Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Minimum Wage

This is topic Minimum Wage in forum Ground Level at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=5;t=000412

Posted by Ian Price (Member # 14) on 01-01-2002, 12:11 PM:

State minimum wage up to $6.75

Sonoma County already ahead of curve, but labor advocates push for higher pay
January 1, 2002

By PAUL PAYNE
THE PRESS DEMOCRAT

Californians making minimum wage will get a 50-cent raise today.

The increase, the second part of a two-part hike approved in 2000, brings the minimum wage to $6.75 an hour, a dollar increase from the $5.75 state minimum two years ago. The wage went up 50 cents in January 2001.

(We pay our staff between $6.75 - $7.50 per hour. We pay our assistants between $9 - $10.75 per hour.)

"I think it's kind of pathetic," said Alex Mallonee of the North Bay Labor Council, who estimates workers need at least $15 an hour to be self-sufficient. "Nobody can live on it." (About what Ky and I pay ourselves!)

California is now among 10 states with a higher minimum wage than the $5.15-an-hour federal minimum. Only Washington state now has higher minimum pay, entering 2002 at $6.90 an hour.

Additional increases could come again in 2003 under petitions and bills awaiting lawmakers.

Tom Rankin of the California Labor Federation said he will push for a higher wage, possibly as much as $9 an hour.

(Can you run your theatre while paying the staff $9 per hour? I'm not sure we can.)

(I guess $9 per hour staff meens $10 adult tickets, $7 Senior & Children tickets. I hope the public doesn't mind.)

Posted by Jim Ziegler (Member # 86) on 01-01-2002, 12:59 PM:

The large logic flaw in the whole minimum wage debate is that virtually nobody "lives" on minimum wage.. The irony is that, while attepting to help this non-existant group, the proponets cause inflation, which hurts everyone, especially those of lower incomes..

Posted by Joel Pantoja (Member # 1045) on 01-01-2002, 05:10 PM:

I have to disagree Jim, although it is true that no one "lives" on minimum wage, I have seen many families who work at minimum wage jobs (sometimes 2 jobs each for the parents) and pool their money to "live".

I belive that that there should be a "dependent" wage. So that a person who actually supports him/herself or a family can earn a minimum of $9.00 per hour while the teenager (dependent) who is still on their parent's tax return can earn a lower wage. Kind of like the "training wage" or the waitress/er "wage".

I know there are a lot of problems with this method but there has to be a way person can make a decent "living" and yet not have to work two jobs and seven days a week.

Just my opinion...

Posted by Andy Muirhead (Member # 712) on 01-01-2002, 06:47 PM:

The government in the UK put in place a minimum wage earlier this year. All employees over the age of 21 should get £4.10 an hour. As senior projectionist, my wage before was £4.07, projectionists were £3.80, and a cashier was £3.30.

I have 9 years experience full time as a projectionist. What happens now is someone of my age (27) can walk in, get a cashier job at £4.10 an hour. I have been in the industry 9 years, and my pay has only been bumped up to £4.25!!! That means my 9 years of experience working full time is only worth an extra 15pence an hour

Posted by John Walsh (Member # 168) on 01-01-2002, 06:59 PM:

I think the thought behind "minimum wage" is not what a particular job is worth, it just the goverment saying "Under no conditions are you allowed to pay less than *this*..."

Don't forget, this is capitalism at work; paying what the market will bear. Being a projectionist no longer requires much skill to simply get a picture and sound on screen. It may be scratched and sound like shit, but the public (and hence, managment) do not seem to care.

Posted by Jim Ziegler (Member # 86) on 01-02-2002, 04:22 AM:

Capitalism indeed keeps wages in line. In my area, we start out all employees at more than a dollar above the minimum wage, and my average employee makes around $7...

One thing that also never gets considered is that some employers may not be able to absorb the increased costs, and may have to, instead, eliminate hours and positions.

Posted by Aaron Mehocic (Member # 15) on 01-03-2002, 02:30 PM:

This is just liberalism gone mad (as usual). I could leave the theatre I work at and for eleven years and make more money tending the counter at a conveinence store. Call Ted Kennedy for his lame-ass excusses on raising the minimum wage. I wish I made more as an operator, but I won't leave for pay sake. I like the booth to much just to tell kids their too young to buy cigarettes (more liberalism)

Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 01-03-2002, 04:25 PM:

I imagine $7.00 an hour goes a lot further in Kansas City that it does in Sonoma County California. If the wage earner is a kid still living with parents at home, then such a wage may not be too bad. But if that wage earner is living on his/her own (no roommate, no working spouse yet), $7.00 an hour simply doesn't make the rent, let alone the house payment, in almost any of the metro areas of California or Nevada, unless one doesn't mind living in a slum.

Paul
Mercenary film/video projectionist
IATSE '74-'94 "I Am Tired of Seeking Employment"

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 01-03-2002, 06:17 PM:

Aaron, I don't mean to start a political debate, but are you one of those people who calls radio shows and blames all of the worlds problems on "liberals"? Of course, if you are not "liberal" you can do no wrong. I don't consider myself a "liberal" and lean more towards the Republican side, but not always. I'm not really into politics and it only pisses everyone off. My whole point? One group can't be blamed for everything. That's kind of like the Taliban blaming "the great satan" for everything. How silly is that?

Posted by Dave Williams (Member # 299) on 01-04-2002, 02:35 AM:

Are you the GREAT SATAN Joe? I seem to recall you stating at one point that you were.

As for minimum wage, It does suck. But us theaters would be SOL if they really upped it.

UNLESS congress steps in and forces the studios to go back to the 53/47 deal we had for so very long. What the hell is this 90/10 crap?

Dave

Posted by Jim Ziegler (Member # 86) on 01-04-2002, 04:23 AM:

If you were trying to live off $7 an hour in KC you will be living in the 'hood... The thing is, every job out there is not of equal importance. A doctor is worth more than a trashman, so the doctor makes more. A manager is worth more than an employee, so the manager makes more. Before raising the minimum wage, think about what will happen to all those jobs whose value is below the minimum wage? The person trying to make a living off the minimum wage job (who are extremely rare overall) may very well fall victim to job cuts made necessary by increasing the minimum wage..

Posted by Chad Souder (Member # 343) on 01-04-2002, 01:43 PM:

Joel said - "I know there are a lot of problems with this method but there has to be a way person can make a decent "living" and yet not have to work two jobs and seven days a week."

There is, it's called developing a marketable skill (through college or an apprenticeship or whatever) and increasing your personal value. Minimum wage increases, among other things, is a way for people that have no real motivation to increase their own value to get a raise anyway, only to have to turn around and pay more for their next hamburger to pay someone else's wage hike.

By the way, Aaron. You're on the right track with your ideas, just be careful not to be insulting when you slam the libs, or it will only take away from your arguement.

------------------
"Asleep at the switch? I wasn't asleep, I was drunk!" - Homer Simpson

Posted by Jerry Chase (Member # 660) on 01-04-2002, 03:16 PM:

"A doctor is worth more than a trashman, so the doctor makes more. "

Not always. The fellows riding the garbage trucks here get big bucks and a short work week. Doctors tied to HMOs get to work long hours and get screwed by the HMOs. I'd be willing to bet that on a per hour basis, the trashmen earn more. Career opportunities might be a little limited though.

FWIW, increases in minimum wage usually follow inflation rather than leading it. If we didn't have inflation, the whole issue of increasing minimum wage would be moot. I notice than inflation has occurred both under liberal and conservative administrations, so a pox on both their houses.

Posted by Joel Pantoja (Member # 1045) on 01-05-2002, 12:03 AM:

Chad,

I guess I see the minimum wage job as either the place people are trained to work for jobs to come, a part-time job to hold while they go to school to "develop a marketable skill," or the place where people go when there isn't anything else. In all the years I've worked around those who made minimum wage I can only remember one person who was just working a minimum wage job without any expectation or motivation to do better. But then again, he was a high school student who's father was rich and I guess just wanted him out of the house. The kid drove a sports car, knew he was college bound, and his father matched the "minimum wage" he was paid dollar for dollar.

I still believe that the two tier minimum wage might help. The kid at his first job and still at home being supported by the parents should have lower pay. However, those that are working their way through college or a tech school, laid off because the dot com job just released them along with 4000 of his/her co-workers or the factory employee who was laid off because it is cheaper to move the factory to a country with no minimum wage, should have the opportunity to work at a good paying "temporary" job while they get back on their feet. Give them a reason to not just accept the unemployment insurance and get out there and fill those low paying jobs. I couldn't help but notice that even today as I was out shopping with my wife there were several places that had "now hiring" signs in a city where there have been thousands of layoffs in the last six months. (My dot com friend chose the unemployment pay and took some time off, when the money stopped he got a temporary "lower" paying job until another "high" pay full time job came along.)

Maybe I agree with you in a way though, I have many friends who work union jobs. Everything from grocery store baggers, dock workers, police officers and some teachers that all seem to get good pay with built in "cost of living" raises, on top of constatnt negotiations for more pay. Now there I have seen examples of the "no real motivation to increase their own value" that you spoke of in your post. It is possible that I just happen to know a lot of union employees with a poor attitude and low work ethics but I think that those that I do know with this attitude have it because they know how difficult it is for them to get fired.

So, are those that earn minimum wage just another form of union worker? Do some have an attitude because they're not going to loose any status in pay when they get fired and find another minimum wage job? Maybe, and in that way I do agree that we can't have a minimum paying job where people do not feel the need to advance.

Joel

:::Stepping down from my soap box, picking it up and taking it with me to the long-winded annonymous meeting. :::

P.S. Union guys and gals I don't mean to offend all of you, just the ones with the the establishment attitude. Both my mother and father were union employees and they (along with 95% of their friends) were two of the hardest working people I knew. However, I believe they were grateful for the opportunity to work in such a good paying job. See they had worked in the fields and packing sheds before that and knew what a real minimum jobs was. I know that my one day of picking cucumbers (on a dare) gave me the motivation not to loose my first minimum wage job. (I never even went back to pick up my check.)

:::Joel has left the building!!!:::

Posted by Jim Ziegler (Member # 86) on 01-05-2002, 02:17 AM:

The problem I se wiht the 2-tiered system is that it can actually hurt the people it is supposted to help.. Should the theatre manager hirer the teenager for $6 or the adult for $8? Most would probably choose the teenager for $6...

Posted by Brent Mahaney (Member # 1090) on 01-05-2002, 02:26 AM:

In the hypothetical case of a marginally successful theatre, a minimum wage increase leaves A WHOLE BUNCH of existing jobs hanging in the balance. If the theatre has to raise the cost of doing business, how can they possibly survive? They can't. Raised prices would drive away customers with a limited income.

Also, any time you mandate a wage increase, it is blatantly obvious that you're going to reduce entry-level jobs. Companies will eliminate many positions to cut their costs. I mean, when you force a company to pay more for people who don't have any experience, you're going to screw those workers because they just won't get hired.

And I agree that supply and demand tends to take care of wages in different areas of the country.

Congress needs to find ways to ENCOURAGE businesses to hire, not mandate employers to hire low-skilled employees at an astronomical cost.

Posted by Joel Pantoja (Member # 1045) on 01-05-2002, 04:40 PM:

Your right Jim, if I were an owner I might just hire the kid. Especially if it was hard to make ends meet. Like I said it's just and idea. I imagine some day I'll become an owner and see for myself.

Brent, in the end though it should not be the government who has to raise minimum wage. If the coporate world would give up some of the benefits of making money back to it's employees (from the top all the way to the bottom) the government wouldn't need to raise minimum wage. Why is it that PG&E declared bankruptcy, laid off people and then tried to give million dollar bonuses to the top people?

I now work for a man who pratices what I propose. Granted he loves his line of work and would more than likely do it for free. (Actually with the fees he charges he practically does). However we know that the three most important things in his business is not letting the government get more taxes than they deserve, keeping his clients from paying more than their fair share, and keeping his employees happy.

One of the ways he does this for his employees is by paying us a moderate wage during the year and at the end of the year taking the net profit and paying all of us a huge bonus, from the janitor all the way up. I get about 25% of my yearly salary as a bonus at the end of the year and I'm one of the lowest paid there. Can I make more somewhere else? Maybe, but this guy cares about his employees and we care about him.