No on Measure G Campaign for Low Wages!

November 5, 2006

Santa Cruz, Ca. -- I received three mailing from the No on Measure G campaign. From the Yes on G campaign, I received 2 black&white postcards. The first glossy, three-colored flyer came from the California Restaurant Association. This said:

"PROTECT LOCAL JOBS, BENEFITS, AND FAMILY-OWNED BUSINESSES."

Under this dire claim is written the following:

"Measure G puts locally- and family-owned businesses in the City of Santa Cruz at risk. Chain stores will have a huge advantage over local establishments because they can more easily manage increased costs associated with Measure G."

Increased costs? From paying extremely-low paid workers a wage closer to a living wage? Is that how they are earning their profits? From the backs of their low-paid workers?

Chain stores would actually be at a DISADVANTAGE over family-owned businesses as Measure G exempts family members from the wage requirement.

And studies in other cities have shown, that with a higher wage, workers stay longer and this reduces retraining costs considerably. Nor did those cities note any businesses closing their doors as a result or laying off workers.

The second mailing came from the No on Measure G Campaign. The treasurer for which is Casey Coonerty-Protti. This flyer, also slick, glossy, and with full color pictures says the following:

"Measure G will force GOODWILL to dramatically reduce valued employment and training programs for those in need and move our donated goods processing center out of the City, taking with it over 70 jobs." --- Michael Paul, Pres. and CEO, Goodwill Industries of Santa Cruz, Monterey, and San Luis Obispo Counties.

How appalling is it for residents who have been donating goods to Goodwill for decades hoping the jobs provided would help homeless, poor, and disabled workers to earn a living, only to find out it's been a scam INTENDED to keep people poor and homeless, refusing even to advocate for decent wages throughout the City.

And now they are using their clout to threaten voters with leaving the City should they approve the $9.25/hr minimum wage.

Santa Cruz Supervisor Neal Coonerty is quoted in the flyer:

"Measure G threatens the viability of Bookshop Santa Cruz (a business he owns) and other locally-owned businesses. It gives a huge advantage to chain stores we compete against every day."

Neil Coonerty has shamefully threatened to cut health care for his under $9.25/hr employees should voters pass Measure G. Another extortion tactic. It reminds me of that old National Lampoon magazine that showed a puppy with a gun held to its head. The caption said "If you don't buy this magazine, we will shoot this puppy."

Where is ANY info from the City's OWN $28,000 study on the possible effects of raising the minimum wage in the City.

With the State raising the statewide minimum wage (eventually) to $8.00/hr, the proposed increase of $9.25/hr for the 2nd most expensive place to live in the country seems even less out of line.

In the third mailing, also from the No on G campaign, Neal Coonerty is quoted as saying:

"Santa Cruz cannot afford to lose jobs at non-profits, force businesses to cut health care..."

(Coonerty is probably the ONLY business affected that even TRIES to provide health care to his low-waged employees.)

... or give an unfair advantage to corporate chains over our locally owned family businesses."

Again, Measure G does not apply to businesses with less than 10 employees, and family members are exempt. Who WILL be affected are large employers who systematically base their profits on employing low paid workers, such as the Seaside Company (who City Council candidate Lynn Robinson's husband is the PR rep), Goodwill Industries, and many restaurants who dramatically underpay workers on the assumption that the tips they earn will compensate for the lack of pay.

The study done last spring by the Locally Owned Business Association determined in a study biased in favor of business-owners that in the first year of operation, their costs would be raised by $12 million!!

What they also determined, is that 12 million dollars amounts to only 0.08 percent of the sum of ALL WAGES in the City of Santa Cruz.

The Yes on G POSTCARD DOES quote from the $28,000.00 study ordered by Rotkin and Mathews (and now buried). It says this:

"Here the vast majority of a wide range of employers in the sectors likely affected state that there would be a positive impact, no impact, or manageable negative impacts."
--- Bay Area Economics (BAE)
independent analysis commissioned by the Santa Cruz City Council
September 2006


Therefore, I recommend a Yes on Measure G vote.

Becky Johnson is a member of
Homeless United for Friendship & Freedom

http://www.huffsantacruz.org