Lip-Sticking the Pig

In an effort to put lipstick on the pig of a less-than-living wage agreement negotiated between “the Sonoma Hotel Project” and a labor union too embarrassed to release a copy of it, Ben Boyce – in an August 8 item in the Sun (http://progressivemajoritycoalition.sonomaportal.com) - attempted to “dispel the cloud of misinformation that has been swirling around based on the unauthorized release of an early draft of the agreement.”   He provided a “summary of the key provisions in layman’s language” so the public “can make an informed judgment based on facts, not rumors.”

A condescending gesture, to the extent it suggests laymen need help reading a labor agreement negotiated by and for laymen.  Laymen who can read this newspaper could read and understand it if he’d just produce a copy.  The ongoing refusal to do so thickens the “cloud of misinformation” – suspicion? - he tries to dispel.

There is only one question he need answer: Does or doesn’t the agreement guarantee all employees of the would-be hotel a living wage with health care equal to that in the Sonoma City Living Wage ordinance, currently $15.15/hour? 

That’s what was reported in the Index Tribune on May 23.  To wit:

"The North Bay Labor Council, representing some 30,000 AFL-CIO members in an array of California unions, announced Wednesday evening that its general delegates had just ratified an agreement with Kenwood Investments, LLC that all employees at the proposed West Napa Street hotel would be paid a living wage with health care, would be hired locally, and that hotel management would maintain labor neutrality if workers subsequently chose a union to represent them.” . . .

"The City of Sonoma is a living wage contractor and, as of 2012, the living wage (which is adjusted annually) was $15.15 an hour, which comes to about $31,000 a year.” (Italics supplied)

Nowhere in several hundred words of layman’s language does the number $15.15 appear, with or without health care.  Seems someone who has actually seen the agreement could answer the $15.15 question with a simple “Yes” or “No.”

Instead, we have a meandering explanation of why only $10.00/hr. – and only for tipped employees, not “all employees” – is really a great deal anyway.  It appears $10/hr. is apparently all the hotel would pay; that’s the only hard number in the laymen’s explanation.   Any extra between $10 and $15.15/hour might be paid in tips -- from the hotel’s customers. 

That $15.15 living wage?  We’re told the union ‘set out to accomplish’ setting the wages to Sonoma’s Living Wage Standard.  What isn’t said is whether they accomplished it.   He suggests (but doesn’t say) the hotel would pay $13.95 + healthcare to non-tip employees, but he doesn’t say when.  Immediately? Five years from now?  Another goal? And what about healthcare for tipped employees & those working part-time?  Aren’t they part of “all” employees?

But never mind.  According to Mr. Boyce, the reason this is agreement is a great deal for the future hotel’s employees is that it would encourage other “less glamorous establishments”  - like Denny’s – who pay workers even less, to raise their employees’ wages. Say again?

Well, he did.  He said the Sonoma Living Wage ordinance is only “a reference point to improve real workers’ standard of living . . . a goal within reach.”  A goal but not a reality.  Not even for the hotel’s workers. 

There’s a layman’s term for Mr. Boyce’s layman’s explanation, but this is a family newspaper.

* * *