turkey.

Rather than adopting an ordinance imposing an above-minimum wage on all businesses, or on all hotels, the Clowncil adopted an ordinance that singles out one group of businesses, in one part of town, for more onerous regulation than all the other businesses everywhere else. Specifically, the Clowncil adopted an above-minimum wage requirement for hotels near the airport.

Expect at least one lawsuit to be filed Monday. The Mayor isn't going to veto this one, my babies, because the primary beneficiaries of this illegal ordinance are the illegal aliens who work in those hotels.

You think I'm kidding? Nope. Remember the protests? Remember how the police and the protesters agreed in advance who would be arrested? That was so no illegals would be arrested -- not that it would have made a dime's worth of difference in light of our old friend Special Order 40.

Anyway, a lawsuit will be filed, and the plaintiff hotels will prevail. The Clowncil will then face a decision: back away from the uber-wage, or instead make our entire City even more hostile to business than it is already. I'm guessing the latter....


Anonymous Anonymous said:

You gotta start somewhere with a living wage since the minimum wage does not cut it for anyone living in LA. Good Job City Council!

November 22, 2006 7:57 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

You can not start somewhere! How outrageous. This still is the United States of America. What is good for one had better be good for all. You are a disgrace City Clowncil!

November 22, 2006 8:00 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

This is only the beginning. A higher minimum wage is long overdue. Hopefully, ALL of L.A. will have to pay a living wage REAL SOON.

November 22, 2006 8:13 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

"HIS POLLONESS" and the "MISTRESS OF LABOR" have decree to the "CLOWNCIL" that the hard working ill, err, Citizens be given the wages needed to pay for a decent living in the kingdom of POLLORAIGOSA and DURAZO. Shout out to the business community. The L.A. potiburo is paying you back for your support of "HIS POLLONESS" against Hahn.

November 22, 2006 8:43 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

I have no idea what 8:43 is talking about!

November 22, 2006 8:55 PM  

Anonymous Matt Dowd said:

I'll try to explain their side: City will claim that because the hotels are adjacent to the airport, and the airport is a fundamental asset to the success of the city, it is a compelling government interest to ensure the workers are fairly compensated to avoid future problems with strikes and or shut downs. the law will allow them to narrowly tailor their ordinance to meet that compelling interest, hence why this ordinance is targeted at the exact area of the airport. I say that City actually has a shot to defend this, because they tailored it. I'm not saying its fair, but you have to beat them on compelling, then you can win. 14th amendment as written doesn't count any more, we found that out in Venice. but I'll happily be proved wrong

November 22, 2006 9:13 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

8:43 says Villar is Pollo
and Durazno is a Hooker

November 22, 2006 10:03 PM  

Anonymous David Coffin said:

>>I'll try to explain their side: City will claim that because the hotels are adjacent to the airport, and the airport is a fundamental asset to the success of the city, it is a compelling government interest to ensure the workers are fairly compensated to avoid future problems with strikes and or shut downs.

So the logical extension of that arguement in future minimum wage laws will be that the City will claim that because the businesses are within the boundaries of the city, the 'city' is a fundamental asset to the success of the business, it is a compelling city interest to ensure the workers are fairly compensated to avoid future problems with strikes and or shut downs.

November 22, 2006 10:10 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

10:10 Higher Wages = More money to unions.

November 22, 2006 10:17 PM  

Anonymous David Coffin said:

10:17 Well yeah. But the tough arguement will be that the city is a 'fundamental asset' to the businesses success. ;-/

Does anyone want to make that claim?? ;-> Good luck....

November 22, 2006 10:42 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Hey, a raise in my pay is a fundamental asset to my success. My success is a fundamental asset for the city's success because I will spend more money. I live out in the Valley. Just how close to the airport is close?

November 22, 2006 11:13 PM  

Anonymous better than you said:

To 10:17 and David Coffin,

The pay raise will not give one dime to any of the unions.

Because this ordinance will only apply to non-union hotels.

And to 8:43 who clearly is the biggest IDIOT-POLLO on this blog if payback is what the Mayor cares about with unions then please explain his continual denial with EAA -- who by the way plan on doing some more LAME protest this weekend.

Serious IDIOTS all around.

November 23, 2006 12:39 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

12:39 AM

Mayor Villar and Labor Leader Maria Elena Durazo are the power couple of L.A. politics. She has been fighting long to get ALL hotel workers unionized. Her soncho, Villar is a very willing ally in this endever. The city council will not mess with these two because to cross them is to lose the flow of labor cash into their campaign coffers. in regards to EAA, their leader did not have the backing of Durazo for a strike.

November 23, 2006 8:12 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Now with the hotel increase I bet the hotel owners will investigate all those illegals now working for them and get rid of them to start to hire legal workers. You can bet other businesses will file suit because of the preferencial treatment of these workers just because its around LAX. These lame ass clowncil members should have passed a motion across the board for businesses. What about the hotel workers in downtown LA, around Universal City Walk? These bring in tourist $$$$

November 23, 2006 8:57 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Bring it on ...TO THE VOTERS!!!!

Who in the effing hell do these Mexicans think they are?????

Who in the hell do these illegals think they are???? What right do they have to be unionized???? Illegals HAVE NO RIGHTS. They should all be DEPORTED!!!!

LAX and the hotels have been here forever, and they don't need ANYONE to dictate wages to them!!!!

Why is one illegal (at the airport) better than another illegal?

Get rid of the Mexican mafia downtown and deport ALL the illegals!

If this doesn't go to the voter, who will most definitely veto it, it will just be another one of hundreds of reasons to get rid of AV and his corrupt regime. We have a litany of corrupt actions by these gangbangers. Enough is enough!!!

November 23, 2006 8:59 AM  

Anonymous stephen_c_foster said:

The term "living wage" is, to my way of thinking, an attack on the free enterprise system which is one of the lynchpins of our nation. Unlike Socialist thought (which states equal pay for everyone regardless of their skill or position) those in the hotel industry are free to move to other employment for better pay. The fact that L.A. has defined itself as being a "sanctuary city" (technically a violation of a U.S. Constitutional amendment banning seccession) leaves illegals little choice in their ability to move to other employment for better pay, for fear of deportation.

A higher minimum wage solves nothing, except for giving politicians another excuse for yelling about the high unemployment rate. The first thing that happens when minumum wages increase, is that industries tend to eliminate less-skilled workers from their payrolls, citizens and non-citizens alike.

Another effect is that it creates problems within the employee base in the private sector, as it affects those with more seniority adversely. They suddenly find themselves earning less proportionately to those with less seniority (who receive higher compensation from a minimum wage increase).

Couple a higher minimum wage increase with the higher tax rate the city is charging businesses, one can safely forecast that businesses will be forced to move elsewhere so that they can actually earn a profit. The city government will find itself receiving less tax monies, and start increasing taxes again, and the same downward spiral starts anew.

The best thing the city government could do is to cut business taxes. I overheard someone recently remarking that the city should adopt the supermarket model for business taxes. Supermarkets sell more products for less, as they buy in volumne, and pass their savings on to the consumer.

If the city offers a bargain for business taxes (and stays clear of legislation regarding wage increases), the city will receive more tax funds, not less. The reduced tax rate will attract more businesses who will be paying these taxes by volumne, and the city would not be in danger of losing more of its tax base.

I apologize to the other bloggers for this long comment. I hope to keep any future comments shorter.

November 23, 2006 12:58 PM  

Blogger Walter Moore said:

Foster: You are right re the need to eliminate the city's separate business tax. And guess what? The increase in the tax revenues the City received last year would have permitted us to repeal that tax altogether and STILL rake in about an extra $300 million.

The geniuses at City Hall, however, apparently do not realize that businesses have a choice when it comes to building a factory or office. Increasingly, and logically, they are choosing cities other than ours. We are left with little more than retail stores, construction, and a rapidly departing middle class.

November 23, 2006 1:38 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

A minimum wage is mandatory to offset the lack of compassion in today's companies/corporations. It is part of what is required to keep the greed in today's system of capitolism from creating the Corporate Lord served by serfs in a Corporate Fuedalism.

However, if we are going to create balance, thereby preventing corporate dictatorship, we must be "fair."

It is not "fair" to raise wages for some laborers and not all. Once more, it is not fair to raise wages for some laborers and not all. It is undemocratic.

Nor is there any reason to believe this is the start of something that will spread. This is about the ruling class not us peons.

November 23, 2006 9:18 PM  

Anonymous stephen_c_foster said:

Anon 9:18 pm, why do you insist upon using socialist rhetoric, to wit: "today's system of capitolism (sic) from creating the Corporate Lord served by serfs in a Corporate Fuedalism (sic)."

"It is not "fair" to raise wages for some laborers and not all. Once more, it is not fair to raise wages for some laborers and not all. It is undemocratic." I respectfully disagree. You seek to use a broad brush, disregarding such a thing called "merit increase"; do a good job, and a worker receives a pay raise. You say "undemocratic"; I respectfully agree... but then this nation was never supposed to be established as a democracy; it was founded as a republic, with the British parliament as a model.

Hence the separation of powers: The British king was the model upon which the Executive branch is based; unlike the British king, the head of the Executive branch (President) was to be elected not by popular vote, but by electors who were chosen by the popular vote. In this sense, all states within this model of a Republic would be represented, not just a few with the largest populations.

The legislative branch was modeled similarly after the British parliament (House of Lords, House of Commons), but ours are the Senate (2 from each State), and the House of Representatives (elected from each State based upon Census figures of population). These are the electors which I've mentioned in the previous paragraph.

The third branch is the Judicial Branch, which is rather self-explanatory.

If you still think this nation is a democracy, you need only to recite the Pledge of Allegience to find that no mention of a democracy is included. "... and to the Republic, for which it stands...".

November 23, 2006 10:33 PM  

Anonymous stephen_c_foster said:

Walter, I did not say "eliminate", I said "reduce" the tax rate. Income from business taxes is still needed, just at a lower rate than what is currently being charged today.

November 23, 2006 11:22 PM  

Blogger Walter Moore said:

But I DO say eliminate the tax -- all of it, 100%, and the bureaucrats we pay to adminster same.

The City's special, additional, tax on business income -- above and beyond sales tax, property tax, federal and state income taxes, etc. -- put our city at a competitive disadvantage. It discourages companies from locating here and putting our citizens to work.

November 24, 2006 11:39 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Help me out here Walter.

NO business tax at all? None? It is the only fair way that you can see? How does this work exactly? I am confused. You think everyone else in the city should pay taxes except for businesses?

I think I'm not in on the joke.

November 25, 2006 4:23 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Hello! 10:33 S. Foster

This is about MINIMUM wage not merit increases.

And as to all your republic rhetoric, think again, for we may have been created as a Republic, but we correctly think of ourselves, today, as a Democracy which is defined as: government by the people, either directly or through elected representatives.

November 25, 2006 11:27 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:


Clearly you have never run a business. No taxes on business? Give me a break. Payroll taxes (FICA, SDI, UI, Medicare, SUI, ETT, Federal Withholding and State Withholding), Property Taxes (whether paid as part of the pass through on the lease or directly as building owner), Sales Taxes on buiness equipment, Personal Property Tax (Yes, after paying sales tax the first time, you pay an annual fee on what the business owns), State and Federal Corporate Income Tax...nah, you're right 4:23 - why should busineeses get off without paying any taxes if we repealed the city business tax.

Clearly you do not understand that business pays far more than it's fair share already. Without all of these business taxes, the system would collapse. But of course you think that if we repeal this extra and unusual (compared to other cities) tax, businesses would just have a free ride. Nice analysis - too bad you have no clue.

November 26, 2006 9:53 AM  

Anonymous stephen_c_foster said:

11:27 PM - I disagree, this IS NOT about minimum wages, but rather the politically correct term of "living wages," and City Council should stay away from voting increases in minimum wages affecting a certain segment in the private sector. I notice that none of the restaurants in close proximity to LAX are paying more than minimum wages to entry-level employees, so why pick on the Hospitality (hotel) Industry, and ignore the Restaurant Industry?

And as for YOUR rhetoric concerning whether this nation is a democracy or a republic, it's obvious to me that you've never taken a class in Civics. A democracy is all about electing a national leader via the popular vote. A republic votes in representatives (electors) by popular vote, and these electors choose a national leader by their own popular vote.

November 27, 2006 12:45 AM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home