It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

UC Berkeley Touts $15 Minimum Wage Law, Then Fires Hundreds Of Workers After It Passes

page: 1
16
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:
+1 more 
posted on Apr, 25 2016 @ 04:49 PM
link   
The irony of the week award goes to the University of California - Berkeley.

They fought hard for a $15/hour minimum wage and they even announced plans last year to make their own minimum wage $15/hour even if a state law failed to pass.

Of course, UCB has been binge spending itself into financial dire straights for some time.

So now the $15 wage along with their financial flops is causing them to reduce their employees by 500 !!!

I wonder who the brilliant geniuses are behind the scenes of this new fiasco?

BaaaHaHaHa

I feel sorry for the poor people losing their jobs because of these over-educated decisions.

UC Berkeley Touts $15 Minimum Wage Law, Then Fires Hundreds Of Workers After It Passes


Labor Markets: Hundreds of employees at the University of California at Berkeley are getting schooled in basic economics, as the $15 minimum wage just cost them their jobs. Too bad liberal elites “fighting for $15” don’t get it.

A week after California Gov. Jerry Brown signed the state’s $15 minimum wage boost into law, UC Berkeley Chancellor Nicholas Dirks sent a memo to employees announcing that 500 jobs were getting cut.

Coincidence? Not really.

Last year, University of California President Janet Napolitano announced plans to boost its minimum wage to $15 at the start of next school year, independent of the state law. Since UC Berkeley was already in financial trouble — it ran a $109 million deficit last year and is projecting a deficit of $150 million this year — number crunchers there had to have factored in the higher mandated wage when making their layoff decisions.






posted on Apr, 25 2016 @ 04:55 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

So what?

A welfare check in California probably isn't much worse than the minimum wage is anyway.



posted on Apr, 25 2016 @ 05:04 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen


So now the $15 wage along with their financial flops is causing them to reduce their employees by 500 !!!

I wonder who the brilliant geniuses are behind the scenes of this new fiasco?

As if the 'corporation' ever intended to take a cut. Watch this play out the same way wherever these wage hikes go into effect.
Force a company to pay its employers more, fine. They'll just cut back on workers to even it out.

And the bonus? Y'all got longer harder jobs to earn your new wages in. We're paying you double, now do double duty.



posted on Apr, 25 2016 @ 05:06 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

I would say the minimum wage should be 11 dollars an hour. You Americans are extremely lucky with your cost of living. The price of housing, food , cars and gasoline is much cheaper than what we pay in Canada. 15 dollars an hour is too much but their should be a raise to the minimum wage across the board.



posted on Apr, 25 2016 @ 05:32 PM
link   
You don't have to be an economist to figure this one out. The more people make the less employees you can afford.
Minimum wage was and should be a stepping stone job on the way to a better one. A lot of people are content with minimum wage jobs and that's it. I think it's almost like the next level of welfare. The next thing is that they are going to force companies to hire a minimum amount of minimum wage employees bc so many will be getting laid off.



posted on Apr, 25 2016 @ 05:47 PM
link   
Every dollar increase in the minimum wage is a step closer to the Age of Robotics.



posted on Apr, 25 2016 @ 05:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Joecanada11
You Americans are extremely lucky with your cost of living. The price of housing, food , cars and gasoline is much cheaper than what we pay in Canada.


America is a very large country, meaning your assessment isn't valid across the board.

I live in an American city considerably more expensive than Vancouver, Canada (my only point of Canadian reference major city-wise). Berkeley, California is even more expensive, still.
www.numbeo.com...

You would need around 6,022.15$ (7,632.47C$) in Berkeley, CA to maintain the same standard of life that you can have with 5,600.00C$ in Vancouver (assuming you rent in both cities). This calculation uses our Cost of Living Plus Rent Index to compare cost of living. This assumes net earnings (after income tax).



posted on Apr, 25 2016 @ 05:58 PM
link   
a reply to: schuyler

Yeah robotics are going to seriously cause issues with millions of low paying jobs. We are pretty much screwed when that happens.



posted on Apr, 25 2016 @ 06:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Joecanada11
a reply to: schuyler

Yeah robotics are going to seriously cause issues with millions of low paying jobs. We are pretty much screwed when that happens.


High paying jobs, too. There's no reason you need a lawyer to write a will; a robot can do it. And as for diagnostic medicine? Watson (IBM's AI) is better and more accurate than an M.D. Manufacturing used to provide solid middle-income jobs. Robots can do it faster with no complaining. Design an integrated circuit? Robots already do that.

It's kind of like the price of oil. When the price of oil goes up it becomes cost-effective to go after the stuff that's harder and more expensive to extract. The rise in the minimum wage will make that cross-over point come more quickly. When robots grow sentient enough to have an IQ effectively equivalent to 100 (even though they don't, really), then yup.

Were pretty much screwed when that happens.



posted on Apr, 25 2016 @ 06:28 PM
link   
George Jetson only worked three hours a day, three days a week. Of course he was woefully middle class and always under the threat of unemployment. Who would have thought that cartoon was so foretelling?
edit on 25-4-2016 by Ahabstar because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2016 @ 07:04 PM
link   
a reply to: schuyler

Time to go Tyler Durden on the system. Seriously it's scary. Self driving cars will eliminate driving jobs. Truckers , taxi drivers bus drivers train engineers.

I've even read something about robot security guards that patrol and listen for keywords and search for illegal items and then call police. The future is not looking to great. We need to reset the clock.



posted on Apr, 25 2016 @ 07:30 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen


Because You mentioned Ms. Napolitano's name I thought I'd see what She makes as a salary. This is what I found:

www.latimes.com...

thebottomline.as.ucsb.edu...

articles.latimes.com...



posted on Apr, 25 2016 @ 07:35 PM
link   
a reply to: JimNasium

I got cut off.

The final link there explains that She ALSO receives $9,950.00 month for a housing stipend. This PLUS Her $500K salary and that hasn't had the 3.2% Pay RAISE the Regents voted for their own Selves.. Nice huh?



posted on Apr, 25 2016 @ 07:45 PM
link   
And every fired Berkley worker will probably just blame Bush, or corporations, or wealthy and successful people and just spew socialism bull.



posted on Apr, 25 2016 @ 07:52 PM
link   
Here's a couple more I just read about. Stockbrokers: Machines do it better. Longshoremen: Parts of the Port of LA are now automated from ship to truck with no intermediaries using propane powered "gurnies" (watchamacallits) to ferry the containers to the right place, reducing diesel pollution by a great deal.



posted on Apr, 25 2016 @ 08:09 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Minimum wages arentt the problem, the "maximum" wages is...
edit on 25-4-2016 by IAMNOTYOU because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2016 @ 08:30 PM
link   
a reply to: IAMNOTYOU

Now that's some logical thinkig. It should be illegal for executives to get raises when they are laying people off or cutting employee pays and benefits but it seems to be the standard practice of corporate crooks.

I remember working for staples a few years back in their business to business division and they laid off 100 employees at my location because share prices were dropping but the CEO somehow got a bonus of over 2 million.



posted on Apr, 25 2016 @ 11:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Joecanada11
a reply to: IAMNOTYOU

Now that's some logical thinkig. It should be illegal for executives to get raises when they are laying people off or cutting employee pays and benefits but it seems to be the standard practice of corporate crooks.

I remember working for staples a few years back in their business to business division and they laid off 100 employees at my location because share prices were dropping but the CEO somehow got a bonus of over 2 million.



If they don't give the money out as bonus then it is left as corporate profit and gets corporate taxed. So they let go the employees they transferred their payroll to the CEO so the money stayed on the same side of the books. If that money went into profit, they would lose more to taxes and giving out dividends to shareholders because stock prices would go up reflecting the new profit.
How do you know the CEO didn't reinvest that money back into the company at the low cost shares?

Looks like a smart move to save the company that was spin doctored to fit a hate wallstreet narrative.



posted on Apr, 26 2016 @ 12:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

originally posted by: Joecanada11
a reply to: IAMNOTYOU

Now that's some logical thinkig. It should be illegal for executives to get raises when they are laying people off or cutting employee pays and benefits but it seems to be the standard practice of corporate crooks.

I remember working for staples a few years back in their business to business division and they laid off 100 employees at my location because share prices were dropping but the CEO somehow got a bonus of over 2 million.



If they don't give the money out as bonus then it is left as corporate profit and gets corporate taxed. So they let go the employees they transferred their payroll to the CEO so the money stayed on the same side of the books. If that money went into profit, they would lose more to taxes and giving out dividends to shareholders because stock prices would go up reflecting the new profit.
How do you know the CEO didn't reinvest that money back into the company at the low cost shares?

Looks like a smart move to save the company that was spin doctored to fit a hate wallstreet narrative.


Tin, get out of here with your logic, can't you see we're sharpening pitchforks! ----E



posted on Apr, 26 2016 @ 02:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
So now the $15 wage along with their financial flops is causing them to reduce their employees by 500 !!!

HERE lies one of the biggest issues with education, and its costs. I'm not talking about the wage increase, I'm talking about the fact that they are able to lay off 500 people, and it will not affect the actual "education" portion of the school.

Universities are the biggest scams ever since guaranteed government financing became available.



new topics

top topics



 
16
<<   2 >>

log in

join