[Fwd: RE: [CFW] DRAFT AGENDA - Fair Wage Meeting, Wednesday, December 28th]
One more message from Ben Boyce sent earlier in the day. Also one more article - http://www.sfexaminer.com/articles/2005/12/22/opinion/20051222_op04_hopper.t... I don't often agree with Martyn Hopper from the NFIB (the NFIB is an organization that many in the small business community do not support - politically, they are too far to the right) In the last paragraph of the article, Martyn is commenting on the governor and the November 2006 ballot. "But it is the actions, or inactions, taken over the minimum-wage rate that will set the tone and color the climate for almost every other issue." I agree. But, I don't think Mr. Hopper has seen any poll results. The $7.75 initiative will pass if it is on the November 2006 ballot. ". . . the governor will be in the unenviable position of having to campaign against it." Other than broad public support, part of the reason this initiative will pass is based on the work that the Labor Center at the University of California at Berkeley has done on this wage level. Most employers already pay their employees above this level. I don't think they will contribute to a campaign to oppose this initiative. Sure, there will be a No campaign, but it won't be as well funded as if we were promoting an $8.75 initiative. It is interesting to note that both articles I am forwarding to you state that the Democratic Party or the labor community is moving the initiative forward. It isn't true! How do Green Party members turn this into our advantage to build the party? I know the labor community is tapped out after last fall - AND, they expect more attacks this coming year. But, I don't understand the lack of leadership within the Democratic Party on this issue. The author/coauthors of AB48 were notified of this meeting. As of today, not one has responded. I'm beginning to wonder if the Democrats really want to see this on the November 2006 ballot. I'm wondering if they realize the tremendous opportunity that is being laid before them - to expand their base by working out in the community on a very popular initiative. I'm beginning to wonder about their commitment to low wage and working class Californians. Californians For Fair Wages needs help qualifying a minimum wage initiative for the November 2006 ballot. We need the active participation of the labor community and the Democratic Party to be successful. I'm sure that we will have lots of people asking us for petitions when they are printed. Everyone will want one. "Sign a petition to raise the minimum wage?" As of right now, there is no money to print the initiative and get it out on the street. How do we get people who will want to be carrying this initiative to put up some money for the printing and distribution? How do we get them to be responsible for that distribution, oversee collection of the petitions, check the accuracy of signatures and the ultimate submission to the county elections office? We need the help of the labor community and the Democratic Party. How do we build the Green Party? We have to take the same opportunity that is being handed the Democrats and the labor community. We have to go out into communities of color. Go out into low income communities and talk about this initiative. The Democrats may not, we should. I'm looking forward to talking about it to the voters in the 12th Assembly District. Barry Hermanson Green Party Candidate for the State Assembly, 12th District www.barryhermanson.org 415-255-9494 Barry Hermanson -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [CFW] DRAFT AGENDA - Fair Wage Meeting, Wednesday, December 28th Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2005 15:01:21 -0800 From: Ben Boyce <ben.boyce@sbcglobal.net> To: <cfw@lists.riseup.net> Allies: This meeting will be important because it will set the strategy for the state-wide campaign to raise the minimum wage. From the traffic generated on the issue, it is clear that there are principled differences on the correct strategy that break out on the lines of which baseline figure to start with ($7.75 vs.. $8.75). There are compelling arguments on both sides. I am not afraid of the intensity of the discussion. The differences are not petty or personal, on the whole. They are genuine policy and political judgments with very real consequences. We do need to move forward, but we have to come to an agreement on what are moving forward with. It is important that we make a sound judgment in this regard, because there are real risks associated with losing. A public and visible defeat of an indexed minimum wage, especially if the Right Wing and its Chamber of Commerce allies conduct a coherent ideological attack, would set back our cause for years, and poison the well of public opinion if they have the resources to make their frame stick in the political arena. My ideal scenario would be that Labor and the Democrats would support this initiative wholeheartedly and fund it fully. Unfortunately, the Democrats are not interested in doing anything to raise the profile of the Green Party, and labor is holding off for the time being, perhaps due to financial exhaustion. Looked at in another light, this may represent an opportunity for the Green Party to lay claim to this issue and help rebrand the Green Party as being concerned about social justice issues. If the Green Party can take the lead in a focused and achievable statewide effort, this would add a lot to its credibility with California progressives. What concerns me is that there does not seem to be sufficient recognition in some quarters about what the difference between the two key proposals will be in terms of the level of opposition generated. The magnitude of the opposition campaign will go up exponentially between the two proposals. The $7.75 +COLA is a million dollar campaign for us. The $8.75+COLA is a ten million dollar campaign, with much steeper odds. I would be ready to go into battle for the admittedly preferable higher number if the money is there. If you want my vote, show me the money. Otherwise, lets go with a doable proposal that will back the Governor in a corner, and facilitate passage of a very real improvement in the lives of the working poor in California. My 2 cents, Ben Ben Boyce Living Wage Coalition Coordinator ben.boyce@sbcglobal.net <mailto:ben.boyce@sbcglobal.net> (707) 935-1642 www.livingwagesonoma.org <http://www.livingwagesonoma.org> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ From: Rioryon@aol.com [mailto:Rioryon@aol.com] Sent: Friday, December 23, 2005 6:19 AM To: cfw@lists.riseup.net Subject: [CFW] DRAFT AGENDA - Fair Wage Meeting, Wednesday, December 28th Meeting Date, Time - Wed, 12/28/5, 6 - 9PM Location - John F Kennedy Library, 505 Santa Clara St, Downtown Vallejo (NOTE - Mapquest has it on the wrong corner - Should be on the NE Corner ie. the far corner coming from the freeway) DRAFT AGENDA 6:00 - 15 Set Up, Introductions, Agenda Additions (Barry H) 6:15 - 20 Treasurer's Report (Pat D) 6:20 - 25 Two Versions, Review of Polling Results (Barry H) 6:25 - 30 Argument in Favor of $8.75 (Cres V?) 6:30 - 40 Voices of Experience (Richard Holober, Ken Masterton, Mike Feinstein, Barry Hermanson) 6:40 - 45 Argument in Favor of $7.75 (Tim S) 6:45 - 7:15 Questions, Comments, General Discussion, Compromise Solutions (?), Consensus (?) 7:15 - 30 Vote if Necessary - Vote Results 7:30 - 45 Next Steps - Printing, Publishing Intent to Circulate, Target Date for Circulation (1/4 or 1/5 ?) 7:45 - 8:15 Signature Gathering Orientation (Tim S) 8:15 - 45 Coordinating - Orientation (Tim S) 8:45 - 9:00 Next Meeting
It looks like, if you believe the poll results, once qualified, $7.75 can win practically without a campaign. Democrats have bragging rights to stay ahead of the parade if they wish thanks to AB 48, and will be credited for the success of the initiative. At $8.75, it will require true unity and a coordinated coalition effort to qualify it and win. Greens can be in a position to make a key contribution (if they can and will), and build the infrastructure of the party from within and a reputation as a credible team player from without. And show to be a true friend to the most needy of society, who will see that we stand as a challenge to business as usual. I would feel better going in to the communities in most need saying I support a living wage, and this approaches a wage necessary to make working a job more attractive than other options being offered. As I see it, this is more about passing the COLA, so the lower amount is better because it has high support. This is valid, so let's be clear of our goal. Having either petition to circulate will help build green infrastructure. But an inspiring campaign without training wheels would make the participation of the GP less inconsequential to me. Don At 10:01 PM 12/26/2005, Barry Hermanson wrote:
One more message from Ben Boyce sent earlier in the day. Also one more article - http://www.sfexaminer.com/articles/2005/12/22/opinion/20051222_op04_hopper.t...
I don't often agree with Martyn Hopper from the NFIB (the NFIB is an organization that many in the small business community do not support - politically, they are too far to the right) In the last paragraph of the article, Martyn is commenting on the governor and the November 2006 ballot.
"But it is the actions, or inactions, taken over the minimum-wage rate that will set the tone and color the climate for almost every other issue."
I agree. But, I don't think Mr. Hopper has seen any poll results. The $7.75 initiative will pass if it is on the November 2006 ballot. ". . . the governor will be in the unenviable position of having to campaign against it." Other than broad public support, part of the reason this initiative will pass is based on the work that the Labor Center at the University of California at Berkeley has done on this wage level. Most employers already pay their employees above this level. I don't think they will contribute to a campaign to oppose this initiative. Sure, there will be a No campaign, but it won't be as well funded as if we were promoting an $8.75 initiative.
It is interesting to note that both articles I am forwarding to you state that the Democratic Party or the labor community is moving the initiative forward. It isn't true! How do Green Party members turn this into our advantage to build the party? I know the labor community is tapped out after last fall - AND, they expect more attacks this coming year. But, I don't understand the lack of leadership within the Democratic Party on this issue. The author/coauthors of AB48 were notified of this meeting. As of today, not one has responded. I'm beginning to wonder if the Democrats really want to see this on the November 2006 ballot. I'm wondering if they realize the tremendous opportunity that is being laid before them - to expand their base by working out in the community on a very popular initiative. I'm beginning to wonder about their commitment to low wage and working class Californians. Californians For Fair Wages needs help qualifying a minimum wage initiative for the November 2006 ballot. We need the active participation of the labor community and the Democratic Party to be successful. I'm sure that we will have lots of people asking us for petitions when they are printed. Everyone will want one. "Sign a petition to raise the minimum wage?" As of right now, there is no money to print the initiative and get it out on the street. How do we get people who will want to be carrying this initiative to put up some money for the printing and distribution? How do we get them to be responsible for that distribution, oversee collection of the petitions, check the accuracy of signatures and the ultimate submission to the county elections office? We need the help of the labor community and the Democratic Party. How do we build the Green Party? We have to take the same opportunity that is being handed the Democrats and the labor community. We have to go out into communities of color. Go out into low income communities and talk about this initiative. The Democrats may not, we should. I'm looking forward to talking about it to the voters in the 12th Assembly District.
Barry Hermanson Green Party Candidate for the State Assembly, 12th District www.barryhermanson.org 415-255-9494
Barry Hermanson
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [CFW] DRAFT AGENDA - Fair Wage Meeting, Wednesday, December 28th Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2005 15:01:21 -0800 From: Ben Boyce <ben.boyce@sbcglobal.net> To: <cfw@lists.riseup.net>
Allies: This meeting will be important because it will set the strategy for the state-wide campaign to raise the minimum wage. From the traffic generated on the issue, it is clear that there are principled differences on the correct strategy that break out on the lines of which baseline figure to start with ($7.75 vs.. $8.75). There are compelling arguments on both sides. I am not afraid of the intensity of the discussion. The differences are not petty or personal, on the whole. They are genuine policy and political judgments with very real consequences. We do need to move forward, but we have to come to an agreement on what are moving forward with. It is important that we make a sound judgment in this regard, because there are real risks associated with losing. A public and visible defeat of an indexed minimum wage, especially if the Right Wing and its Chamber of Commerce allies conduct a coherent ideological attack, would set back our cause for years, and poison the well of public opinion if they have the resources to make their frame stick in the political arena. My ideal scenario would be that Labor and the Democrats would support this initiative wholeheartedly and fund it fully. Unfortunately, the Democrats are not interested in doing anything to raise the profile of the Green Party, and labor is holding off for the time being, perhaps due to financial exhaustion. Looked at in another light, this may represent an opportunity for the Green Party to lay claim to this issue and help rebrand the Green Party as being concerned about social justice issues. If the Green Party can take the lead in a focused and achievable statewide effort, this would add a lot to its credibility with California progressives. What concerns me is that there does not seem to be sufficient recognition in some quarters about what the difference between the two key proposals will be in terms of the level of opposition generated. The magnitude of the opposition campaign will go up exponentially between the two proposals. The $7.75 +COLA is a million dollar campaign for us. The $8.75+COLA is a ten million dollar campaign, with much steeper odds. I would be ready to go into battle for the admittedly preferable higher number if the money is there. If you want my vote, show me the money. Otherwise, lets go with a doable proposal that will back the Governor in a corner, and facilitate passage of a very real improvement in the lives of the working poor in California. My 2 cents, Ben
Ben Boyce Living Wage Coalition Coordinator ben.boyce@sbcglobal.net <mailto:ben.boyce@sbcglobal.net> (707) 935-1642 www.livingwagesonoma.org <http://www.livingwagesonoma.org>
------------------------------------------------------------------------ From: Rioryon@aol.com [mailto:Rioryon@aol.com] Sent: Friday, December 23, 2005 6:19 AM To: cfw@lists.riseup.net Subject: [CFW] DRAFT AGENDA - Fair Wage Meeting, Wednesday, December 28th
Meeting Date, Time - Wed, 12/28/5, 6 - 9PM
Location - John F Kennedy Library, 505 Santa Clara St, Downtown Vallejo (NOTE - Mapquest has it on the wrong corner - Should be on the NE Corner ie. the far corner coming from the freeway)
DRAFT AGENDA
6:00 - 15 Set Up, Introductions, Agenda Additions (Barry H)
6:15 - 20 Treasurer's Report (Pat D)
6:20 - 25 Two Versions, Review of Polling Results (Barry H)
6:25 - 30 Argument in Favor of $8.75 (Cres V?)
6:30 - 40 Voices of Experience (Richard Holober, Ken Masterton, Mike Feinstein, Barry Hermanson)
6:40 - 45 Argument in Favor of $7.75 (Tim S)
6:45 - 7:15 Questions, Comments, General Discussion, Compromise Solutions (?), Consensus (?)
7:15 - 30 Vote if Necessary - Vote Results
7:30 - 45 Next Steps - Printing, Publishing Intent to Circulate, Target Date for Circulation (1/4 or 1/5 ?)
7:45 - 8:15 Signature Gathering Orientation (Tim S)
8:15 - 45 Coordinating - Orientation (Tim S)
8:45 - 9:00 Next Meeting
_______________________________________________ Delegates mailing list Delegates@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/delegates
participants (2)
-
Barry Hermanson -
Don Eichelberger