If Rollbacks Are Fair Game, How About
This One, City Council?
Opinion
We all watched with amazement last May as the Emeryville City Council majority, a self proclaimed ‘progressive’ lot, voted to roll back our Minimum Wage Ordinance and punch down against the working poor, the traditional victims in contemporary America. In so doing, they conspicuously switched victims and chose instead to pour their empathy on the small business restaurant community and their Emeryville patrons who want cheap eats. The rollback, supported by Council members John Bauters, Dianne Martinez and Scott Donahue was ultimately pushed back by the combined forces of the labor community and the people of Emeryville, who have shown they have more empathy (and numbers) for the working poor than those seeking a bargain at the local ramen eatery.
But the whole spectacle got us to thinking. This City Council majority, who clearly feels the pain of the business community shouldering the costs of paying a living wage to their employees, must surely also feel the taxpayer’s pain who are shouldering the costs of the Council members' individual health care premiums.
Emeryville taxpayers are forced to pay almost $6000 every month for the five of them; a cost we don't have to be burdened with. And $6000 is just for this month, next month might be more....the rates keep going up. It's a lot to bear for the constantly tapped Emeryville taxpayer.
Councilwoman Dianne Martinez said it best when she voted last May to roll back Emeryville’s Minimum Wage Ordinance; we need to protect Emeryville’s small business community against these high labor costs in order to “keep them viable” she said. Now it’s time for Ms Martinez who’s currently personally profiteering off the taxpayers to the tune of almost $2000 a month, it's time for her to protect us, the taxpayers…to keep us viable.
If Councilwoman Martinez and the rest of them want health care, let them buy it themselves. Because there's a perfect analogy between the struggling business community and the struggling taxpaying residents. Why is it OK that the Council use its power to provide monetary relief for the business community and not the residents? In whose interests are the City Council looking after? Where's OUR rollback Mr Bauters, Mr Donahue and Ms Martinez?
I find myself gasping for air as I see the well-deserved attention to birds and the utter lack of interest in the clog of the "downtown" overbuilt corridor in terms of humans. In an emergency, how will vehicles get to residents and workers? Who is going to help the drivers baking in their cars on I-80 after these monstrous buildings have dumped more vehicular traffic at the precise I-80 choke point? What about the glare, heat and fumes coming off these windows as vehicles sit at sunset between the glare of the sun and the Bay? This City Council must be getting something out of this overbuilding . . . let's find out what.
ReplyDeleteYeah...uh..this isn't happening.
ReplyDeleteBrian, What is medicare fringe? I do agree that coverage for the council member is OK given their small salary but not extra family coverage. That means electing someone who has kids costs the city more than a single person, which is inequitable.
ReplyDeleteA fringe benefit is described as an extra benefit supplementing an employee's salary, for example, a company car, subsidized meals, health insurance, etc.
DeleteI dunno. it seems worthwhile to provide healthcare to our city council? That seems like a reasonable part of their compensation considering the time commitment of the job and I don't think their stipend is very much. As a side note, I generally like the idea of the tattler digging up dirt and helping the populace understand what's going on (you know, like the Washington Post's tagline "Democracy dies in darkness"). But stories like this feel sort of thin. One story I've been wondering about is why the new seasons grocery store is now going to be a gym or office. That seems like a questionable decision and makes me wonder about the city decision makers who ok'd that? any chance the tattler could dig into that?
ReplyDelete