Bye, Bernie!

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-19-2019, 10:53 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Sounds like the campaign is actively working on ensuring that hours worked do not exceed a point where staffers would make less than $15 an hour based on their annual salary, but given the health care package, they're really making more than that.

Kudos to the campaign for being so open to ensure their lowest level staffers are heard and compensated fairly.

I'd really like to know if this was achieved by cutting back on the campaign worker's hours, as this is a central argument against the $15 minimum wage.  I will concede the benefits package, if it is as stated, is generous.


I do feel compelled to ask again though, since when was a minimum wage job supposed to be one a person could go out and live on their own by working?  I had a roommate until I was in my later 20's.  Of course I didn't stay at my minimum wage job ($4.25 an hour, where were you then Bernie you f@$ker?!).  I used my first job to establish an employment history then I got a better job, then a better job and then the job (employer) I have now.  An entirely unique set of circumstances indeed.

[Yojimbo]

(07-24-2019, 12:09 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'd really like to know if this was achieved by cutting back on the campaign worker's hours, as this is a central argument against the $15 minimum wage.  I will concede the benefits package, if it is as stated, is generous.


I do feel compelled to ask again though, since when was a minimum wage job supposed to be one a person could go out and live on their own by working?  I had a roommate until I was in my later 20's.  Of course I didn't stay at my minimum wage job ($4.25 an hour, where were you then Bernie you f@$ker?!).  I used my first job to establish an employment history then I got a better job, then a better job and then the job (employer) I have now.  An entirely unique set of circumstances indeed.

The initial contract was for a $36k salary for 40 hours a week. The workers ended up working more hours, some up to 60 hours a week. The campaign and union were already renegotiating the contract when the story broke. The temporary fix, until the new contract was agreed to this week, was to limit workers to the agreed upon 40 hours a week. The new contract bumped the salary from $36k to $42k for field staff and $64 k for field managers. All employees get healthcare premiums paid 100% now. Previous contract, managers only got 85% paid.

So in short, the hours were reduced to 40 a week only, for all of one week.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-24-2019, 02:47 PM)Yojimbo Wrote: The initial contract was for a $36k salary for 40 hours a week. The workers ended up working more hours, some up to 60 hours a week. The campaign and union were already renegotiating the contract when the story broke. The temporary fix, until the new contract was agreed to this week, was to limit workers to the agreed upon 40 hours a week. The new contract bumped the salary from $36k to $42k for field staff and $64 k for field managers. All employees get healthcare premiums paid 100% now. Previous contract, managers only got 85% paid.

So in short, the hours were reduced to 40 a week only, for all of one week.

Thank you for the information.  Do you have a source?  Not that I don't believe you, I'd just like to see it personally.

[BmorePat87]

(07-24-2019, 12:09 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I do feel compelled to ask again though, since when was a minimum wage job supposed to be one a person could go out and live on their own by working?  I had a roommate until I was in my later 20's.  Of course I didn't stay at my minimum wage job ($4.25 an hour, where were you then Bernie you f@$ker?!).  I used my first job to establish an employment history then I got a better job, then a better job and then the job (employer) I have now.  An entirely unique set of circumstances indeed.

Yojimbo addressed the first part so I will answer this. I agree. Minimum wage shouldn't be able to support someone. I don't think $15 realistically can support someone, at least not in MD, so I think it's a good starting wage in MD. In the lowest cost of living states, I'd advocate for $10 being the bare minimum. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-24-2019, 03:44 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Yojimbo addressed the first part so I will answer this. I agree. Minimum wage shouldn't be able to support someone. I don't think $15 realistically can support someone, at least not in MD, so I think it's a good starting wage in MD. In the lowest cost of living states, I'd advocate for $10 being the bare minimum. 

I think we can agree that $15 an hour goes a lot further in some parts of the country.  That being acknowledged, how does that affect the business in these lower cost of living areas that now have to pay a mandatory inflated wage?  Would this not set up more rural areas for a complete collapse of any smaller or family owned business?

[BmorePat87]

(07-24-2019, 03:53 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I think we can agree that $15 an hour goes a lot further in some parts of the country.  That being acknowledged, how does that affect the business in these lower cost of living areas that now have to pay a mandatory inflated wage?  Would this not set up more rural areas for a complete collapse of any smaller or family owned business?

Obviously it hits some places harder, hence my support for different wage levels. I think it should be based on a cost of living scale and follow inflation. It should also be gradually implemented as we did and are doing again in MD. 

[Yojimbo]

(07-24-2019, 03:53 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I think we can agree that $15 an hour goes a lot further in some parts of the country.  That being acknowledged, how does that affect the business in these lower cost of living areas that now have to pay a mandatory inflated wage?  Would this not set up more rural areas for a complete collapse of any smaller or family owned business?

(07-24-2019, 04:16 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Obviously it hits some places harder, hence my support for different wage levels. I think it should be based on a cost of living scale and follow inflation. It should also be gradually implemented as we did and are doing again in MD. 

Here in Oregon, we did a three tier system. Urban areas go to $14.75 medium metropolitan areas going to $13.50 and rural areas $12.50. All three are tied to CPI for future changes.

[SunsetBengal]

(07-23-2019, 11:18 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Are you suggesting that campaigns that offer lower pay and less benefits will sling mud at him for this?

I'm saying that "labor disagreement" in the Bernie campaign is going to be easy fodder for fellow candidates to use against him.  

And, from what I understand, he didn't "cave" to demands.  He raised some pay, but they had to concede paying a higher portion of their health benefits.  As I have also heard, the number of full time campaign workers has been reduced, as well as some not being able to work the 60 hrs./wk. that they had originally been told.

So yes, there will be plenty for his opponents to jab about.

[BmorePat87]

(07-24-2019, 06:38 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: I'm saying that "labor disagreement" in the Bernie campaign is going to be easy fodder for fellow candidates to use against him.  

And, from what I understand, he didn't "cave" to demands.  He raised some pay, but they had to concede paying a higher portion of their health benefits.  As I have also heard, the number of full time campaign workers has been reduced, as well as some not being able to work the 60 hrs./wk. that they had originally been told.

So yes, there will be plenty for his opponents to jab about.

I find it hard to believe that candidates with worse compensation for their staffers will jab him for working with his staffers to come to an agreeable compensation package. If anything they'd praise him.

[SunsetBengal]

(07-24-2019, 06:52 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I find it hard to believe that candidates with worse compensation for their staffers will jab him for working with his staffers to come to an agreeable compensation package. If anything they'd praise him.

Well, not to mention, if he's paying his campaign workers that much?  He's likely going to run out of money sooner than later.

When you factor that whatever an employee's salary is, the actual expenditure from the employer is somewhere between 1.25 and 1.4X the listed salary.  For example, and employee with a 38K salary will likely cost the employer about 50K in total cash expenditure.  So, even at a salary of 38K, it only takes 20 of those employees to eat up a Million dollars of campaign budget.  That's just the salary for his local operatives.  The regional campaign managers are salaried (I think) around 48K, so they really cost closer to 65K each.  Then, when you factor in higher level strategists, media advertising, etc.  (cha ching, cha ching, cha ching...)

[BmorePat87]

(07-24-2019, 08:25 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Well, not to mention, if he's paying his campaign workers that much?  He's likely going to run out of money sooner than later.

When you factor that whatever an employee's salary is, the actual expenditure from the employer is somewhere between 1.25 and 1.4X the listed salary.  For example, and employee with a 38K salary will likely cost the employer about 50K in total cash expenditure.  So, even at a salary of 38K, it only takes 20 of those employees to eat up a Million dollars of campaign budget.  That's just the salary for his local operatives.  The regional campaign managers are salaried (I think) around 48K, so they really cost closer to 65K each.  Then, when you factor in higher level strategists, media advertising, etc.  (cha ching, cha ching, cha ching...)

He has the most money and currently has the largest donor base, so he's in a position to do it. 

[CJD]

(07-24-2019, 06:38 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: I'm saying that "labor disagreement" in the Bernie campaign is going to be easy fodder for fellow candidates to use against him.  

And, from what I understand, he didn't "cave" to demands.  He raised some pay, but they had to concede paying a higher portion of their health benefits.  As I have also heard, the number of full time campaign workers has been reduced, as well as some not being able to work the 60 hrs./wk. that they had originally been told.

So yes, there will be plenty for his opponents to jab about.

Well, they already had the "socialist" label, so a union dispute that Bernie can immediately say has already been resolved doesn't really hold a candle to the fodder they already have, right?

[JustWinBaby]

(07-24-2019, 06:38 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: ....He raised some pay, but they had to concede paying a higher portion of their health benefits.  As I have also heard, the number of full time campaign workers has been reduced....

Wait a minute....are you saying raising wages led to less jobs?

[Yojimbo]

(07-25-2019, 11:22 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Wait a minute....are you saying raising wages led to less jobs?

Yes he’s just saying it because there’s no proof, at least that I can find, that it’s true. If it were true every corporate media outlet would have reported it at the top of their lungs.

[CJD]

CNBC reports no positions were cut as part of the agreement.

"No hours or positions are being cut to accommodate the salary increase, according to Williams."

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/23/bernie-sanders-strikes-deal-with-campaign-union-for-15-minimum-wage.html

[SunsetBengal]

(07-26-2019, 01:16 AM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: CNBC reports no positions were cut as part of the agreement.

"No hours or positions are being cut to accommodate the salary increase, according to Williams."

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/23/bernie-sanders-strikes-deal-with-campaign-union-for-15-minimum-wage.html

I can't find anything about reduction in number of positions, but hours were certainly capped.

https://dentonrc.com/opinion/columnists/marc-thiessen-bernie-sanders-runs-into-socialist-reality/article_0b32d7de-bff3-5ce4-904d-5f523d2563d0.html

Quote:When the Sanders campaign offered to raise salaries to that level, the union rejected the offer. Why? Because, The Post reports, “the raise would have elevated field staff to a pay level responsible for paying more of their own health care costs.” It turns out that Sanders pays only 85% of health-care premiums for campaign staff making more than $36,000 — despite campaigning on a promise of free health care for all with “no premiums, no deductibles, no co-payments, no out-of-pocket expenses.”

So what was Sanders’ solution? First, he cut the hours of his field staffers from 60 to about 43 a week — which meant the campaign could say it was paying $15 an hour without actually increasing field organizers’ pay. Then on Monday, his campaign finally gave in and agreed to raise salaries to $42,000, preserve full health premium coverage and limit workers’ hours to 50 per week.

[Yojimbo]

(07-26-2019, 01:49 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: I can't find anything about reduction in number of positions, but hours were certainly capped.

https://dentonrc.com/opinion/columnists/marc-thiessen-bernie-sanders-runs-into-socialist-reality/article_0b32d7de-bff3-5ce4-904d-5f523d2563d0.html

So it’s a bad thing they went from 60 hours a week at $36k to 50 hours a week at $42k? I don’t get why people are so offended that the workers don’t have to work as many hours now? Nobody wants to work 60 hours a week, unless they’re a masochist.

[SunsetBengal]

(07-26-2019, 02:03 PM)Yojimbo Wrote: So it’s a bad thing they went from 60 hours a week at $36k to 50 hours a week at $42k? I don’t get why people are so offended that the workers don’t have to work as many hours now? Nobody wants to work 60 hours a week, unless they’re a masochist.

Actually, I know plenty of people that love all of the overtime that they can get.  When I was a younger man, I routinely worked 50, 60+ hrs./wk.  However, now that I'm 50, all I want is my 40 hours.

[Yojimbo]

(07-26-2019, 02:56 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Actually, I know plenty of people that love all of the overtime that they can get.  When I was a younger man, I routinely worked 50, 60+ hrs./wk.  However, now that I'm 50, all I want is my 40 hours.

True, it would be a different conversation if it was hourly work and not salary.

[GMDino]

(07-26-2019, 02:56 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Actually, I know plenty of people that love all of the overtime that they can get.  When I was a younger man, I routinely worked 50, 60+ hrs./wk.  However, now that I'm 50, all I want is my 40 hours.

Not if you're salaried.