The best thing about the Seattle Times hiring Erik Smith, is that finally there’s somebody on the paper’s editorial board with the courage to give a voice to Seattle’s downtrodden business community:
A rare voice on minimum wage
Howard Behar, former president of Starbucks, explains why he supports a referendum campaign that would send Seattle’s minimum-wage ordinance to the ballot.
That’s Smith’s column and kicker. Really. Because there is nothing rarer in American politics than the voice of a rich white guy.
Seattle’s business community didn’t put up much of a fight when the City Council passed its highest-in-the-country $15 minimum-wage ordinance this month — at least not the united opposition that might be expected in a city of lesser size.
Um, there’s a difference between not putting up much of a fight, and losing. And they didn’t completely lose, either. No, Seattle’s business community didn’t win a permanent tip credit or “total compensation”, or the lower $12 minimum wage for which many business leaders belatedly fought. But they did get what amounts to an eleven-year phase-in before all Seattle workers will earn the inflation-adjusted equivalent of about $14.50 an hour in cash take-home pay in the year 2025.
But at long last, Howard Behar has had it with that talk of “sticking it to the man.”
“First of all, it’s not just the man anymore,” he says. “It’s the man and the woman. But is that what we think this is about? We’re trying to get somebody?”
Well then, he should stop watching re-runs of The Mod Squad, because I’m not sure I’ve heard anybody actually use that phrase since the early 1970s. I mean, I love “the man” as an apt metaphor for the way society actual works, but then, I’m old. I’m over fifty. “Sticking it to the man” is about as much a part of modern American parlance as “groovy” or “the cat’s pajamas.”
And no, $15 was not about “trying to get somebody.” It was about trying to get somebody a living wage. The rhetorical focus was always on the plight of the working poor. That’s why fast food workers became the symbol of the movement.
If anyone is the man, it is Behar. He is the former president of Starbucks, the Seattle-based coffeehouse chain with more than 20,000 outlets worldwide. Though Starbucks is one of the world’s most recognizable brand names, it was not vilified during the campaign by union organizers and political activists in the same way as favorite corporate targets McDonald’s and Wal-Mart.
So wait. Behar is “the man”…? And nobody talked about “sticking it” to him…? Now I’m just confused.
The company prides itself on the fact that it pays a bit more than the current minimum wage, provides health insurance for its employees and recently implemented a college tuition benefit.
Starbucks baristas average less than $9 an hour nationwide, only 42 percent of employees are actually covered by Starbucks’ health insurance (less than Walmart!), and it turns out the company’s much ballyhooed tuition benefit program isn’t all that much of a benefit. Starbucks is far from the worst company in the world to work for, but it isn’t a charity.
Yet, with a corporate headquarters about a mile from Seattle City Hall, the company is affected by the raised minimum wage as clearly as the smallest espresso hut along Highway 99.
And your point is… what? Starbucks should get a volume discount?
In criticizing the Seattle plan, Behar is not speaking for the chain he helped build from 28 stores before his retirement as president in 2007 — his only direct financial interest in Starbucks is the one share of stock he keeps framed on the wall.
No, he’s speaking for his class. I’m no Marxist, but this is clearly a class struggle. And as multi-billionaire investor Warren Buffett famously said: “There’s class warfare, all right, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.”
A lifetime spent in business tells him the Seattle plan will hurt the low-wage earners it aims to help by raising the cost of living, and driving light manufacturing and distribution jobs beyond the city limits.
Ah, he’s just looking out for the little people. God bless him.
But while I don’t dismiss Behar’s business acumen, there just isn’t any data to support the claim that minimum wage hikes—even massive ones—have a substantial impact on employment.
That is why he is a major contributor to Forward Seattle, the organization gathering signatures to place a referendum on the November ballot to undo the ordinance. Behar agrees the wage should rise, but says the city ought to phase it in over a much longer period of time, perhaps at twice the rate of inflation until $15 is reached, for businesses of all sizes, uniformly.
So let’s do the math. Assuming our current annual inflation rate of about 1.75 percent (and that may be on the high side), it would take 14 years—not until the year 2028—before workers finally earned $15 an hour. But by then, $15 would only be worth about $11.78 in 2014 dollars. So in real dollars, Behar is proposing a $2.46 an hour raise phased in over a decade and a half.
Behar’s voice is important because so few in Seattle’s big-business circles have been willing to say a word. In smaller cities, small business dominates the Rotary clubs and the chambers. The silence from many Seattle-based business organizations reflects the fact that this is a regional headquarters city for so many large corporations. Some shrug — they pay more than minimum wage — and by taking a stand in Seattle they could bring picket lines elsewhere in the country.
You’re kidding, right? Twelve of the 21 non-elected members of Mayor Ed Murray’s Income Inequality Committee represented business, including the Seattle Chamber of Commerce, the Seattle Hotel Association, Nucor Steel, and Space Needle owner/hotelier Howard Wright. Alaska Airlines and the car rental, lodging, and restaurant industry spent a record $227 per vote in their failed attempt to defeat SeaTac’s $15 minimum wage initiative at the polls! The International Franchise Association is spending $1,000 an hour to file ridiculous lawsuits in an effort to bully other cities from moving forward. You call that silence?
“Business leaders are scared to death,” Behar says. “Because you know in today’s world what happens when they speak up? They are accused of being greedy, they are accused of not caring about people.”
Oh, boo fucking hoo! Workers are scared to death of being fired for attempting to unionize, but Behar is scared that some people might say he’s mean? Talk about asymmetry.
Behar calls the Seattle plan unjust and immoral — some reasons familiar, others not.
“Unjust and immoral?” You mean like paying somebody a poverty wage? You mean like the service industry practice of denying workers more than 29.5 hours a week so that they don’t qualify for benefits? You mean like the wage and tip theft that is rampant in the industry?
The Seattle plan will require big companies, chains and franchisees to raise wages faster than mom-and-pop operations, the idea being that big corporations can afford it. Franchisees are, of course, small-business owners themselves, a fact the Seattle ordinance ignores. And Behar notes that in a chain, each store is considered a stand-alone business and each is expected to turn a profit.
So, either Seattle chain outlets will raise prices in Seattle, just like mom-and-pop stores will — or, perhaps worse, they might allow that store in Cincinnati to subsidize the one in Seattle, and keep prices low until shakier independent merchants close their doors.
My god, when will America wake up to the holocaust that is befalling our nation’s persecuted big businesses? If only they had unlimited financial resources to buy high priced lobbyists, expensive advertising, and credulous editorial boards to defend their interests.
And, while the proposition was sold with the idea of reducing income inequality, the shock on the local economy will mean higher prices for things bought locally — buying power of a higher minimum wage is reduced.
So first we’re told we’re supposed to heed Behar’s warnings due to his “lifetime spent in business,” and then he throws this incredible piece of economic bullshit at us? Does he think we’re stupid?
If labor was the only cost of doing business, this argument might largely hold true. But of course, it’s not. Labor is about a third of the cost of a Big Mac. So if the entire cost of raising the minimum wage were passed on to McDonald’s consumers (and it won’t be), you’re looking at about a 19 percent price hike over the same period of time McDonald’s workers see their wages rise 56 percent.
Low-wage workers clearly come out ahead. And that’s just with burgers. The inflationary pressure won’t be zero, but big monthly expenses like electricity, utilities, cable, phone, and of course housing will see little direct impact from a hike in the minimum wage.
Behar says a proposition with such a dramatic effect on the city ought to bypass a council where special-interest groups hold sway. “The idea this got a fair hearing is garbage. Labor was going out the back door and business was sitting in the lobby.”
Again… you’re fucking kidding me, right? Is he really making the argument that corporate money doesn’t have enough influence in politics? That if Behar were still president of Starbucks, the mayor and every council member save Socialist Kshama Sawant wouldn’t take his phone call in New York minute?
The vilification of big business to promote an unworkable economic ideal hits him in the gut: “If we are a just society, we treat everybody the same.”
First of all, perhaps some people vilify big business leaders as “greedy” and “not caring about people” because capital-as-victim narratives like this make them come off as greedy and not caring about people? Just a thought.
Second, if Behar is really advocating for a “just society,” one in which we “treat everybody the same,” perhaps he should start with reforming Washington State’s most regressive tax system in nation? This is a system in which the bottom 20 percent of earners (you know, Starbucks baristas) pay 16.9 percent of their income in state and local taxes, whereas the wealthiest 1 percent (you know, Howard Behar) pay only 2.8 percent.
Does this sound like a just society in which we treat everybody the same? Of course not. And yet Behar has chosen to use his voice to champion the moneyed interests that benefit most from the status quo.
In a city where no one has spoken for big business on the issue, Behar does seem to be the man.
No one except all the big businesses I mentioned, and of course, the Seattle Times editorial board. Relentlessly. But nice attempt at an emotional bookend, Erik.
Sloppy Travis Bickle spews:
But while I don’t dismiss Behar’s business acumen, there just isn’t any data to support the claim that minimum wage hikes—even massive ones—have a substantial impact on employment.
More of that dismissive behavior on your part. How many job losses, expressed as a percent of the labor force, or as a number of jobs since we’re talking about Seattle, would have to occur before you would define it as ‘substantial’, Goldy?
If CBO says that a federal minimum wage to $10.10/hr will result in a ‘likely range’ loss of perhaps as many as a million jobs nationwide, and the midpoint of that range is 500,000, is that substantial to you?
If Neumark and Wascher
http://www.nber.org/papers/w5224
report that job losses of 4.6 percent occurred as a result of a minimum wage increase, is that not substantial to you? At minimum, would this give you a reason to restate ‘there just isn’t any data…’?
How many more in the unemployment line before we cross your substantive line in the sand, Goldy?
ChefJoe spews:
evidence from where a rise in the minimum wage of a large part of several major industries led to significant unemployment. so, not unheard of.
http://www.acton.org/pub/comme.....ican-samoa
According to a new report from the United States General Accountability Office (GAO), the 19 percent decline in employment in the workforce that American Samoa has experienced since 2008 was in large part the result of imposing minimum hourly wages across various industries. The island’s primary industry is tuna fish canning, with major employers Chicken of the Sea closing and Starkist announcing huge layoffs. In 2008 the number of workers in the canneries was slightly more than 19,000 but has since fallen to 15,400.
Imagine the impact of this kind of job loss on an island with a total population of just over 67,000 people. At the same time, according to the GAO, the value of canned tuna fell from almost $600 million at the end of 2008 to $312 million by the beginning of 2010. What is even more astonishing is that, despite minimum wage laws, earning overall for American Samoans has fallen. “For the period from 2006 to 2009, average inflation-adjusted earnings fell by 11 percent. This resulted from a rise in average annual earnings of about 5 percent while local prices rose by about 18 percent,” the GAO report stated. Another federally mandated minimum wage increase is scheduled to go into effect for the cannery industry in September 2012, raising the minimum to $5.26 per hour.
Linc Hayes spews:
“Solid!”
headless lucy spews:
re 1: Why would the loss of minimum wage jobs that cost taxpayers in the form of food stamps and publicly assisted medical insurance coverage be a tragedy? You never answer that question.
Here’s another: Why should the communities that have Wal-Marts be required to pay $2,000 per year in public assistance per Wal-Mart ‘Associate’?
In case you hadn’t noticed, one of the themes that Eric Cantor’s Republican nemesis hammered upon was, ‘corporate welfare.’ Look for more of this in the upcoming political seasons. Teabaggers are responding to that liberal corporate welfare meme in a big way. They also want the big bankers prosecuted and then jailed — just like liberals.
Corporate apologists like you are an endangered breed.
Sloppy Travis Bickle spews:
@ 4
re 1: Why would the loss of minimum wage jobs that cost taxpayers in the form of food stamps and publicly assisted medical insurance coverage be a tragedy?
I didn’t refer to it as a tragedy. But I think it’s disingenuous to consider job losses, some of which might not be minimum wage, as insubstantial.
Lucy, could those communities have not permitted Wal-Mart to open? There’s nothing to prevent municipalities from prohibiting big-box stores from opening. More than a few have done so by creating various restrictions. Governments choose winners and losers all the time. Goldy will tell you that, and in fact has stated that, back before he realized that government might choose for his beloved cabbies to be among the losers.
ChefJoe spews:
@4, you mean Wal-Mart, one of the largest companies for income tax revenues ?
http://www.usatoday.com/story/.....s/1991313/
Sloppy Travis Bickle spews:
@ 6
Wal-Mart may be THE largest taxpayer.
http://blog.walmart.com/fact-c.....rate-daddy
Yes, it’s propaganda and on the company’s own site.
headless lucy spews:
re 5 — “I didn’t refer to it as a tragedy. ” Don’t be an ass. You know what I meant. If I call you a ‘jobs-loss Cassandra’ would you reply by stating that your name is not Cassandra?
LeftyCentrist spews:
Holy fisking, Batman!
headless lucy spews:
re 5: “Lucy, could those communities have not permitted Wal-Mart to open? There’s nothing to prevent municipalities from prohibiting big-box stores from opening. ”
Wal-Mart will then open just outside the city limits. I’ve done my research. Why do you always answer serious questions with non-sequiturs? Would you agree that Wal-Mart is defying the spirit of the law when a municipality denies them entrance and they open up just outside the city limits?
Free trade leads to monopoly. If you are against government regulation, why are you in favor of monopolistic fiat? It means that you are either a chump or a liar — or a ‘movement’ troll.
you gotta be kidding spews:
During this whole debate every business not in full throated support of $15/hr has been demonized. Local small businesses that have spoken up out of concern for their survival have been consistently painted with the McDonalds brush. It is like Sawant and her acolytes aren’t even aware that there are businesses other than McDonlads or Walmart. Small business that have spoken up have been excoriated on message boards with many commenters bragging about giving negative Yelp reviews to said business in retaliation (sort of like an online mob with pitchforks). How else can you explain David Rolf calling Forward Seattle a group of local small businesses proposing a $12.50 minimum wage “fringe right wing ideologues:”. In what world is any group of local business proposing a significant minimum wage increase right wing ideologues?
Goldy spews:
@11 Forward Seattle is not proposing a $12.50 minimum wage. They are collecting signatures on a referendum to outright repeal the council’s recently passed $15 minimum wage ordinance. That is their primary objective.
Thorn spews:
The Mercer Island Blethen Times continues it’s slip into irrelevance.
you gotta be kidding spews:
@ 11 actually as I understand Forward Seattle originally was trying to propose $12.50/hr, with it’s own competing ballot measure proposing a $12.50 minimum wage. This was when it “all of a sudden” came to light that ballot measures could only be in odd numbered years. So the only vehicle left was a referendum to have their voices and maybe Seattle’s heard on this issue, since many feel it was special interests driving this bargain. So if you want to characterize Forward Seattle’s primary objective as repealing $15/hr instead of them using the only vehicle left for them to have their voices heard in this process of compromise by mayoral threat & $15NOW initiative threat (which of course was also a moot point, but no one said anything then) you can. I think it is disingenuous to characterize Forward Seattle as being anti-labor (despite the fact their shut down ballot measure did in fact have a $12.50 minimum wage) as their primary initiative. Much like David Rolf your ideology requires you to demonize anyone not in full throated support of $15/hr.