On Boston Herald Radio last week, GOP gubernatorial candidate Charlie Baker affirmed his support for enabling some of the largest and most profitable corporations in the world to continue paying substandard wages and depending on taxpayers to provide workers with benefits.
The show’s hosts asked Baker whether he believes fast food businesses or taxpayers should be responsible for ensuring that workers receive a livable wage. Baker responded, “I am more inclined to tell you the truth that I think the taxpayer should fill the burden.”
According to a recent study by the University of California and the University of Illinois, fast food workers received an average of nearly $7 billion per year in public assistance between 2007 and 2011, including $3.9 billion per year on Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), $1.04 billion in food stamp benefits, and $1.91 billion in Earned Income Tax Credit payments.
At the same time, a report from the National Employment Law Project found that the 10 highest-grossing fast food chains in the nation earned $7.44 billion in profits and distributed more than $7.7 billion in dividends and buybacks to shareholders, while paying $52.7 million to their highest-paid executives.
Baker’s assertion that the status quo is acceptable shows just how out of touch with working class families he is. The wealthiest one percent of our population saw their incomes rise 20 percent in 2012, and income inequality continues to grow. In Charlie Baker’s Massachusetts, employees at some of our largest and most profitable companies would continue to be unfairly pinched, and taxpayers would pick up a tab for the companies.
Massachusetts can do better. Our Commonwealth needs sensible policies to ensure that our citizens have the opportunity to succeed. Rather than trapping working class families in poverty, it’s time to grow the middle class and ensure that fast food workers – and all workers – receive a livable wage and have access to paid sick time.
You can listen to the audio of Baker’s interview for yourself here. His comments come at 1:19:00.
the minimum wage increase he was calling for an expanded EITC.
At least he was honest about asking taxpayers to pick up the tab. I guess EITC is preferable for him since the poorest here are paying the highest share of their income in taxes anyway. Better to let those barely scraping by pay for those not scraping by than to disturb fast food profits, right, Charlie?
in Dr. Berwick’s position on the state EITC increase that Baker has proposed. Granted, in no way is it an adequate substitute for an increase in the minimum wage. But, at the same time, an increase in the EITC is one of the very few proposals offered in this state during this milleninum to alleviate poverty rather than to ignore it, or worse, to demonize it.
That’s why I am hoping that Democrats at the poker table decide to see him and raise him.
I’m not opposed to increasing the EITC though I prefer raising wages. Of course, we’re having to go to the ballot just to raise the MW a couple of bucks.
My concern with the EITC route, though, in addition to the ones stated already, is that unless we get increased revenues it will lead to something else being cut. That puts many of the people benefiting back at square one, while their employers (and high earners generally) get off scot free.
This strikes me as a bit of a missed opportunity. Had you posted this last Wednesday or even Thursday as a rapid response, I could understand wrapping things up with generalities like “Our Commonwealth needs sensible policies” or ” it’s time to grow the middle class.” But with the better part of a week between Baker’s interview and your response, I think we need to see a little more than “Baker’s bad and I like apple pie.” This is BMG: we know Baker is bad and we assume you like apple pie. What we want is your favorite recipe … or, at the very least, to know whether you prefer melted cheddar cheese or cold vanilla ice cream on top.
This was the best post in days, greatly expanding on what we knew before about Baker’s stand on the minimum wage.
Your reply to it is perplexing. I guess there’s always going to be a critic…
If you had posted this, I’d say, “Great post.” But you’re not running for governor and Mr. Berwick is. What’s more, he’s not yet running against Charlie Baker; he’s running against fellow Democrats. As such, when communicating with his base, i.e. us, he should be taking every opportunity to explain why he is the best Democrat in the race or, at the very least, what his is position is so that we can decide based on that info. That’s political campaign communications 101. If, as is often the case, you’re not ready to flesh out your position in some particular area because you haven’t finished researching, talking to the experts, etc, you leave it to a surrogate to post this kind of look-what-the-other-guy-said info. That way you get the info out and no one can say, “Yeah, but what’s your position?”
And, btw, what’s with the sudden rash of down-ratings on BMG of late? Is pointing out to a gubernatorial campaign that they may have missed an opportunity to sell themselves to their base now a down-rateable offense? Just saying.
I think a Democratic candidate who is willing to call out the presumptive GOP opponent early and often is a reason why that Democratic candidate just might be the best Democrat in the race.
And yet, this doesn’t change the fact that Berwick had an opportunity to sell us on his vision and how he would accomplish this and he chose not to. Why? Is he not ready to discuss his position because it’s not fully fleshed out yet? Fine. That’s fair. But then don’t raise the issue. You can always put the radio interview in your pocket and bring it up when you’re ready. If you raise the issue, you need to be ready to discuss the issue. Why? Because of a scenario like this:
1. Berwick posts to BMG dinging Baker on minimum wage remarks.
2. Reporter sees post on BMG, gets interested, decides to write article.
3. Reporter calls Berwick campaign for comment. Berwick campaign not prepared to engage in specificity. Reporter is disappointed, wants more, decides to call around to other Democratic campaigns looking for meatier quotes.
4. Coakley campaign, run buy former SEIU strategist, is perfectly prepared to get into the details of minimum wage, why the current ballot initiative is great or not good enough, or the first step, etc.
5. Reporter writes piece about Baker says A, Coakley says B.
6. Berwick campaign seen waiting in MGH triage with self inflicted gunshot wound to foot, having just helped main primary rival get good free press.
Of course, maybe Berwick is perfectly ready to discuss the nuances of minimum wage policy, in which case we need not worry about the above scenario. But in that case, he should have given us a little taste in his post. There’s no reason to miss the opportunity to sell himself in a more active way than “I’ve got my eye on Charlie and I’m not afraid to call him out.”
BUT DEAR LORD! I mean, that is so obtuse. And I know what you mean, fenway49, but he gets no points in this case for being honest.
It’s the worse policy of the two and EITC is prone to attack itself. It was at the very heart of Romney’s 47% comments. Many of the people with no federal income tax liablity were working poor eligible for EITC.
Baker might be open to expanding it, but some Republican (Shauna O’Connell?) will then trumpet that people are paying “negative taxes” and are “moochers.” Hint, folks: this was a GOP policy idea designed to mitigate the private sector’s failure to pay wages that would sustain people.
Baker’s comments are refreshing only in that (1) he’s not himself demonizing EITC, and (2) he admits that his plan is to socialize people’s making a living rather than requiring employers to pay a decent wage. That is the choice here, but most candidates aren’t honest about it.
What should people and young adults be paid by McDonalds? Please don’t say $10 an hour is “livable”.
The goal of these type of jobs are to move people up and out into higher paying positions or other industries. This diarist appears to want to convert fast food jobs into what our manufacturing jobs were 20-50 years ago. Well, that ain’t happening.
I will repeat, it is an indictment on our governor and president if they are unable to generate enuff high paying, “livable wage” jobs. I would say its time for new leadership at Beacon Hill, a governor who will create better opportunities for those stuck at entry-level jobs, rather than promising to artificially inflate salaries, contrary to supply and demand.
Your living wage sir, can hardly wait for the answer.
It may need to be as much as twice that to be truly livable. While moving up and out of those jobs is likely the goal of most people, they still have bills to pay now. Nobody who works full time should be flirting with the poverty line or need public assistance. I’m amazed the Baker is saying taxpayers should bear the burden. That sounds very pro-welfare state and not very Republican.
Split the difference? So everyone at D&D makes minimum $15 hour, every grocery bagger makes $15.00, so,the deli folks make $18-$20 hour. The girls wearing the tight shorts at the car wash as they towel dry the cars, they make minimum $15 hour. Every McDonalds and BK worker makes this minimum salary, right??
And let’s not incentivize employers to throw everyone into part-time hours, we would have to increase the pay for p/t workers to a minimum $16.00 hour, this way, we have more full-time workers.
This is what you believe, correct? It is exactly what this diarist is suggesting.
If you are so concerned about the bills everyone has to pay, why is it you folks believe in always increasing the costs of vital items, like gasoline with higher taxes, and taxing carbon? You like Ms. Clark, don’t you? Does she want to stop fracking, which caused natural gas prices to drop?
Thanks for going on the record and at least answering my question on what is a livable wage, I see the others avoided it like the plague.
Let’s please TRY and focus on the proposal on the table.
The legislation that Mr. Baker opposes raises the minimum wage to $10.00/hour over a three year period. That is apparently too much for Mr. Baker — and apparently you.
I don’t know about you, but I’m perfectly happy to pay everyone at D&D, every grocery bagger, “the girls wearing tight shorts at the car wash as they towel dry the cars” (been watching too much TV lately?), every McDonalds, and every BK worker $10.00/hour. In fact, I’m happy paying them that right now.
I think that IS correct. As I wrote below, I’d be even happier with a law that set the minimum wage at 1/20th of the annual compensation of the highest-paid executive.
That increase of Mr. Hees to $6.5M buys a LOT of donuts — or car washes.
If he believes $10 hour is “livable”, then he must be living in the 1970’s where that salary could put a roof over your head (until Carter and his 21% inflation kicked in).
I personally believe this maneuver to raise the minimum wage and I believe chain it to CPI, is government covering their ass, since they are not raising enuff tax revenues to fund their largess, and mask the real problem in the economy, not enuff good paying jobs being available to the population.
To me, Baker wants to implement pro-growth economic policies, that would naturally raise the demand for workers, thus raising the starting salaries of these positions. That is a much more preferred method, no?
Regarding the comment about watching too much tv, there is a car wash in Belmont I drive by almost daily, right next to Shaws Supermarket. And yes, there are young ladies there towel drying the cars. And I say, good for them, they are working, unlike many who hit the snooze button at noon, taking from society.
…and yes, Dan, what you wrote above is exactly what I mean. Even if there is not a whole lot of skill involved or even much to do, your time is worth a certain amount and people need to be able to live off of their time.
The US’s most prosperous time was when business owners’ income was a maximum of 20 times their employees. The expansion on the owners’ side has distorted individual survival wealth. No employer should earn more than some 20 to 30 times their lowest paid worker. This is a win-win strategy for our economy, but, I realize a dead end as far as policy. It goes to the nut of the problem, but capitalism has taken a wrong turn in our lifetimes.
Why, it’s almost Republican! Talk about “trickle down”!
Don’t bother setting a cap. Instead, specify that the minimum annual compensation of the lowest-paid employee of every company be no lower than one twentieth of the annual compensation of the highest-paid executive.
In 2011, Burger King paid its CEO at the time (Bernardo Hees) $6.5M. I like the idea of saying that by accepting that compensation, the company raised the hourly rate of each employee to $162.50/hr.
A law requiring this approach would do wonders for labor negotiations, and for employee productivity. The lowest paid worker would WANT the top executives to get a huge raise every year. By narrowing the spread between the bottom and the top, middle management would actually have to COMPETE to advance — especially since everybody would win if company profits increased (which is NOT the case today — don’t forget that profit and revenue is a totally different beast from valuation — CEO’s generally maximize valuation, often at the expense of profit).
I love this approach. Seriously!
Because I work in the computer based internet world and I making about $25 hour AFTER all deductions and withholdings and FICA, and if Burger King is paying 6 to 7 times that, then I am in the wrong line of work.
Based on what he is suggesting, if the CEO is making $6.5M the lowest hourly wage WOULD BE $162.50/hour.
Obviously!
It was the following that confused me:
There are 2,000 billable hours in a 52 week year at 40 hours per week with two weeks vacation (50 * 40 = 2,000). So $6.5M turns into $162.50/hour (6,500,000/2,000).
I’ll take that job as well.
As Christopher suggests, if the law said that a company was required to pay it’s lowest-paid workers 1/20th of the compensation of its highest-paid worker, then in such a scenario BK would have to pay $162.50/hour to its lowest-paid employees.
I really DO think that people don’t realize the obscene spread between the top 1% and the rest. We get so used to seeing these numbers — $6.5M is actually not that much for a CEO — that we don’t realize what they actually MEAN.
Mr. Hees was paid a whopping $3,250/hour by Burger King. That’s right. THREE THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED FIFTY dollars per hour.
Think about that the next time you submit an invoice for your time — I too worked as a contract programmer.
As you say, $6,500,000/2000 is $3,250 per hour. That’s the CEO’s pay level.
Mike: Oetkb’s proposal was to pay CEOs no more than 20x the lowest-paid worker’s hourly rate. This can be done by paying the lowest-paid worker $8 an hour and the CEO $160 an hour, or $320,000 for a 2,000 hour year. But if you want to keep the Burger King CEO’s pay at $6.5 million, you’d have to pay the lowest-paid worker $162.50 (1/20 of the $3,250 per hour Tom calculated).
$6.5MM divided by 20 = $325K annually. That’s more than 16.25 hour.
Which has long had a mixture if profit sharing and cooperative management schemes in lieu of a minimum wage. It’s also similar to how Costco tries to operate. The UAW is finally living up to Walter Reuther’s vision by successfully pressuring VW to set up cooperative management boards and profit sharing plans in its American plants in “right to work” states. The UAW worked hand in hand with German labor unions to apply the pressure. It’s still a closed shop-but one where employees have far more rights. I don’t see why the fast food industry can’t pay employees 15/hr and provide them with healthcare. And a campaign of economic equality rather than unionization could be a great jumping off point and the future of labor.