Whistleblower hotline: (213) 785-6098

Friday, February 23, 2007

Mayor to Sign Living Wage Bamboozle

Following Wednesday's Council approval of what was supposed to be a compromise measure on the so called "living wage" with the business community, pundits were expecting Mayor Villaraigosa to sign the measure.

The Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce joined with business leaders across the city to qualify a referendum on the bill to go before voters. However, rather than face an election, the Council rejected their original measure with assurances to the business community that the new law would be different. The Chamber came out against the measure Thursday.

Political consultant Harvey Englander - representing the hotels in the airport corridor affected by the measure - anticipates a legal challenge to the new law.

One of the arguments living wage proponents make is that the hotels benefit from the investment the city has made in the airport, therefore they "owe" the employees whatever the Clowncil thinks they should be paid. This fallacy of an argument could dangerously be extended to other areas (why not extend living wage to the employees of gas stations that benefit from being adjacent to city streets?), as well, ignores the fact that the hotels and other businesses in the area benefit the airport.

Kudos to Council Members Parks, Zine and Smith - the three individuals who come about as close to Republicans as one could hope for - who each voted against the measure.


Blogger Walter Moore said:

If you go back to this posting, and scroll down, you'll find my brief video with free legal advice to the Mayor re this ordinance.

February 23, 2007 9:01 AM  

Blogger Archie Bunker said:

What a crock of s***!

You want to make living in LA more affordable, Quit taxing the hell out of the businesses and residents.

The tax and waste politicians on both sides from Looney Liberals and Cooky Conservatives are to blame for this.

February 23, 2007 10:26 AM  

Blogger Walter Moore said:

There's no longer any such thing as "conservatives" and "liberals." Both major parties are nothing more than fronts for well-funded special interest groups. The "conservatives" vs. "liberals" thing is the modern equivalent of "bread and circuses," to distract us peons while we are robbed to provide welfare to the rich.
I'm neither "liberal" nor "conservative." I'm now a populist.

February 23, 2007 12:53 PM  

Blogger Archie Bunker said:



That is why I use both labels interchangibly when I discuss these matters.

Terms like Liberal Media and Right Wing Slant are just smoke and mirrors, entertainment for the masses.

Think about it how many "Media organizations" are owned and funded by "Liberals"? They're not, how come Air America and the others can barely stay afloat. These outlets are owned by the rich. If I recall the Roman Empire started doing stuff like this before their downfall.

February 23, 2007 1:03 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

You used to be a lot more amusing, Bunker. Now you just sound like every other generically pissed-off curmudgeon on the blog.

What's up? "Edith" up and leave you (or maybe come back, too soon)?

February 23, 2007 2:22 PM  

Blogger Walter Moore said:

Archie, may I?

Anonymous, you're a meathead.

February 23, 2007 3:12 PM  

Blogger Archie Bunker said:


Well look everybody, it's Rob Reiner.


(Cyber handshake)

Thanks Walter.

February 23, 2007 4:52 PM  

Anonymous mickey_finn said:

Hummph! I've often thought of starting my own political party...

The Straight-Talking American Government Party.

February 23, 2007 5:29 PM  

Blogger Walter Moore said:

This country needs a moderate third party that combines elements of both the old Democratic and Republican parties. Basically, it would be fiscally "conservative" and socially "liberal," i.e., limited taxes, limited spending, isolationist foreign policy, and limited involvement in people's private lives. But it wouldn't be Libertarian, either, because this party would favor control of our borders, building codes, zoning, public fire departments, etc.

February 23, 2007 6:42 PM  

Anonymous former Republican said:

Agreed Walter, both parties are ethically and substantively bankrupt; waterboys for their corporate masters. Here is yet another example of an idiotic, dangerous program pushed by open-borders Bush, arguably the worst president ever (don't worry, I'm just posting excerpts):

Associated Press Writer
Fri Feb 23, 4:37 PM ET
The news that Mexican trucks will be allowed to haul freight deeper into the United States drew an angry reaction Friday from labor leaders, safety advocates and members of Congress..

They said Mexico has substandard trucks and low-paid drivers that will threaten national security, cost thousands of jobs and endanger motorists on the northern side of the Mexican border.

February 23, 2007 10:29 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

We need a third party like we need a hole in the head. Remember the Reform Party? Gone on the ash heap of history. Thank you, Pat Buchanan!

Walter, you need to re-register as a Republican and run Linda and Doug Boyd out of the Republican Party.

February 23, 2007 11:22 PM  

Anonymous Noel Weiss said:


Your views are vintage 1907 - Unfortunately, this is 2007. Your arguments are old, they are hackneyed, and they were rejected both legally and socially as long ago as 1935 - when the US Supreme Court (in another hotel workers case) approved the constitutionality of the Congress approving a minimum wage.

There are limits, Walter, where a social moral imperative directs that society's resources be reallocated just a bit so that honest hardworking people can make a living wage.

It's good for the hotels as well to have well-motivated, fairly paid people.

Major businesses who might be fearful of an epidemic should reconsider their social priorities.

It is a proper role of government to reflect our values as a society and begin to draw some basic lines on what does and what does not constitute a core, basic, value-based fair labor practice.

Those hotel operators who benefit from all of the "goodies" the City provides by being near the airport who can't see their way clear to providing a basic living minimum wage to their hotel workers should leave the market so that others who possess the business skill and compassion to do so can demonstrate how it can be done.

Noel Weiss

February 24, 2007 12:24 AM  

Blogger Antonio Watch said:

This comment has been removed by the author.

February 24, 2007 2:01 AM  

Blogger Antonio Watch said:

I had no idea that a hotel's revenues were considered society's resources.

February 24, 2007 12:14 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home