U&L case study on raising minimum wage...
Posted: Fri Jun 06, 2014 4:58 pm
So the community of SeaTac south of Seattle has passed a city ordinance that pays certain hospitality and service workers a minimum wage of $15 per hour. The major employer in the area is the Seattle airport also called Sea-Tac.
One of the big factors supporters of this rule kept going back to was "living wage.". They claimed that the wages paid previously were not enough for employees to live on, especially those with kids. Business owners of course weren't happy with this and fought it prior to passage and some have succeeded in court with injunctions.
For people this rule affected, change has been constant, it is up to them to decide if that change is positive or negative.
One example is Alaska Airlines. Their ramp rats were employees who were affected by this rule. For most this doubled or nearly doubled their hourly pay. Alaska airlines who operates their largest hub in Seattle would have seen labor costs rise substantially, decided to outsource the ramp work to a sub. So the employees suddenly found themselves working for a contractor. As part of that they lost many of their other benefits. They now can't fly Alaska for free on passes, they no longer have a pension, the health care plans are more expensive, parking isn't free and the new employer prohibits overtime.
Another example is hotel maids and front desk staff. Some chains have multiple properties in the general area. So, this creates wages at one property that are double the ones down the street a few blocks. How do they handle that? One of the chains has decided that they will make all hourly jobs at the Sea-Tac location part time. So these employees will no longer qualify for benefits such as medical, 401K, vacation time, etc. Another chain will rotate employees between locations so that each employee works at the Sea-Tac property one day a week.
So is this wage hike a good thing for employees?
Are their jobs that are entry level that shouldnt pay a living wage, or should every job pay a living wage?
One of the big factors supporters of this rule kept going back to was "living wage.". They claimed that the wages paid previously were not enough for employees to live on, especially those with kids. Business owners of course weren't happy with this and fought it prior to passage and some have succeeded in court with injunctions.
For people this rule affected, change has been constant, it is up to them to decide if that change is positive or negative.
One example is Alaska Airlines. Their ramp rats were employees who were affected by this rule. For most this doubled or nearly doubled their hourly pay. Alaska airlines who operates their largest hub in Seattle would have seen labor costs rise substantially, decided to outsource the ramp work to a sub. So the employees suddenly found themselves working for a contractor. As part of that they lost many of their other benefits. They now can't fly Alaska for free on passes, they no longer have a pension, the health care plans are more expensive, parking isn't free and the new employer prohibits overtime.
Another example is hotel maids and front desk staff. Some chains have multiple properties in the general area. So, this creates wages at one property that are double the ones down the street a few blocks. How do they handle that? One of the chains has decided that they will make all hourly jobs at the Sea-Tac location part time. So these employees will no longer qualify for benefits such as medical, 401K, vacation time, etc. Another chain will rotate employees between locations so that each employee works at the Sea-Tac property one day a week.
So is this wage hike a good thing for employees?
Are their jobs that are entry level that shouldnt pay a living wage, or should every job pay a living wage?