Slog

News & Arts

Line Out

Music & the City
at Night

« Should We Raise Money to Send Chari… | Here's One of My Punk Stories, Now… »

Friday, March 8, 2013

Politics / Economy Low Wage Sea-Tac Workers Earn Forty Percent Less than in 2005

Posted by Goldy on Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 4:29 PM

The Philadelphia City Council voted 17-0 yesterday to tweak the city's "living wage law" so that it applies to employees of small contractors (five employees or more) at the Philadelphia International Airport. The law requires companies that have contracts with the city to pay their workers at least one and a half times minimum wage, as well as to provide paid sick leave.

Despite the unanimous vote, not all council members were convinced of the wisdom: "I don't think the way to go continuously is to turn low-wage jobs into better and better paid jobs because you are going to lose more and more low-paid jobs that way," said council member David Oh, making one of the stupidest arguments ever against raising wages.

But what really struck me about the plight of low-paid workers at Philadelphia International Airport are the parallels to the plight of of low-paid workers at Sea-Tac, both of which have seen wages fall in both real and actual dollars at the hands of contractors:

Cheryl Friedman, who works as a wheelchair attendant and security officer at the airport, would be getting a raise if Mayor Michael Nutter decided to sign the bill into law.

"When I started 12 years ago, I was making $10 an hour. Now it's down to $7.25 for wheelchairs, $9 an hour on security," she said. "It's difficult for me to live on this low income. I have 15 grandkids and six sons."

That's very similar to what happened at Sea-Tac after Alaska Airlines contracted out its baggage handling. Alaska workers who made an average $13.41 an hour in 2005 were hired back by Menzies Aviation for only $8.75 an hour. Seven years later, Sea-Tac contract workers were averaging only $9.70 an hour, the lowest hourly wage of any major West Coast airport.

Adjusted for inflation that's a nearly 40 percent decline in real wages.

But, you know, hooray for the free market!

FacebookShare

Comments (15) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment

If you actually look at inflation-adjusted figures for all US workers, you'll see, with the exception of the plummet due to Comrade Bush, wages have been dropping for decades.

Invest or die. There are no other options, other than forcing CEOs and non-productive inheritors to pay the same level of tax 99 percent of us pay, instead of the miniscule amount they pay now.

Posted by Will in Seattle

on March 8, 2013 at 4:45 PM

@1 Actually the median household income for people in the bottom 20% of the US population is about the same in inflation adjusted dollars as it was in 1979. The other 80% of the population is doing better now than they were then. A disproportionately large amount of the economic gains of the last 35 years have gone to the people at the top. That doesn't mean that people in the middle aren't doing better as well. Even the poor are no worse off, in objective terms than they were before Reaganomics.

You can check my facts here:
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/da…

or if you'd like the whole thing put more simply, Will in Seattle is an idiot!

Posted by Ken Mehlman on March 8, 2013 at 5:36 PM

I'd say go on strike, every single one, everyone at the airport, but a.) it's hard to get everyone together on the same page, and b.) I'm not sure that people living at minimum wage could stand a long spell without income.

But yeah, the war now is against workers and against unions. Even those soulless, immoral corporate lackeys in the Wadhington Senate want to cut minimum wage. From here to Olympia to Wisconsin to every right-to-work state, it's "How can we screw the workers even more, just like we were before the Commie labor movement, so that they're working longer hours, with no benefits, no safety protections, no retirement, and for the least amount of money?" When the budgets are bad and someone has to pay more, they always take it out of the poor people, precisely the ones who can least afford it. Want to see Washington, D.C., pick up the pace? Propose a bill to cut welfare and unemployment benefits. They'll be tripping over each other trying to approve it. But now propose a bill to raise the capital gains tax? The next ice age will arrive before they get around to it.

"The comfort of the rich rests upon an abundance of the poor."

Posted by floater on March 8, 2013 at 6:04 PM

1

if the 1% paid what you want them to how much extra would that be a year?

and what percentage of government spending would that be?

dumbass.

Posted by quit wasting our time on March 8, 2013 at 6:37 PM

@2 Your link says nothing about the increased hours worked by lower-class workers. Sure a family may earn on average the same as 20 years ago, but they do so at extreme cost to their time, their families, and their mental health.

Posted by paleo on March 8, 2013 at 7:03 PM

Wealth Inequality in America

Posted by rob!

on March 8, 2013 at 10:35 PM

Washington state minimum wage is $9.19/hour. Is wheelchair pusher an exempt position?

Posted by BLUE on March 9, 2013 at 7:16 AM

Get a new job? Pretty simple.

Posted by Rotten666 on March 9, 2013 at 7:48 AM

Sort of a stream-of-consciousness thought here:

I seem to remember reading about low-wage baggage handlers crashing machinery into Alaska Airlines aircraft and doing significant damage.

Because of the stratospheric cost of any structural repair on a jet. I wonder how much they are really saving via cheap labor?

Things that make you go hmm...

Posted by CPN on March 9, 2013 at 11:10 AM

@5 +1

This study by Brookings illustrates that wages gains for the non-rich are almost completely due people working longer hours: http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/jobs/post…

Posted by Ebenezer on March 9, 2013 at 12:49 PM

This Bill Moyers episode shows how the growing wealth inequality is not due to some natural economic evolution, but is part of a strategy to consolidate wealth in the hands of a small percentage of people, and to shrink the American middle class:

http://billmoyers.com/segment/jacob-hack…

Hedrick Smith also has a recent book making the same point.

Posted by Ebenezer on March 9, 2013 at 12:53 PM

@7 - you really should learn to read before you spout off. Cheryl Friedman, the "wheelchair attendant and security officer" works at Philadelphia International Airport, not Sea-Tac. The tip-off, for most people would probably be this line:

"Cheryl Friedman, who works as a wheelchair attendant and security officer at the airport, would be getting a raise if Mayor Michael Nutter decided to sign the bill into law."

Posted by randoma on March 9, 2013 at 2:55 PM

@12 Thank you for politely pointing out my egregious error. Be sure to have a nice day while you go fuck yourself. I'm proud of you for spending the time to read the entire Goldy post - you'll never get those minutes back.

Posted by BLUE on March 9, 2013 at 4:14 PM

@2 But, the bottom 60% is making less adjusted dollar income than they were in 1989!

What an arbitrary year for you to pick...

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/da…

Posted by TheMisanthrope on March 10, 2013 at 8:49 AM

God, I vote Democrat, but did anyone notice the last line? 15 grandkids and six sons? Why wasn't there heavily subsidized contraception twenty years ago? Why does *she* have to support them, and not her sons (if they're of age) supporting themselves and their children?

Posted by hey on March 10, 2013 at 4:56 PM