SeaTac’s Proposition 1 was recently “certified,” passing by
a mere 77 votes, and as it stands now is due to take effect January 1. A recount is apparently in the works, and
several effected companies have taken the measure to court. A few days ago,
Jerry Large, a columnist for the Seattle Times, opined about its positive
impacts on the community and the local economy. Frankly, he ought to know
better, given the present condition of his newspaper and the print journalism
market generally. The Post-Intelligencer
had passed on years ago, and Times’ employees
recently had to sign on to a new reduced contract that reflected the reality
that the Times had been reduced to
little more than a cheap scandal sheet of 20 pages or so six-days a week,
barely “earning” the 75 cents it charges.
Of course, it could go the way of the Seattle’s two main
free weeklies. The Seattle Weekly
fancies itself more “respectable” than The
Stranger, but there at a “cost.” The Weekly has succumbed to the PC bug, and accepts far fewer adverts from “adult”
establishments, which used to be fairly ubiquitous in last half-dozen or so pages
in the back. I counted only seven in the last issue, scattered about and innocuously-displayed
so as not to be too noticeable. However, the Weekly these days is a far less informative publication than it used to be
(particularly noticeable in the film section), with only 40 pages of print,
eleven of those taken up entirely by advertisements, almost all now consisting of
“non-adult” entertainment, retailers and restaurants.
The
Stranger, on the other hand, knows that if it wants to be “viable,”
it can’t afford to be as “high-minded” as the Weekly, which it never was anyways. This weekly still maintains its
general dimensions and page length of the past. A count in a recent issue
showed that there were more than twice as many separate advertisements than in
its competitor, but this was largely due to a far greater proliferation of “adult”
adverts, many of them merely providing a phone number to “talk” to someone for
a few bucks an hour. Frankly, that’s not a productive way to spend money on, but
to each their own.
It is doubtful that the Times
will be “reduced” to such scavenging, and so it may eventually become a Sunday-only
paper, or go the way of the P-I and
become web-only. But it does beg the question of why Mr. Large—knowing the
economic reality of his own employment—would try to dictate what is “good” for
others in a similar situation. This might shock him, but airport workers effected
by Proposition 1 who happen to be U.S. citizens are not particularly happy
about its passage, because they know how unstable the economy and current job
market is; some people are just happy to have a job at all.
There is a reason why most airport workers were not fooled
by efforts to "unionize" them. Labor "rights" groups have been heaping hate on
them for years and all of a sudden they want to "help" them? Of
course not. They want to take away their jobs. Why do you think that unions
chose to exclude themselves from it? They have their contracts, but non-union
employees are subject to the strictures of negotiated contracts between vendors
and airlines and/or the Port. The Port probably can afford it, but given the
close margins that airlines work under, and the fact that food vendors and
retailers are required not to charge more than outside the airport means that
for airlines prices must be increased, and for airport stores they must cut
staff or reduce hours.
The proposition might help the people who are not let go,
but what good is no pay for the people who are? Because there was no
"negotiation," the effected employers have no real obligation to its
current non-union employers; not only "easy" to hire, but now even
easier to fire. It seems like the people most oblivious to this reality are
gullible immigrant workers (particularly
from Africa) who were taken in by the rhetoric.
And who will be most hurt by the proposition? Not mostly
white union shops that discriminate against minorities in hiring (the Times' newsroom doesn't reflect reality,
I'm afraid to say); it will be largely minority workers who are threatened with
losing their jobs. As far as being a "boon" to the economy, I'm no
economics major, but neither apparently is Large. Common sense should tell you
that these wage increases have to be met in one of two ways: Price increases,
or cut in jobs. If the latter, that means there is no benefit to the economy,
and merely puts more people on the government dole, or forces them to take jobs
that are still governed by the state minimum wage law--which for some would
represent be a significant pay decrease.
If the former, that would only work if the people who fly can afford to pay
higher costs—and their own wages increase to cover the difference; if not, then
there again is no benefit to the economy--in fact a net loss.
The biggest problem with Proposition 1 is that it simply
does not jibe with economic reality. Unless this country sees a significant
increase in economic productivity--meaning an increase in overseas trade, since
this country hardly manufactures anything anymore--the only economic
"activity" will be inflation and job loss, and in this case, one
involving only certain employees at Sea-Tac. They are the "guinea
pigs" for this "experiment." And as usual, "talk"--as demonstrated by Mr. Large--is only "cheap" to those least effected by it.
No comments:
Post a Comment