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.

 

Bloomberg Sues Again to Overturn 2012 Living Wage Law

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 19 2013 @ 09:19 PM
link   
Apparently it's not enough for New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg to tell you what size soda you can order, confiscate rifles and shotguns now he want's to make sure some people can't get a raise at their job. We're not talking Wall Street bankers here, this is for people earning a little above minimum wage.

Bloomberg Sues Again to Overturn 2012 Living Wage Law


CIVIC CENTER — Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s office filed a lawsuit Friday in state court to have the City Council’s Living Wage Law invalidated — just two weeks before he leaves office.

This is the second attempt by the mayor’s office to nullify the legislation, which the council passed over his veto in July 2012. Earlier this year, a federal court declined to hear the case, saying Bloomberg had no standing in the federal arena — opening the door for him to file the suit in state court.

The mayor’s law office argues in the court filing that the Living Wage Law — which seeks to force developers and businesses that receive $1 million or more in aid from the city to pay a minimum of $10 to their workers with benefits, or $11.50 an hour for those without benefits.

$10 - $11.50 per hour is too much to pay an employee when the company is getting $1 million or more in aid from the city? Really? That sounds like evil capitalism, crush the workers to me.

So how does someone like Bloomberg handle laws he doesn't like? Besides suing of course.

The mayor refused to implement the Living Wage Law after it was passed in 2012.

Ah got it, laws don't apply to the elites like Bloomberg. Hopefully the new guy coming in will drop this.

Mayor-elect Bill de Blasio has vowed to enact an expanded Living Wage Law upon taking office.

Good luck New York City! Let's hope de Blasio keeps his word.




posted on Dec, 19 2013 @ 09:28 PM
link   
The living wage 'law' is bullsnip anyway.

Any increase to wage is increases to SS, and unemployment benefits.

Pay people more fiat currency so they can go out and buy all the corporate products their little hearts desire.

Don't like Bloomberg.

I like that 'living wage garbage even less.

The only thing Bloomberg is doing is whizzing in the wind.

We are talking about New York after all.



posted on Dec, 19 2013 @ 09:41 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


In this case I disagree. It's not like it's too much to ask companies to pay employees a little more when these companies are receiving a million (or more) in aid from the city itself.

People making poverty level minimum wages are hardly rushing out to by everything their hearts desire. More likely they're trying to just pay rent and eat. Maybe figure out how they're going to pay for the new "healthcare" they're mandated to buy.



posted on Dec, 19 2013 @ 09:55 PM
link   
Here's a guy with over 25 BILLION dollars and he is worried about HUMNAN BEINGS making 15 dollars an hour to survive and feed their families!

This is the era of ancient Rome and
Let them eat cake


May God soon give them what they deserve!


“The camel will pass through the eye of a needle before a rich man enters paradise"



posted on Dec, 19 2013 @ 10:02 PM
link   
Wealth for me but none for thee.....

The 31 Billion Dollar Man

He could fund NYC out of his checking account. What does he need with worrying about little people and raises? It's all balance sheets to him and the balances must match.

Let 'em eat cake, I'm sure he figures.



posted on Dec, 19 2013 @ 10:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Bassago
 





It's not like it's too much to ask companies to pay employees a little more when these companies are receiving a million (or more) in aid from the city itself.


You mean to say just because a 'company' that makes 1 million bucks a year be forced to increase wages for every employee they have?

Which translates to higher out of pocket expense the employers are already paying in unemployment insurance. That also translates to higher social security contributions as well.

The biggest thing here any company that gross's 1 million doesn't mean that company is 'profiting' 1 million.

Less federal taxes,state taxes, and city taxes.

When one takes in to consideration operating expense's taken from the gross revenue. That is not a lot of money.

All just so someone can have more fiat currency and go out and buy the latest iphone made in China?

Hell no.

Yeah I disagree.

I believe in a free market dictating pay. Not the whims of people think they should be paid.

All jobs are not created equal.

They never have been they never will be.

Therefore that living wage garbage is downward mobility, rewarding failure.

Then don't forget inflation mean that dollar doesn't buy what it use to.



posted on Dec, 19 2013 @ 10:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 




What does he need with worrying about little people and raises? It's all balance sheets to him and the balances must match.


If I had to guess there's more to this than balance sheets. More likely this is special interests and financial favors for specific companies in NYC. Maybe companies that help out Bloomberg's bottom line.

Just a hunch though, but doubtful mister moneybags is squeaky clean in the financial department.



posted on Dec, 19 2013 @ 10:17 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 




You mean to say just because a 'company' that makes 1 million bucks a year be forced to increase wages for every employee they have?


No, I don't mean or say that. It's not companies that make a million or more, it's companies that are receiving aid from the city worth a million or more. There's a big difference.



posted on Dec, 19 2013 @ 10:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Bassago
 


I don't like that either.

Companies need to be solvent or close their doors.

That wealth redistribution needs to end.



posted on Dec, 19 2013 @ 10:26 PM
link   

neo96
reply to post by Bassago
 



It's not like it's too much to ask companies to pay employees a little more when these companies are receiving a million (or more) in aid from the city itself.

You mean to say just because a 'company' that makes 1 million bucks a year be forced to increase wages for every employee they have?
Which translates to higher out of pocket expense the employers are already paying in unemployment insurance. That also translates to higher social security contributions as well.
The biggest thing here any company that gross's 1 million doesn't mean that company is 'profiting' 1 million.
Less federal taxes,state taxes, and city taxes.
When one takes in to consideration operating expense's taken from the gross revenue. That is not a lot of money.
All just so someone can have more fiat currency and go out and buy the latest iphone made in China?
Hell no.
Yeah I disagree.
I believe in a free market dictating pay. Not the whims of people think they should be paid.
All jobs are not created equal.
They never have been they never will be.
Therefore that living wage garbage is downward mobility, rewarding failure.
Then don't forget inflation mean that dollar doesn't buy what it use to.



The mayor’s law office argues in the court filing that the Living Wage Law — which seeks to force developers and businesses that receive $1 million or more in aid from the city to pay a minimum of $10 to their workers with benefits, or $11.50 an hour for those without benefits.


Weird, I'd pay the wages if I was getting a million bucks in aid...



posted on Dec, 19 2013 @ 10:29 PM
link   
To correct my last post

Bloomberg wouldn’t even let people eat cake...It’s too much sugar



posted on Dec, 19 2013 @ 10:35 PM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 


Why ?

Read the article ?

That 1 million to pay above state and federal minmums. Then after that million is gone who gets left with the bill ?

The employer, and once he goes out of business that increased wage that increased the employees unemployment insurance benefits.

That is when we get stuck with the bill.



posted on Dec, 19 2013 @ 10:52 PM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 




Weird, I'd pay the wages if I was getting a million bucks in aid...

Yeah so would I. Federal and state minimum wage for New York is $7.25 hour.
That rolls out to the following:
    $5500 per year raise per employee at 40 hours per week, 50 weeks a year.
    $550,000 company costs in wages for 100 employees who have benefits.

    $7500 per year if the employee doesn't have any benefits.
    $750,000 for 100 employees per year.

I can see the financial crunch if the company has 100 employees after the first year if they are not profitable but somehow I doubt this is the type of outfit we're talking about. Maybe we are though the article didn't specify.



posted on Dec, 19 2013 @ 11:38 PM
link   

neo96
reply to post by boncho
 


Why ?

Read the article ?

That 1 million to pay above state and federal minmums.

That is when we get stuck with the bill.


Huh? What are you talking about. The workers are making a couple bucks an hour extra, and only if government funds are being used (If a business takes the subsidy). The subsidy is 100% public funds to begin with.

All it does is basically keep companies from taking government funds and throwing it around into BS accounts. (I know, because I would probably do the same if I was so lucky.)

In other words, all it does is ensure that jobs created with public funds (given to corporations from city hall) are required to hand out wage minimums as many businesses do already (when they reach a certain viability).

Given the gap between the living wage law and min wage, a quarter is being designated to wages. Basically all it does is force a company that takes 1 million in subsidies, to redirect 25% of that to their workers. 100% of it is public funded. (Workers notoriously spend their money, since they don't make as much, redistributing to the economy.)


Then after that million is gone who gets left with the bill ?

The employer, and once he goes out of business that increased wage that increased the employees unemployment insurance benefits.


Uh… The employer is still up 750k they didn't have before the subsidy. And it only applies while they are taking in subsidies.


The living wage requirement lasts for the longer of 30 years or the duration of the subsidy.

If an employer receives two violations in any six year period, the employer would become ineligible for financial assistance for five years.


What is handing out subsidies besides "welfare for small business"?

I'm not saying that isn't needed ever in some cases, but if anything this just makes it harder for businesses to take money and then spend as they see fit. They are still getting their employees paid for.



posted on Dec, 19 2013 @ 11:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Willtell
 





Here's a guy with over 25 BILLION dollars and he is worried about HUMNAN BEINGS making 15 dollars an hour to survive and feed their families!


He doesn't care about anything except power. Bloomberg is a massive control freak. One of the scariest politicians in the US nowdays.

I sure hope he doesn't try to run in 2016.



posted on Dec, 20 2013 @ 12:09 AM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 





Huh? What are you talking about. The workers are making a couple bucks an hour extra, and only if government funds are being used (If a business takes the subsidy). The subsidy is 100% public funds to begin with.


What am I talking about ?

The article:



which seeks to force developers and businesses that receive $1 million or more in aid from the city to pay a minimum of $10 to their workers with benefits, or $11.50 an hour for those without benefits — illegally seeks to boost city workers' wages above the existing state and federal minimum wage law requirements.


What are you talking about ?

Blowing tax payer dollars to fatten them evil corporations pockets.

All under the living wage bullsnip.



posted on Dec, 20 2013 @ 12:15 AM
link   
reply to post by neo96

What are you talking about ?

Blowing tax payer dollars to fatten them evil corporations pockets.

All under the living wage bullsnip.

 


I think you are mistaken. They already get these subsidies, they are only being forced to pay a portion of them to their workers. So without it they are still getting it, with it they are still getting it but have to allot a certain portion to their employees.



posted on Dec, 20 2013 @ 12:23 AM
link   
reply to post by buni11687
 




I sure hope he doesn't try to run in 2016.


Ack! Never thought about that. Now there's a terrifying thought. Just imagine that psycho with the ability to issue executive orders. Probably try to roll back the minimum wage to $4 an hour.



posted on Dec, 20 2013 @ 12:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Bassago
 


I don't like Bloomberg, but he is right in this case. If people want to make more than get a better paying jobs. When u raise the minimum wage then the people with the lower wage are now competing with people who have higher wages and are more capable. Meaning those people who were pay the bare minimum will lose their job to people who are more qualified. Then they will end up in the unemployment line.

Typical left wing philosophy destroy the free market they don't understand supply and demand. They want to impose they government crony controlled economy.



posted on Dec, 20 2013 @ 12:31 AM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 





I think you are mistaken. T


Mistaken about what ?

Supporting corporate fascism ?

Rob from the rich, and give to the have nots all so they can go out and buy all the corporate products they want?

And those have nots are already making above minimum.

New York ?

Remember?

Where it's residents are already paying over 60% of their incomes to the state and feds.

So wage increases are meaningless.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join