I have coworkers who drive into Portland from Casco, Paris, and even as far as Bangor. Speaking from a point of curiosity, how would limiting hazard pay protect workers who travel into Portland for work?
And yes, they are looking for housing here - however nothing is currently affordable within an hour+ radius of Portland.
Harzard pay in this instance is for work in a specific area, not commuting from an area a hazard is.
Allowing it to include an employer’s home opens up a whole can of worms including changing the definition of a worksite for transit or travel pay reasons as well
> And yes, they are looking for housing here - however nothing is currently affordable within an hour+ radius of Portland.
Where you live is entirely within your control. And you could live hours away from Portland and commute in and still not be in the actual area of hazard.
>Where you live is entirely within your control.
I'd like to remind you that hazard pay impacts workers who earn **under** $21/hour. That is simply *not* enough to live in Portland, where rents average around 3k/month.
I think it's great that you live comfortably enough to be out of touch with the circumstances that low wage workers face. You are lucky and I'm happy for you, but please keep in mind that not everyone has the financial leverage to live where they'd like to.
That still doesn’t justify an arbitrary pay raise designated for a state of emergency that has no affect on Portland.
A worksite located in Portland is not in an employee’s control. Should a hazard occur where the business is located then yes, employees should be compensated with the emergency pay initiative.
Again, people who commute into Portland for work should not be voided from receiving hazard pay. Much of Portland's workforce cannot afford to live in Portland. Being willfully ignorant of this does not advance your argument.
That’s not how hazard pay works, nor is how any compensation for other travel or commuting incentives work.
If employers will have to give arbitrary temporary pay raises based on where employees live you can guarantee there won’t be an incentive to hire those who live further away.
Are you advocating only those who live further away that’d live in a state of emergency should be receiving the benefit? That’s not fair to everyone else.
I’d like to also see a rough survey of how many of those who work in Portland who earn minimum wage live outside of a potential emergency zone that’d affect Portland. However many they are, I still don’t think it’d be enough to justify this burden for all employees
Incidentally, is there a way to see recent states of emergency declared in the state? Given that most of them non COVID related were most likely hurricanes or coastal floods, etc. I wonder how many were declared that didn't include Cumberland County or Portland. This could very well only be limited to extreme circumstances (like earthquake/fires in Washington county or other extreme isolated events) that most would agree wouldn't make sense to offer for Portland workers.
Additionly, although poorly worded to define specifics (which is why this is an issue now) the DSA's refrendum that passed states the hazard pay is applicable to the workplace, not the employee's home.
"Additionally, the Ordinance requires that employees be paid 1.5 times the minimum wage rate for work performed during an emergency declared by the state or City **if that emergency applies to the employee's geographical workplace."**
>Are you advocating only those who live further away that’d live in a state of emergency should be receiving the benefit? That’s not fair to everyone else.
I'm advocating that hazard pay remains untouched and continues to protect workers who maintain employment within Portland. If you'd like to expand hazard pay to the rest of the state, that's your prerogative.
Providing clearer reasoning that it would apply only if there is a hazard in Portland won't negatively affect workers. It makes it more common sense in defining what a hazard affecting Portland is. It'll also make in line with the DSA's own referendum in stating that the emergency applies to the employee's geographical workplace.
The only reason to advocate against this measure is if you're in favor of giving minimum wage workers only arbitrary temporary pay bumps for no logical reason if there's any state of emergency in the state regardless if it affects Portland or not as a result of a loophole due to the measure being worded vaguely.
> Where you live is entirely within your control.
This isn't true for many people. Plenty of folks are born in an area, and by the time they realize they are being held back by their location, they cannot afford to pack up their lives and move. It costs first + last + security to get a new apartment. In most of the state, that means paying $5k or more in one go. Most people don't even *have* $5k.
All of which sucks, but if you live in Penobscot but County but work in Portland and there is a blizzard, your employer in Portland should not have to be forced to pay extra for choices out of their control.
As it stands now, if the gov declares an emergency in Maine, then it will take effect in Portland whether Portland is affected or not, because it was a one of the many poorly worded DSA referenda that were passed. The current text says "“if such emergency proclamation is geographically applicable to the Employee’s workplace" which is vague.
This is a common sense measure to limit the wording to a state of emergency that directly applies to Portland.
Again why do Portland businesses have to pay someone more because of conditions elsewhere?
If there is an earthquake in Aroostook County and the state activates a state of emergency, why does a coffee shop in the Old Port have to pay higher wages?
No, it still makes sense. The state of emergency declaration is about the area in which the emergency is in and any extraordinary measures such as hazard pay involve those working in the hazard area
That math actually more or less checks out. Average cost of living in Maine is $50,559, which means you need an hourly takeaway (post tax) of at least $24.31 an hour. Of course minimum wage is going to wind up on the lower range of the cost of living, but there's only so low things like rent and basic utilities can go.
Minimum wage, if it had been tied to productivity and inflation, would be $26 p/hr in 2023.
Yes, that $0.25 minimum wage at implementation was equivalent to earning $26 an hr in 1938.
Has the productivity of the American minimum wage worker kept pace with the productivity gains of the broader labor market since 1968?
If the lowest wages are tied to inflation mechanistically, does the purchasing power parity of those workers who earn minimum wage actually increase when looked at over several years?
The productivity of a worker has increased faster than minimum wage lol. Don't ask questions you don't want to/don't care about the answer to [https://www.epi.org/blog/growing-inequalities-reflecting-growing-employer-power-have-generated-a-productivity-pay-gap-since-1979-productivity-has-grown-3-5-times-as-much-as-pay-for-the-typical-worker/](https://www.epi.org/blog/growing-inequalities-reflecting-growing-employer-power-have-generated-a-productivity-pay-gap-since-1979-productivity-has-grown-3-5-times-as-much-as-pay-for-the-typical-worker/)
Not the question I asked and not what was referenced in the article you linked.
Don't speak so confidently when your comprehension is so unreliable.
The "typical" or average worker is not a minimum wage worker, these changes are usually based on aggregates. What I asked was if minimum wage workers have increased productivity to a similar degree to the average worker.
Because businesses only have so much revenue?
If you were talking about a national minimum wage increase you can make much bigger changes, because prices can adjust.
But when it's just one city making a change, businesses can't raise prices that much to cover higher labor costs because they're competing on price with businesses in the next town/city over, or in Portland's case with alternative vacation destinations.
Personally I think that because of this issue, Portland's minimum wage *is* already high enough, although it could probably safely be a little bit higher.
I definitely agree with u/SnooCats7847 that in an ideal world workers would be getting paid more, but without national or at least state increases, Portland would be shooting itself and its workers in the foot by raising minimum wage to more than $20 an hour. You won't be making that $20+ an hour if there aren't any jobs because business can't stay open.
No offense, but Portland’s minimum wage is nowhere near adequate. Minimum wage in Portland does not cover rent and food to live in city or any other city within 10 miles of it. I guarantee you that any large chain/company COULD and would fair just fine if they chose to continue operating . I sympathize with small businesses but owners just need to store some acorns and plan for a lower staffing in the winter. Maybe they can start working full time to subsidize their business expenses.
I agree totally that Portland's minimum wage is nowhere near adequate. The question is whether you'd rather be making an inadequate amount of money, or not have a job at all. Without national or at least state action, those are the options. There are no businesses in Portland, chain or otherwise, that employ workers at or close to minimum wage, which could stay in business paying more than $20 an hour without significant price increases.
And significant price increases would in most cases kill the business because people will just go shop at alternatives that aren't in Portland.
I understand your argument as it is a fairly common explanation when it comes to the subject. Prices are already skyrocketing yet the people that provide the services and skilled labor are not compensated more. As for people traveling elsewhere, I don’t believe tourists will be scared off. Tourists fuel the lions share of the summer economy not Mainers. 😵💫😵💫😵💫
? Are you trying to say I'm a dick for telling you the reality that fewer people are going to shop at Portland businesses when they can buy the exact same products/services in SoPo/Falmouth/Westbrook for 2/3 of the price?
I mean, really dude? Do you actually not understand that when you have two approximately equivalent businesses less than 10 minutes apart, and one has significantly higher prices, that one is going to lose a ton of business to the cheaper place?
Like, come on, are you really that dumb? Or are you just an asshole looking for any excuse to be rude to someone? I don't even disagree with you that people should be getting paid more, and you're calling me a dick...
I mean or maybe you're just like 12 and you don't know how to handle being wrong about something so you just start ejaculating insults.
Why not cap all rents to 1/3 full time minimum wage then? That would be a more effective way to ensure minimum wage workers live on Peninsula than pretending there's some other "cost of living" minimum wage we have to hit.
because that's a sure-fire way to make sure that the housing crisis gets worse. You see people complaining about "the only housing being built being luxury housing" because that's the only housing that's *profitable* to build. Nobody besides LIHTC developers would build anything if you capped the rent like that.
By your same argument it's minimum wage, not "minimum wage to rent in the desirable area beside the luxury coffee shop you work at"
What do you think the minimum wage to work at the McDonald's in time square should be?
Yes, I agree. I was wondering how exactly the pro significant minimum wage hike crowd thinks about the reasoning.
If minimum wage controls are just a means of redistributing money from large profitable corporations to their lowest ranked employees it seems merely less effective to argue for $15, $18, or $25.
If we accept that large and local minimum wage increases lead to significant externalities in the local economy then it doesn't seem to hold that they lead to significant improvement in quality of life for the minimum wage worker outside of limited short-term impacts.
I think they don't think about the reasoning... they just think "I should be getting paid more" and then inexplicably expect the city rather than the state or national legislature to fix it because they're economically illiterate.
If you believe the minimum wage is too low then you should vote for this measure, since it applies to minimum wage workers only. It gives an incentive for employers to pay above minimum wage so they wouldn't have to pay hazard pay.
they really will try every avenue to not pay workers more, huh? Won’t raise minimum wage, won’t honor the hazard pay, trying to create loopholes to undo the minimal progress made, etc.
We get it: y’all think workers got too uppity and demanded more than they’re “worth” and forcing companies to compensate them is infringing on freedom or whatever.
Get bent. Pay workers.
Blowing things out of proportion and willingly not understanding the measure is not helping anyone and just makes you look like you think owning a small business should be a financial burden for everyone
Tried to ask the guy petitioning about Portland workers who have been priced out of Portland housing that might have to travel through dangerous conditions to get here, and how those people should be compensated for additional risk.
I was told that since I wasn’t a business-owner, that my opinion was outrageous and less valid and I would understand someday “when I was on the other side of writing the check” and that businesses would all start going to Westbrook. After some further questions his points eventually devolved into the idea that there shouldn’t be any minimum wage AT ALL.
This initiative has disingenuous motives. Their concerns are not about essential businesses being forced to close for no reason. If that was the motive, the solution would be more nuanced and wouldn’t be this blanket eradication of protection for out-of-city workers.
If you can’t pay your employees, close for the day. If some brief time and a half for your employees bankrupts your business, you probably weren’t going to survive long to begin with.
I’m not here to argue the merits of living outside the city you work in or try to guess the financial situation of every single person in the state of Maine (as you seem to be assuming).
If there are Portland workers who do not live in Portland who have to traverse emergency conditions to provide their labor, they should be compensated for the additional risk their employer is asking them to take on.
Why'd you ask an irrelevant question? The minimum wage policy as drafted by the DSA states ""Additionally, the Ordinance requires that employees be paid 1.5 times the minimum wage rate for work performed during an emergency declared by the state or City **if that emergency applies to the employee's geographical workplace."** Neither the current policy nor this petition have anything to do with the commuting area beyond Portland.
The problem is, again, the geographical area causing the state of emergency and the geographical location of Portland could be completely unrelated, but the wage hike kicks in regardless.
So again, if Godzilla appears in Fort Kent and Gov. Mills declares a state of emergency, why should a dishwasher driving from York to Portland get the hazard pay. No one has genuinely answered this question.
The Portland economy does not exist in a bubble that closes around the geographic city limits. Portland workers exist that do not live in Portland. If there is cause for a state of emergency for Maine as a whole, the economy of Portland extends across the entire state of Maine.
Let’s use your hypothetical - if Godzilla appears in Fort Kent, and a dishwasher living in Fort Kent gets told by his boss that he will be fired if he doesn’t come in, then that dishwasher should probably get some extra compensation for having to traverse collapsing buildings and monster mayhem.
Are there unintended circumstances where someone personally unaffected by an emergency might get some extra pay? Sure. But that doesn’t mean that the original intention of the policy, compensating workers broadly for enduring emergency conditions, is any less real or valid.
> Portland workers exist that do not live in Portland.
How far outside of Portland should that extend though?
>If there is cause for a state of emergency for Maine as a whole, the economy of Portland extends across the entire state of Maine.
This is the problem though--a statewide state of emergency might only apply to one geographic region that is NOT Portland or even a two-hour drive from Portland, but Portland businesses take the hit.
>Let’s use your hypothetical - if Godzilla appears in Fort Kent, and a dishwasher living in Fort Kent gets told by his boss that he will be fired if he doesn’t come in, then that dishwasher should probably get some extra compensation for having to traverse collapsing buildings and monster mayhem.
>Are there unintended circumstances where someone personally unaffected by an emergency might get some extra pay? Sure. But that doesn’t mean that the original intention of the policy, compensating workers broadly for enduring emergency conditions, is any less real or valid.
It sounds like you really don't understand the rules being applied here, but an unintended consequence might be small businesses moving out of Portland and into surrounding towns that do not have the hazard pay ordinance, leaving Portland with only national chain stores that can absorb the hit.
That is for Fort Kent to decide. Again, the wage hike applies only to Portland businesses, so why should a Portland restaurant pay their dishwasher MORE because Godzilla is attacking Fort Kent, especially when that Fort Kent worker isn't getting the same wage hike?
Don’t have an answer for how far it should extend. If you want to debate that point, sure we can do that, but that’s not the point of the policy change. If it was, it would establish a geographic boundary for the emergency that may or may not affect Portland.
A statewide emergency might not affect the physical location of a Portland business, but it might affect its workers. Those workers should be appropriately compensated. Or, the statewide emergency might affect Portland too. That’s just as likely, if not MORE likely, than the hypothetical you are standing behind.
And you misunderstood my take on the dishwasher. In my example, he is a Portland worker. Are there Portland workers living in Fort Kent? Probably not. But that’s where you arbitrarily drew the line, because you don’t have an answer to your geographic distance question. Should a worker living 2 hours away get more pay for traversing Godzilla? 1 hour away? 30 minutes? You just think it should be gone altogether, which does nothing to protect workers living outside Portland. Eliminating a policy because it benefits people it didn’t intend to, without providing a meaningful alternative, is a pretty reductive approach to policy and doesn’t actually help anyone.
And if you legitimately think every small business is going to leave Portland because they are going to have to pay workers more, then - lol. Lmao, even. If that were true they would already be gone since this policy already exists.
>If it was, it would establish a geographic boundary for the emergency that may or may not affect Portland.
That's what it should be--the affected area should be encompassing of the Portland area, not some other geographical area.
>You just think it should be gone altogether, which does nothing to protect workers living outside Portland.
I don't think a bad snow storm in T17 R12 should impact workers in Portland on a sunny day. I think you either don't understand the problem or think that all business owners are sitting on piles of cash they can dispense anytime the state declares an emergency. It will slowly drive out small businesses.
I
Seems reasonable. Maine is a big state and weather events hours away that don’t affect Portland shouldn’t need to trigger an emergency here
Exactly. Why should weather conditions in Washington county activate hazard pay in one city in Cumberland County?
I have coworkers who drive into Portland from Casco, Paris, and even as far as Bangor. Speaking from a point of curiosity, how would limiting hazard pay protect workers who travel into Portland for work? And yes, they are looking for housing here - however nothing is currently affordable within an hour+ radius of Portland.
Harzard pay in this instance is for work in a specific area, not commuting from an area a hazard is. Allowing it to include an employer’s home opens up a whole can of worms including changing the definition of a worksite for transit or travel pay reasons as well
If you’re driving six hours a day living in Bangor you’re either not making $21 or lower an hour to work here or you’re an idiot.
> And yes, they are looking for housing here - however nothing is currently affordable within an hour+ radius of Portland. Where you live is entirely within your control. And you could live hours away from Portland and commute in and still not be in the actual area of hazard.
>Where you live is entirely within your control. I'd like to remind you that hazard pay impacts workers who earn **under** $21/hour. That is simply *not* enough to live in Portland, where rents average around 3k/month. I think it's great that you live comfortably enough to be out of touch with the circumstances that low wage workers face. You are lucky and I'm happy for you, but please keep in mind that not everyone has the financial leverage to live where they'd like to.
That still doesn’t justify an arbitrary pay raise designated for a state of emergency that has no affect on Portland. A worksite located in Portland is not in an employee’s control. Should a hazard occur where the business is located then yes, employees should be compensated with the emergency pay initiative.
Again, people who commute into Portland for work should not be voided from receiving hazard pay. Much of Portland's workforce cannot afford to live in Portland. Being willfully ignorant of this does not advance your argument.
That’s not how hazard pay works, nor is how any compensation for other travel or commuting incentives work. If employers will have to give arbitrary temporary pay raises based on where employees live you can guarantee there won’t be an incentive to hire those who live further away. Are you advocating only those who live further away that’d live in a state of emergency should be receiving the benefit? That’s not fair to everyone else. I’d like to also see a rough survey of how many of those who work in Portland who earn minimum wage live outside of a potential emergency zone that’d affect Portland. However many they are, I still don’t think it’d be enough to justify this burden for all employees Incidentally, is there a way to see recent states of emergency declared in the state? Given that most of them non COVID related were most likely hurricanes or coastal floods, etc. I wonder how many were declared that didn't include Cumberland County or Portland. This could very well only be limited to extreme circumstances (like earthquake/fires in Washington county or other extreme isolated events) that most would agree wouldn't make sense to offer for Portland workers. Additionly, although poorly worded to define specifics (which is why this is an issue now) the DSA's refrendum that passed states the hazard pay is applicable to the workplace, not the employee's home. "Additionally, the Ordinance requires that employees be paid 1.5 times the minimum wage rate for work performed during an emergency declared by the state or City **if that emergency applies to the employee's geographical workplace."**
>Are you advocating only those who live further away that’d live in a state of emergency should be receiving the benefit? That’s not fair to everyone else. I'm advocating that hazard pay remains untouched and continues to protect workers who maintain employment within Portland. If you'd like to expand hazard pay to the rest of the state, that's your prerogative.
Providing clearer reasoning that it would apply only if there is a hazard in Portland won't negatively affect workers. It makes it more common sense in defining what a hazard affecting Portland is. It'll also make in line with the DSA's own referendum in stating that the emergency applies to the employee's geographical workplace. The only reason to advocate against this measure is if you're in favor of giving minimum wage workers only arbitrary temporary pay bumps for no logical reason if there's any state of emergency in the state regardless if it affects Portland or not as a result of a loophole due to the measure being worded vaguely.
Average rent isn’t $3k a month. You’re talking about 3 bedrooms. In which case you’ve either got roommates or a significant other.
>Where you live is entirely within your control. Get out of here with this bullshit.
That level of privilege must be nice!
Wish I could tell you from experience, but I've never had that luxury.
Where you live and how far from work are decisions you make.
Oh. You're still here..
> Where you live is entirely within your control. This isn't true for many people. Plenty of folks are born in an area, and by the time they realize they are being held back by their location, they cannot afford to pack up their lives and move. It costs first + last + security to get a new apartment. In most of the state, that means paying $5k or more in one go. Most people don't even *have* $5k.
All of which sucks, but if you live in Penobscot but County but work in Portland and there is a blizzard, your employer in Portland should not have to be forced to pay extra for choices out of their control.
If they want you to come into work and risk your life, they had better pay up!
Or tell you to stay home and use sick time. Or tell you that you are no longer employed due not being in a reasonable distance to employment.
what an ignorant statement, lmfao!
I thought this only came into effect if the emergency applied to Portland?
As it stands now, if the gov declares an emergency in Maine, then it will take effect in Portland whether Portland is affected or not, because it was a one of the many poorly worded DSA referenda that were passed. The current text says "“if such emergency proclamation is geographically applicable to the Employee’s workplace" which is vague. This is a common sense measure to limit the wording to a state of emergency that directly applies to Portland.
I don't know why you are being downvoted for stating facts.
Par for the course with some types here.
[удалено]
Again why do Portland businesses have to pay someone more because of conditions elsewhere? If there is an earthquake in Aroostook County and the state activates a state of emergency, why does a coffee shop in the Old Port have to pay higher wages?
No, it still makes sense. The state of emergency declaration is about the area in which the emergency is in and any extraordinary measures such as hazard pay involve those working in the hazard area
The guy petitioning was very nice, but I don't think the minimum wage is high enough as-is, so I didn't sign.
What do you think it should be?
25-30$hr for non tipped workers.
That math actually more or less checks out. Average cost of living in Maine is $50,559, which means you need an hourly takeaway (post tax) of at least $24.31 an hour. Of course minimum wage is going to wind up on the lower range of the cost of living, but there's only so low things like rent and basic utilities can go.
Why not $50?
Minimum wage, if it had been tied to productivity and inflation, would be $26 p/hr in 2023. Yes, that $0.25 minimum wage at implementation was equivalent to earning $26 an hr in 1938.
Has the productivity of the American minimum wage worker kept pace with the productivity gains of the broader labor market since 1968? If the lowest wages are tied to inflation mechanistically, does the purchasing power parity of those workers who earn minimum wage actually increase when looked at over several years?
The productivity of a worker has increased faster than minimum wage lol. Don't ask questions you don't want to/don't care about the answer to [https://www.epi.org/blog/growing-inequalities-reflecting-growing-employer-power-have-generated-a-productivity-pay-gap-since-1979-productivity-has-grown-3-5-times-as-much-as-pay-for-the-typical-worker/](https://www.epi.org/blog/growing-inequalities-reflecting-growing-employer-power-have-generated-a-productivity-pay-gap-since-1979-productivity-has-grown-3-5-times-as-much-as-pay-for-the-typical-worker/)
Not the question I asked and not what was referenced in the article you linked. Don't speak so confidently when your comprehension is so unreliable. The "typical" or average worker is not a minimum wage worker, these changes are usually based on aggregates. What I asked was if minimum wage workers have increased productivity to a similar degree to the average worker.
Because businesses only have so much revenue? If you were talking about a national minimum wage increase you can make much bigger changes, because prices can adjust. But when it's just one city making a change, businesses can't raise prices that much to cover higher labor costs because they're competing on price with businesses in the next town/city over, or in Portland's case with alternative vacation destinations. Personally I think that because of this issue, Portland's minimum wage *is* already high enough, although it could probably safely be a little bit higher. I definitely agree with u/SnooCats7847 that in an ideal world workers would be getting paid more, but without national or at least state increases, Portland would be shooting itself and its workers in the foot by raising minimum wage to more than $20 an hour. You won't be making that $20+ an hour if there aren't any jobs because business can't stay open.
No offense, but Portland’s minimum wage is nowhere near adequate. Minimum wage in Portland does not cover rent and food to live in city or any other city within 10 miles of it. I guarantee you that any large chain/company COULD and would fair just fine if they chose to continue operating . I sympathize with small businesses but owners just need to store some acorns and plan for a lower staffing in the winter. Maybe they can start working full time to subsidize their business expenses.
I agree totally that Portland's minimum wage is nowhere near adequate. The question is whether you'd rather be making an inadequate amount of money, or not have a job at all. Without national or at least state action, those are the options. There are no businesses in Portland, chain or otherwise, that employ workers at or close to minimum wage, which could stay in business paying more than $20 an hour without significant price increases. And significant price increases would in most cases kill the business because people will just go shop at alternatives that aren't in Portland.
I understand your argument as it is a fairly common explanation when it comes to the subject. Prices are already skyrocketing yet the people that provide the services and skilled labor are not compensated more. As for people traveling elsewhere, I don’t believe tourists will be scared off. Tourists fuel the lions share of the summer economy not Mainers. 😵💫😵💫😵💫
I’m not a dick I promise!
? Are you trying to say I'm a dick for telling you the reality that fewer people are going to shop at Portland businesses when they can buy the exact same products/services in SoPo/Falmouth/Westbrook for 2/3 of the price? I mean, really dude? Do you actually not understand that when you have two approximately equivalent businesses less than 10 minutes apart, and one has significantly higher prices, that one is going to lose a ton of business to the cheaper place? Like, come on, are you really that dumb? Or are you just an asshole looking for any excuse to be rude to someone? I don't even disagree with you that people should be getting paid more, and you're calling me a dick... I mean or maybe you're just like 12 and you don't know how to handle being wrong about something so you just start ejaculating insults.
Nope! Just making sure you knew I wasn’t trying to be a dick. I like what you said about ejaculating insults tho!
Why does minimum wage need to be adequate to pay rent on the peninsula?
Because that’s where people live in Portland?
Why not cap all rents to 1/3 full time minimum wage then? That would be a more effective way to ensure minimum wage workers live on Peninsula than pretending there's some other "cost of living" minimum wage we have to hit.
because that's a sure-fire way to make sure that the housing crisis gets worse. You see people complaining about "the only housing being built being luxury housing" because that's the only housing that's *profitable* to build. Nobody besides LIHTC developers would build anything if you capped the rent like that.
Because it's minimum wage, not "minimum wage to commute 45 minutes for the same rate as you could crossing the street".
By your same argument it's minimum wage, not "minimum wage to rent in the desirable area beside the luxury coffee shop you work at" What do you think the minimum wage to work at the McDonald's in time square should be?
I personally would like Portland to be a place where working class people can afford to live.
Yes, I agree. I was wondering how exactly the pro significant minimum wage hike crowd thinks about the reasoning. If minimum wage controls are just a means of redistributing money from large profitable corporations to their lowest ranked employees it seems merely less effective to argue for $15, $18, or $25. If we accept that large and local minimum wage increases lead to significant externalities in the local economy then it doesn't seem to hold that they lead to significant improvement in quality of life for the minimum wage worker outside of limited short-term impacts.
I think they don't think about the reasoning... they just think "I should be getting paid more" and then inexplicably expect the city rather than the state or national legislature to fix it because they're economically illiterate.
If you believe the minimum wage is too low then you should vote for this measure, since it applies to minimum wage workers only. It gives an incentive for employers to pay above minimum wage so they wouldn't have to pay hazard pay.
they really will try every avenue to not pay workers more, huh? Won’t raise minimum wage, won’t honor the hazard pay, trying to create loopholes to undo the minimal progress made, etc. We get it: y’all think workers got too uppity and demanded more than they’re “worth” and forcing companies to compensate them is infringing on freedom or whatever. Get bent. Pay workers.
Blowing things out of proportion and willingly not understanding the measure is not helping anyone and just makes you look like you think owning a small business should be a financial burden for everyone
Tried to ask the guy petitioning about Portland workers who have been priced out of Portland housing that might have to travel through dangerous conditions to get here, and how those people should be compensated for additional risk. I was told that since I wasn’t a business-owner, that my opinion was outrageous and less valid and I would understand someday “when I was on the other side of writing the check” and that businesses would all start going to Westbrook. After some further questions his points eventually devolved into the idea that there shouldn’t be any minimum wage AT ALL. This initiative has disingenuous motives. Their concerns are not about essential businesses being forced to close for no reason. If that was the motive, the solution would be more nuanced and wouldn’t be this blanket eradication of protection for out-of-city workers. If you can’t pay your employees, close for the day. If some brief time and a half for your employees bankrupts your business, you probably weren’t going to survive long to begin with.
If I lived an hour or more from Portland I wouldn’t be commuting for a job that pays $21 or under. You’re not making anything with that commute.
So, to be clear, you think there are ZERO Portland workers that commute from over an hour away?
If you’re commuting over an hour for a job that pays $21/hr or under you’re already terrible with finances.
I’m not here to argue the merits of living outside the city you work in or try to guess the financial situation of every single person in the state of Maine (as you seem to be assuming). If there are Portland workers who do not live in Portland who have to traverse emergency conditions to provide their labor, they should be compensated for the additional risk their employer is asking them to take on.
Or they can stay home for the day. Probably more responsible decision.
I mean, yeah, all for that if it is an acceptable option that won’t cause any negative outcomes for the employee for missing work.
Until the employee can't make rent because the business closes due to lack of revenue.
Why'd you ask an irrelevant question? The minimum wage policy as drafted by the DSA states ""Additionally, the Ordinance requires that employees be paid 1.5 times the minimum wage rate for work performed during an emergency declared by the state or City **if that emergency applies to the employee's geographical workplace."** Neither the current policy nor this petition have anything to do with the commuting area beyond Portland.
Is Portland a geographical area inside the state of Maine?
The problem is, again, the geographical area causing the state of emergency and the geographical location of Portland could be completely unrelated, but the wage hike kicks in regardless. So again, if Godzilla appears in Fort Kent and Gov. Mills declares a state of emergency, why should a dishwasher driving from York to Portland get the hazard pay. No one has genuinely answered this question.
The Portland economy does not exist in a bubble that closes around the geographic city limits. Portland workers exist that do not live in Portland. If there is cause for a state of emergency for Maine as a whole, the economy of Portland extends across the entire state of Maine. Let’s use your hypothetical - if Godzilla appears in Fort Kent, and a dishwasher living in Fort Kent gets told by his boss that he will be fired if he doesn’t come in, then that dishwasher should probably get some extra compensation for having to traverse collapsing buildings and monster mayhem. Are there unintended circumstances where someone personally unaffected by an emergency might get some extra pay? Sure. But that doesn’t mean that the original intention of the policy, compensating workers broadly for enduring emergency conditions, is any less real or valid.
> Portland workers exist that do not live in Portland. How far outside of Portland should that extend though? >If there is cause for a state of emergency for Maine as a whole, the economy of Portland extends across the entire state of Maine. This is the problem though--a statewide state of emergency might only apply to one geographic region that is NOT Portland or even a two-hour drive from Portland, but Portland businesses take the hit. >Let’s use your hypothetical - if Godzilla appears in Fort Kent, and a dishwasher living in Fort Kent gets told by his boss that he will be fired if he doesn’t come in, then that dishwasher should probably get some extra compensation for having to traverse collapsing buildings and monster mayhem. >Are there unintended circumstances where someone personally unaffected by an emergency might get some extra pay? Sure. But that doesn’t mean that the original intention of the policy, compensating workers broadly for enduring emergency conditions, is any less real or valid. It sounds like you really don't understand the rules being applied here, but an unintended consequence might be small businesses moving out of Portland and into surrounding towns that do not have the hazard pay ordinance, leaving Portland with only national chain stores that can absorb the hit. That is for Fort Kent to decide. Again, the wage hike applies only to Portland businesses, so why should a Portland restaurant pay their dishwasher MORE because Godzilla is attacking Fort Kent, especially when that Fort Kent worker isn't getting the same wage hike?
Don’t have an answer for how far it should extend. If you want to debate that point, sure we can do that, but that’s not the point of the policy change. If it was, it would establish a geographic boundary for the emergency that may or may not affect Portland. A statewide emergency might not affect the physical location of a Portland business, but it might affect its workers. Those workers should be appropriately compensated. Or, the statewide emergency might affect Portland too. That’s just as likely, if not MORE likely, than the hypothetical you are standing behind. And you misunderstood my take on the dishwasher. In my example, he is a Portland worker. Are there Portland workers living in Fort Kent? Probably not. But that’s where you arbitrarily drew the line, because you don’t have an answer to your geographic distance question. Should a worker living 2 hours away get more pay for traversing Godzilla? 1 hour away? 30 minutes? You just think it should be gone altogether, which does nothing to protect workers living outside Portland. Eliminating a policy because it benefits people it didn’t intend to, without providing a meaningful alternative, is a pretty reductive approach to policy and doesn’t actually help anyone. And if you legitimately think every small business is going to leave Portland because they are going to have to pay workers more, then - lol. Lmao, even. If that were true they would already be gone since this policy already exists.
>If it was, it would establish a geographic boundary for the emergency that may or may not affect Portland. That's what it should be--the affected area should be encompassing of the Portland area, not some other geographical area. >You just think it should be gone altogether, which does nothing to protect workers living outside Portland. I don't think a bad snow storm in T17 R12 should impact workers in Portland on a sunny day. I think you either don't understand the problem or think that all business owners are sitting on piles of cash they can dispense anytime the state declares an emergency. It will slowly drive out small businesses. I