This kerfuffle seems to conflate a whole lot of issues. I share a degree of disgust when it comes to enormous and under-taxed corporate profits, which then go almost entirely to lining the pockets of those at the top. Yet, I am also aware that classic economics dictates that labor costs are determined primarily by the skills of the worker as well as by the state of the broader labor market–not necessarily by the profitability of an individual firm. I sympathize with the notion that a company that’s so profitable can afford to shoulder the burden of increased health care costs, but I nevertheless think it futile for the union to make such demands in our current economic climate. One is then faced with the issue of potentially losing jobs to other places and the whole dilemma of a race to the bottom.

Though it is a selfish reaction, on a personal level, I also find it difficult to have sympathy for someone getting paid $22.65/hr after working only three years in a relatively unskilled position. While it is my understanding that working in these facilities requires more knowledge and care than a more conventional janitorial position, I don’t get the impression it requires a four-year university degree. (Someone please correct me if I’m wrong.) Meanwhile, I know people who have degrees in STEM fields who are actually conducting scientific research and making less money than this. Again, it’s something of an emotional response, but this disparity does not particularly endear this cause to me. (I suppose you could turn this around into an argument for more workers in other fields having stronger union representation.)

Until someone can clearly demonstrate why I should feel strongly one way or another on this specific situation, I’m just gonna hang out on the fence and stew over corporate profit, tax policy, and the challenges of global labor competition.

Median individual income in the United States is roughly $25k.
If they worked a 2080 hour work year, the income of someone making $22/hour would be roughly $46k.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_income_in_the_United_States

And $46K is around the median household income in these parts.

(Also, more or less everything people normally buy costs a lot more around these parts.)

“I think this marks the first time in my life I’ve been called
pro-corporate to my face, which is a delight only a city such as
Berkeley could afford me.”

Yeah, I laughed at that too.
 Seeing someone like you get pinned as a right-wing fascist is so off-base it’s hilarious.

Eric, maybe think about it in terms of opportunity costs.   If our electeds are dealing out favors, making zoning promises, shorting us on taxes, bending over for Bayer — they ain’t working much on economic development that employs Berkeleyans, that attracts businesses that recirculate more money locally, and that help us export more than just cash and low-labor products.    The Bayer style of development may be an economic engine but I don’t see how it’s one that’s particularly good for Berkeley — it seems kind of parasitic.  As a city we concede and we concede — and in return we get jacked around for relatively little reward.

And, again, you’ve doubled down now on your notion that city imposed market distortions in favor of a corporation like Bayer are just fine — but you figure these workers should lose in a free market.   You say you’re of two minds.  Well…. pick one :-)

$46k is high for a janitor. Even in California.

http://www.indeed.com/salary/q-Janitor-l-California.html

You’ll note that I never said it was “unreasonable” as you put it. I am merely pointing out that it is very high for unskilled labor.

Thanks, Nick.

Lots of progressive Democrats who are interested in regulation and legislation don’t have many good things to say about unions that actually got their workers higher wages for a while. No surprise there, honestly.

At any rate, skills and education influence income, but are hardly the only influences. That’s a pretty naive view—one that would lead to scholars of dead languages making more money than most folks with a BS in a STEM field.

I guess jokes don’t come across very well on the internet. I’ll make sure to pepper my obviously jocular comments with smiley faces for you in the future. 

:-)    :-)    :-)   

I never said that skill and education are the only influences on income.

The irony of your comment is that the scholars of dead languages who end up making more money than those with a B.S. in a STEM field are typically the very ones who continue their education, get an advanced degree, and in the process demonstrate a high degree of skill, determination, and willingness to work hard. Thanks for proving my naive view.

Again, no threading past a first or second reply. Anyway Eric, your comment comparing the incomes of scholars of dead languages (and how one might get to the top of that field, by “determination” etc.) to the incomes of STEM pros tells me you actually don’t know how it is that some very very few scholars of, say, Ge’ez, might end up making more than someone with a BS in computer engineering.

How might this vanishingly small number of scholars actually edge out STEMers with BSes? In the US: thanks to the AAUP and other faculty unions.

Nick Mamatas, you are excellent at treading the fine line between snarky comment and personal attack.

I formally relinquish my  position as “Most Self-Righteous Jerk on Berkeleyside” and pass the crown over to you.

:-) :-) :-)

$46K is median income here. Since when did median income measure median household income?  To measure median income while factoring in other incomes in a household might be appropriate for evaluating eligibilily for affordable housing, it seems dishonest to lump in, as The Sharkey does, dual-income households.

Median area income is NOT based on media households, but on median individual incomes. $46K is very definitely median income here. Has anyone priced rental housing costs in this area? $46K buys about what someone earning half of this person’s income would buy monthly housing affordability in many smaller Midwestern cities but here in the Bay Area, $46K is very close to median income per person, without factoring in dual-income homes.

And, The Sharkey, your assumption that most households in the Bay Area are dual-income is based on what reliable data? 

You guys are all using terms with different meanings and using your personally preferred meanings to buttress your opinions.

Speculation:  Anita Holloway was laid off about a year ago so she is still, likely, collecting unemployment, which might have allowed her to hold out hope of being rehired by Bayer with or without a second income in her household . . but it would be a very tight hanging on, wouldn’t it? So I think El Sharkey’s purely speculative assumption that she probably lives in a dual income household might be possibly right. Otherwise one has to assume Holloway has been humping hard to find a new job but it appears she’s been keeping her fingers crossed to be recalled to Bayer. And hey, more power to her if she can hold out. Although now it appears her dream of returning to Bayer is over.

I am put off by the introduction of suggestion, even innuendo, that Holloway must be dual-income, as if that materially alters her contractual relationship as a union employee.  I hear some folks squawking about avoiding regulation, advocating for a free marketplace but then, when it suits them, these some folks are willing to inject specious, distracting arguments that are not, um, exactly free market. With or without a life partner, Holloway is entitled, is she not, to try to get the best deal she can for herself? And since when did seeking optimal advantage for one self, in or out of a dual-income household have anything to do with one’s contractual relationship with an employer, a contract exchange money and benefits for services? This discussion has been rife, if you ask me, with muddled thinking, with folks shifting their free market, pro-corporate or anti-corporate, pro-union or anti-union positions freely just to make points.

I take exception, actually, to Holloway’s comment, quoted at the end of the pice, where she says Bayer’s promise that they would do their best to bring back laid off workers amounted, according to Holoway, as a contract. Now that I object to.  There is no breach of contract here.  Bayer acts like most corporations:  it takes and takes and takes whatever it can get, it rarely delivers the benefits to a community like Berkeley that has given and given and given exceptions to Bayer, and it holds no real allegiance to its workers, worshipping only its own bottom line. This is the way of corporate life:  profits for shareholders trumps wellbeing to the communities that helped generate the shareholders wealth.  It might not be a breach of contract, as Holloway suggests, but it is a breach of good faith.

I think it is high time Berkeley city leaders, and all city leaders everywhere, (and other local leaders giving out corporate giveaways with elusive, nonbinding dreams that the corporations will nurture the community in return for its nurture of it) to stop giving away tax breaks to corporations. Let’s really trust the free market place if we are going to be burdened by the free market religion. Let all corporations proceed without any tax benefits, let them make money on a fair playing field. Employees of all these corporations have to live in a world without corporate giveaways for the individuals:  make it a real free market on all sides.  It’s just not right that much corporate profit that goes to shareholderse and senior execs with stock or stock options, is derived from tax subsidies that never really get funneled back into the surrounding community.  End all corporate giveaways and let the real free market play. Bayer has to do business somewhere. If no one was giving freebies, the same tide would rise all economic boats, I predict, with fairness and economic justice for more, instead of just for the corporate shareholders who can wine and dine political leaders and city staffers.

We allow a thread depth of four. When we first used Disqus we didn’t limit the depth and it resulted in absurdly narrow columns of text for comments. In most cases, four seems adequate.

No, I don’t.