Sunday, August 9, 2015

When a raise angers workers

When Wal-Mart Stores chief Doug McMillon announced plans to boost store workers’ minimum wage earlier this year, he said the move was intended to improve morale and retain employees.
Yet for some of the hundreds of thousands of workers getting no raise, the policy is having the opposite effect.
In interviews and in hundreds of comments on Facebook, Wal-Mart employees are calling the move unfair to senior workers who got no increase and now make the same or close to what newer, less experienced colleagues earn. New workers started making a minimum of $9 an hour in April and will get at least $10 an hour in February.
“It is pitting people against each other,” said Charmaine Givens-Thomas, a 10-year veteran who makes $12 an hour at a store near Chicago and belongs to OUR Walmart, a union-backed group that has lobbied for better working conditions. “It hurts morale when people feel like they aren’t being appreciated. I hear people every day talking about looking for other jobs and wanting to remove themselves from Wal-Mart and a job that will make them feel like that.”
Some workers also said they suspect their hours are being cut and annual raises reduced to cover the cost of the wage increase for newer workers. Wal-Mart denies that and says it’s taking steps to ensure all employees have an opportunity to move into higher-paying jobs. Along with bumping up the minimum wage, it increased the amount workers receive when promoted, boosted pay for some managers and raised the maximum pay for all hourly positions.
A broader issue
Several U.S. retailers have raised the minimum wage for their workers in recent months, among them Gap, TJX and Target. The moves were widely hailed amid calls to combat wage inequality — an issue that even reached the Securities and Exchange Commission, which on Wednesday voted to force companies to reveal the pay gap between the chief executive officer and their typical worker.
However, if Wal-Mart and other retailers don’t also adjust pay for veteran hourly workers, they could face rising dissent, said David Cooper, an economic analyst at the Economic Policy Institute. Typically, when employers boost their base pay, they also give raises to those making within $1 to $2 of the new minimum to preserve a type of wage hierarchy and keep their longer-time workers happy, studies show.
“Companies want to preserve some type of internal wage ladder, so to do that they have to adjust wages of folks above the new minimum,” Cooper said. If Wal-Mart doesn’t raise wages for these workers, “folks are going to leave or start complaining more vocally,” he said.
Executives knew the minimum wage hike would make those left out feel disenfranchised, said Kristin Oliver, Wal-Mart’s U.S. human resources chief. Since then, the company has been hearing from upset employees and understands that the new wage policy could lead to increased turnover, she said.
In an attempt to retain workers who didn’t get a raise, Wal-Mart has changed its scheduling system to help workers get the hours they want and started a new training program for employees looking to advance within the company. Wal-Mart announced the scheduling changes as well as a new training program at the same time as the wage increase to address the different needs of its workers, Wal-Mart spokesman Kory Lundberg said.
“We are constantly looking and evolving what the right pay should be and we were aware of the issue,” Oliver said. “We weren’t prepared to go forward with any additional increases but have continued to look at it to see if there is something else we should do for those in the middle.”
The cost of more raises
Giving additional raises to employees already making close to the new minimum wage would cost Wal-Mart about $400 million, said Jeannette Wicks-Lim, an assistant research professor at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. She based her calculation on raises the retail industry has handed out after past increases to state and federal minimum wages. Wal-Mart declined to comment on her calculation.
Additional pay bumps could put further strain on profits, which Wal-Mart said last quarter were dragged down by the $1 billion it’s already spending on raises. Last year, the Bentonville, Arkansas-based chain generated $486 billion in annual sales and a profit of about $16 billion.
Wal-Mart has said about 500,000 of its 1.3 million U.S. employees are getting raises as part of the new pay policy and all employees will be able to benefit from the new scheduling and training programs.
“We are trying to create a situation where they have a path to higher paying positions over time,” Oliver said.
Still, that hasn’t been the takeaway for many workers.
Sal Fuentes, who makes $13 an hour operating a forklift overnights at a Wal-Mart in Duarte, California, said he expects the company to give out lower raises to him and other senior employees to compensate for the cost of raising pay for the newer employees.
“There is always some way they get the money back,” said Fuentes, who has worked at the company since 2006 and is a member of OUR Walmart. “They give you some but they are taking away something else. It has always been like that.”
While employers may think raising wages will help them compete for talent, research shows workers care more about how much a colleague is making than someone at another company.
“Workers appear to pay attention to peer wages,” said Laura Giuliano, an associate professor of economics at the University of Miami who has studied the issue. “Even a small difference can matter, and whether or not it is going to matter may well depend on whether it appears arbitrary or unfair.”
Givens-Thomas said she was happy to see her colleagues getting a raise and thinks it’s a sign Wal-Mart is moving in the right direction. Still, she said the new wage policy is bittersweet; Givens-Thomas recently moved in with her mother because she couldn’t afford her rent.
“I am impressed that they are even trying to raise the wages — I know it has been hard for them,” she said. “I would like to continue to see pay go up because it has been stagnant for so many years and people are really suffering.”

MASSACHUSETTS: Amid Surge in Illegal Alien Crimes State Pushes for Broad Sanctuary Law

A surge in serious crimes by illegal immigrants—many repeat offenders—who have been shielded by sanctuary laws isn’t stopping legislators in Massachusetts from quietly pushing for a measure that would protect undocumented aliens statewide.

The move could not have come at a worse time, as the nation reels from a series of atrocious crimes committed by illegal aliens who long ago should have been deported. Instead, they were protected by sanctuary laws despite their criminal histories and illegal status in the U.S. A recent example is the gruesome July 4 San Francisco murder of a young woman by an illegal immigrant thug with seven felony convictions. The Mexican national had been deported five times.

Like a number of municipalities across the nation, San Francisco’s sanctuary law protects illegal aliens and bans any sort of cooperation with federal authorities, even when the perpetrator is guilty of a serious offense. In fact, in the recent San Francisco case Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) had issued a detainer for the illegal alien, 45-year-old Francisco Sanchez, but local authorities did not honor it and instead released him. San Francisco’s mayor defended the policy after the senseless murder, saying that it “protects residents regardless of immigration status and is not intended to protect repeat, serious and violent felons.”

More than 200 cities, counties, and states across the U.S. protect criminal aliens from deportation by refusing to comply with ICE detainers or otherwise impede information exchanges between their employees, according to the Center for Immigration Studies. Among them is Cook County in Illinois, Miami-Dade County in south Florida and practically the entire state of California. In Massachusetts only a couple of cities—Amherst and Boston—have sanctuary measures in place and some state lawmakers want to broaden the protection.

The legislature is looking to pass a measure that will offer sanctuary protections to illegal aliens statewide. If approved, all public agencies in Massachusetts will be banned from divulging information on illegal immigrants to federal authorities and state employees will be forbidden from denying any taxpayer-funded assistance, benefits or participation in public programs to those in the country illegally. “This shall include, but not be limited, to education or training, employment, health, welfare, rehabilitation, housing or other services, whether provided directly by the recipient of funds of the commonwealth or provided by others through contracts or other arrangements with the recipient,” according to language in the proposed law.

The measure also offers illegal immigrants assistance in gaining legal status in the U.S., possibly citizenship. “It shall be the policy of the commonwealth to support and encourage any and all residents in their attempts to obtain lawful immigration status and, if they choose, citizenship. Nothing in this section shall prohibit an agency or employee of the commonwealth or recipient of commonwealth funds from requesting the voluntary provision of information or documentation regarding immigration status to the extent necessary to assist an individual in resolving his or her immigration question when such assistance is part of a program’s activities and is consistent with this subsection.”

The bill was introduced by state Representative Byron Rushing, a Boston Democrat who claims his priorities are human and civil rights. The civil rights activist/politician should read this disturbing investigative series in his hometown newspaper about illegal immigrant sex offenders who have been released instead of deported. They include convicted rapists, child molesters and kidnappers. One law enforcement agency calls them “the worst of the worst.” Just a few weeks ago, another local news report revealed that two illegal immigrants charged with drug-related crimes are suspected of murdering a grandmother in Lawrence, which is about 29 miles from Boston.


[CARTOON] Nuking Coal Power

The surgical precision of Ben Carson by Herman Cain

Cuts like a scalpel.

 Ben Carson surprised me a little during Thursday night’s debate – not that I didn’t think he would do well. I had just interviewed him on The Herman Cain Show a few days earlier and I knew he was prepared and ready for whatever questions would be thrown at him.


But I was nevertheless impressed by the surgical precisions of some of his answers. Maybe I shouldn’t have been surprised, since after all he is a brain surgeon. But for a guy who doesn’t have much experience on a stage this big, he really knew how to get down to it.

He would take on Hillary Clinton, he said, by coming against the Alinsky model that assumes people are stupid, and counts on stupid people to serve as the useful idiots that Democrats need in order to govern. Dr. Carson said his approach would not be to try to fool people but to educate them, which demonstrates that he understands something we say on this show all the time: The American people are smart enough to make the right decisions if they have all the facts. As it stands right now, the media don’t give them all the facts so leaders who are interested in the truth are going to have to do it.

There’s a difference between being dumb and being misinformed. The American people are not dumb but they’re misinformed by the mainstream media. Dr. Carson understands this well.

He also had shared a wonderful answer he gave an NPR reporter who wondered why he doesn’t talk about race more often. (Of course, I know only too well about the expectation of white liberal journalists that black men in the public arena need to constantly talk about race, as if we have no business talking about anything else.) Dr. Carson explained that as a neurosurgeon, he sees inside people and gets a clear look at what really makes people who they are.

And it’s not their skin. This will come as news to the liberal media and to the Democrat Party, which are completely obsessed with race and think it is the key to everything in life. But what Dr. Carson understands (as do I) is that what really defines you is what’s inside you – the content of your character and your commitment to know what’s right and do it.

Finally, he answered a question about his presumed lack of political experience by reminding everyone that the greatness of this nation did not result from having lots of politicians around. It came, rather, from the ingenuity of the people in all walks of life. I’ve always found it hilarious in a sad sort of way that the political crowd judges people unworthy of service because they’ve spend their lives as something other than politicians. I thought I would have been a good president precisely because that’s not my background. My achievements have been in the private sector, where they expect results.

By the way, Dr. Carson’s achievements are in the field of science, which I thought the left considered one of the most highly esteemed fields imaginable. Isn’t that why they’re always going around complaining that Republicans are “anti-science”? You can’t very well be a neurosurgeon and be “anti-science.” Unless, of course, all “pro-science” really means is pro-left wing nonsense used to justify the same tired old left wing ideas Democrats have been pushing since time immemorial.




Chart: What's the real unemployment rate?

The Labor Department said Friday the unemployment rate remained flat at 5.3 percent in July—but does that tell the real story?
Many economists look beyond the "main" unemployment rate to other figures that give a more textured view of the economy. On jobs day, the Bureau of Labor Statistics puts out a slew of data that show various aspects of the nation's employment situation.
One is the U-6 rate. The BLS defines U-6 as "total unemployed, plus all marginally attached workers plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of all civilian labor force" plus all marginally attached workers.
In other words, the unemployed, the underemployed and the discouraged—a rate that remains above precrisis levels.The U-6 rate dipped in July to 10.4 percent, the lowest since June 2008. The overall trend in the U-6 has been more volatile than the main unemployment rate (also know as the U-3). The U-6 rate is down 180 basis points over the last year, versus a 90-basis-point drop in the U-3.
The 'main' unemployment rate vs. the U-6rateUnemployment rateU-6 rateJan '13Jul '13Jan '14Jul '14Jan '15Jul '152.557.51012.515June 2013
 Unemployment rate: 7.5% U-6 rate: 14.2%Bureau of Labor Statistics
Another figure is the U-1, which is the percentage of the civilian labor force that's been unemployed for 15 weeks or longer. In July, the U-1 dropped to 2.0 percent, which means that people losing their jobs aren't staying unemployed as long. While the U-1 has a similar historical curve to the above U-6, it's much closer to precrisis levels. 

Will these jobs numbers lead the Fed to raise interest rates?

Yes, by the end of September.
Yes, by the end of December.
No, they'll wait to see more improvement in the economy overall.
VOTE
Vote to see results
Economists are scrutinizing jobs figures especially this month amid speculation that the Federal Reserve is waiting for strong gains in jobs and wages to justify an interest rate hike later this year. Fed chair Janet Yellen said in May that while higher wages increase costs for employers, they indicate a strengthening economy that is good for business.
Average hourly wages rose 0.2 percent to $24.99 in July.
RecessionWaiting on wagesYear-over-year change in weekly and hourly wages,three-month moving average.20082010201220140%1%2%3%4%5%September 2009
 Change in average weekly wages: 0.46% Change in average hourly wages: 2.44%Bureau of Labor Statistics

The Republican-Democrat Switcheroo

It’s now official. When it comes to choosing presidential nominees, the Republican Party has become the Democratic Party—and Democrats have turned into Republicans. Cleveland, Ohio, was the place and August 6, 2015 was the date. The unruly Republican field was so multitudinous it had to be broken into double sessions. Meanwhile, the Democratic field essentially consists of one person, a candidate so confident that she spent GOP debate night in Hollywood posing for selfies with Kim Kardashian.
If Will Rogers were still alive, he’d have to reverse his famous quip about not belonging to an organized political party because he was a Democrat. Heading into 2016, Democrats are so squared away they have a nominee-in-waiting whom no prominent Democrat will lay a glove on. The Clintons are headlining the age of Learjet liberalism while Republicans mud-wrestle with The Donald.
Democrats have stopped defending Bill and Hillary Clinton. They just point to her poll numbers, and shrug. Mock federal law by establishing a secret email system? So what? Make Richard Nixon look like a piker by shredding 30,000 of those emails instead of erasing 18 minutes of tape? Who cares? Rake in $100 million in speaking fees from corporate interests and sketchy foreign donors? It’s for a good cause!
Sure, Sen. Bernie Sanders is drawing crowds, but the old Vermont socialist doesn’t dare criticize the front-runner. Neither will former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley, another declared Democratic presidential “candidate.” It evokes the GOP’s “11th commandment” popularized by Ronald Reagan: “Though shalt speak no ill of a fellow Republican.” Only this time, it’s Democrats.
The maxim was coined five decades ago by former California Republican Party chairman Gaylord Parkinson, mainly as a way of assisting Reagan’s nascent gubernatorial campaign. Over the years it was honored mostly in the breach by Republicans. Adhering to it in a crowd of 17 candidates is impossible.
Most of them did their best, however. Donald Trump refrained, by and large, from calling his colleagues “stupid” or “losers” Thursday night—although Fox News anchorwoman Megyn Kelly was more than happy to fill the void.
“You've called women fat pigs, dogs, slobs, disgusting animals,” Kelly said to Trump. “Your Twitter account has several…” Trump then interrupted her to ad-lib, “Only Rosie O'Donnell.” It was a quip that made some in the crowd laugh and others squirm nervously, which nicely sums up the main reaction to the loose-lipped billionaire.
He’s still leading the Republican field in the polls, but with 16 other candidates and Trump’s celebrity status, that’s not quite the achievement gleeful Democrats make it out to be. Whatever his ceiling of support might be, Trump is getting close to it. Speaking of which, it shouldn’t have been that easy to get The Donald to admit he’s not really a Republican, which Fox co-host Brett Baier did with the very first debate question.
Who there on the stage, Baier asked, would not agree to support the eventual Republican nominee? What he was getting at was the possibility of a third party campaign by Trump, a gambit that presumably would ensure a Hillary Clinton victory. Trump promptly raised his hand. Give him points for candor, but this is not what a Republican usually says in that situation. It so irritated Sen. Rand Paul—a man who actually would belong to a third party if the Libertarians were a viable national political entity—that he blurted out that Trump epitomized what’s wrong with American politics: “He buys and sells politicians of all stripes.”
When the question of such double dealing arose later, Trump’s answer was intellectually incoherent, if revealing. Health care is a mess because the politicians are bought and paid for by lobbyists, said the populist Donald Trump. A sentence or two later, Trump the oligarch was boasting about buying those same politicians.
But if Trump has peaked—and that’s a big “if”—who came out of Cleveland stronger than they entered? And what’s next for the other candidates? The most immediate worry for the men who participated in main debate is that Carly Fiorina, who starred in the “kids’ table” debate earlier in the day, seems poised to take somebody’s place in the Top 10. It might be Rand Paul’s; it could be Chris Christie’s or John Kasich’s.
Although she has little political experience outside her losing 2010 Senate campaign to Barbara Boxer, Fiorina was simultaneously the toughest on Trump while making the most articulate and direct appeal to his supporters. “Whatever the issue, whatever the cause, whatever festering problem you hoped would be resolved, the political class has failed you,” she said.
With nearly as many contestants as in “The Hunger Games,” certain pairings are inevitable, along with private feuds and side rivalries. Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker has already ruminated aloud about a Walker-Rubio ticket (or a Rubio-Walker ticket), but a discerning Thursday viewer also might imagine a Jeb Bush-John Kasich pairing, an alliance that would elevate within conservatism concern for the poor. The other possibility is an exacta ticket that you’d announce at the racetrack betting window this way: “All with Fiorina.”  
The takeaway is that 17 is too large a number. There weren’t this many people deciding presidential nominations in the old smoke-filled rooms of lore, let alone that many contenders. Literally.
Heading into the 1920 Republican convention in Chicago, the GOP nomination was wide open. On the first ballot 12 Republicans attracted support, the top three being Gen. Leonard Wood, Illinois Gov. Frank O. Lowden and California Sen. Hiram Johnson.
Ohio party boss Harry Daugherty confided to reporters that it would be a deadlocked convention between the top two, and that he planned to break the impasse by offering home state favorite Warren G. Harding as the compromise candidate. “After the other candidates have gone their limit, some 12 or 15 men, worn out and bleary-eyed for lack of sleep, will sit down about two o'clock in the morning, around a table in a smoke-filled room in some hotel and decide the nomination,” he said. “When that time comes, Harding will be selected.”
It happened just as Daugherty predicted. For Republicans, this meant good news and bad. The good news was that they won in November. The bad news was that, in turning to someone they didn’t really know well, GOP bosses ended up choosing a guy who was a scandal machine once in the White House. It’s not a stretch to say, with the release of Warren Harding’s recent love letters to a mistress, that he’s still generating scandals a century later.
What I’m suggesting is that the voters will eventually sort this out, and that their track record is at least as good as that of the wise guys. Also that a political party, Republican or Democrat, which ignores the whiff of scandal may come eventually to regret it, even if they win the next election.
Carl M. Cannon is the Washington Bureau Chief for RealClearPolitics. Reach him on Twitter @CarlCannon.


Via: Real Clear Politics

I was wrong about Schumer, and it feels so good

Never has being wrong felt so good, nor has a mistake been so worth celebrating.
Chuck Schumer surprised me in all the best ways. His opposition to the terrible Iran nuke deal is breathtakingly bold and opens the door to actually defeating it. That would be one of the best things to happen to America, Israel and the civilized world in a very long time.
Let us count the ways Schumer’s decision matters.
First, because he is the next Senate Democratic leader, I expected him to follow a president from his party and the majority of his caucus. He may pay a price for breaking out of the political box, but he gives cover to other Dems to do the same.
Second, his timing. Schumer ­announced his decision only a day after Obama made an impassioned, partisan appeal. Any momentum Obama had was stopped by Schumer, who effectively rebuked the president’s shameless attempt to link Republicans to Iranian hardliners. That rancid argument is now dead.
Third, the substance. Schumer issued a detailed statement demolishing supporters’ basic argument — that the deal, while imperfect, was better than no deal. Schumer persuasively showed the deal served Iran more than our side.
He broke his decision into three parts — the nuclear issues during the first 10 years of the deal, the nuclear issues in the following decade and the “non-nuclear” aspects, meaning Iran’s sponsorship of terrorism. For each, he asked whether we would be better off with or without the negotiated terms.
His conclusions were striking. We might be better off with the deal in the first decade, he argues, but almost certainly we would be better off without it in the other two parts.
He found numerous weaknesses in the text, including over inspections and sanctions. After the first decade, he wrote that Iran “can be very close to achieving” a nuke, and that the quest “will be codified in an agreement signed by the United States.”
He was just getting warmed up. The turning point, he said, was the non-nuclear issues, meaning Iran’s lethal ability to use unfrozen accounts of $50 billion to fund its terrorist programs. That added up to “a strong case that we are better off without an agreement than with one.”
His conclusions, which include doubts that Iran will move away from its apocalyptic theocracy, should resolve suspicions that Schumer might still side with an Obama veto. Absent a miraculous change in Iranian behavior, the senator has made the strongest possible case against the deal, so I don’t think he’ll flip-flop.
A fourth and final significance of Schumer’s position is that it makes New York the clear leader of the opposition movement. Five brave Democratic House members from the state — Eliot Engel, Steve Israel, Grace Meng, Nita Lowey and Kathleen Rice — also said no to Obama. The entire GOP delegation will do the same.
That should not be the end of it. National security is a local issue, as 9/11 painfully proved.
Former Mayor Rudy Giuliani has joined the “no” chorus, and his successor, Michael Bloomberg, should, too. Former top cop Ray Kelly should sign on, as should business and civic leaders who understand the stakes.
Most important, Gov. Cuomo should lead them. Often willing to buck his party’s left-wing orthodoxy, including on school choice, the Iran deal should be the next example.
With the Empire State remaining the perennial first choice among jihadists, New York’s governor has an absolute duty to do everything he can to protect its residents, businesses and visitors from attack.
Schumer’s conclusion alone that Iran would use the end of sanctions to expand its export of terrorism is reason enough for the governor to join the opposition.
He would seem to be halfway there. Cuomo traveled to Israel to show solidarity with the Jewish state during last year’s Gaza war. When he returned, he said, “Any New Yorker who doesn’t understand that Israel’s fight is our fight is living not in the state of New York but in the state of denial.”
Now he can prove he meant what he said.

HERE’S ERICK ERICKSON EXPLAINING WHY BEN CARSON ISN’T AT THE ‘RED STATE GATHERING’

The “Red State Gathering” already made headlines by disinviting Donald Trump from the event after his comments about Megyn Kelly, but they made some others even more angry by not inviting Ben Carson at all.
Here’s Erick Erickson’s explanation on why he wasn’t invited:
What do ya’ll think? Reasonable or not?
Via: Red State

Continue Reading....

Popular Posts