Alaska Darin Posted January 12, 2007 Share Posted January 12, 2007 Not so fast. The previous minimum wage law exempted two US territories. One was North Marianas and the other was the Pacific Enclave (American Samoa). The NEW law removes the exemption for Marianas and their burgeoning sweatshop clothing industry (which all bear "Made in the USA" labels) but leaves the exemption in place for the Pacific Enclave. The reason? Well, the Marianas representation to Congress is a non-voting Republican. So screw you little guys in American Samoa, because your politicans are non-voting Democrats! Remember, liberals don't need poor people to stay poor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted January 12, 2007 Share Posted January 12, 2007 Speaking of, how's the new clean Democratic leadership in Senate progressing on ethics rules reform? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joey Balls Posted January 12, 2007 Share Posted January 12, 2007 Actually it has more to do with the outrage and furor provoked by the DeLay/Abramoff scandal than any "non voting representatives" whoever the hell they might be. http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/05/09/real.delay/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yall Posted January 12, 2007 Share Posted January 12, 2007 Not so fast. The previous minimum wage law exempted two US territories. One was North Marianas and the other was the Pacific Enclave (American Samoa). The NEW law removes the exemption for Marianas and their burgeoning sweatshop clothing industry (which all bear "Made in the USA" labels) but leaves the exemption in place for the Pacific Enclave. The reason? Well, the Marianas representation to Congress is a non-voting Republican. So screw you little guys in American Samoa, because your politicans are non-voting Democrats! Remember, liberals don't need poor people to stay poor. There are reports this has more to do with Nancy Pelosi, and the GOP is complaining about it: http://washingtontimes.com/national/200701...20720-2734r.htm Edit: Hmmm Intersting arctile by JoeyBalss too... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted January 12, 2007 Author Share Posted January 12, 2007 Actually it has more to do with the outrage and furor provoked by the DeLay/Abramoff scandal than any "non voting representatives" whoever the hell they might be.http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/05/09/real.delay/ Ah, so because some scumbag Republican endorsed poor working conditions that means those people get minimum wage but those in the Pacific don't warrant the VERY SAME TREATMENT? Is there anything you partisans won't defend with your ridiculousness? I'm sure it has nothing to do with both major employers in American Samoa being headquartered in California or the fact that their representation is currently liberal lefties. Thanks for the article from 2 years ago, though. As if I didn't cover the working conditions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted January 12, 2007 Share Posted January 12, 2007 Ah, so because some scumbag Republican endorsed poor working conditions that means those people get minimum wage but those in the Pacific don't warrant the VERY SAME TREATMENT? Is there anything you partisans won't defend with your ridiculousness? I'm sure it has nothing to do with both major employers in American Samoa being headquartered in California or the fact that their representation is currently liberal lefties. Thanks for the article from 2 years ago, though. As if I didn't cover the working conditions. Saw an expose...on Dobbs I think.....that only like 500,000 make minimum wage and of course, most of them are 17 year old burger jocks who still feed off the teet of their parents. So....SURPRISE!!!!!!.....all this Minimum wage nonsense is nothing more than political grandstanding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yall Posted January 12, 2007 Share Posted January 12, 2007 Saw an expose...on Dobbs I think.....that only like 500,000 make minimum wage and of course, most of them are 17 year old burger jocks who still feed off the teet of their parents. So....SURPRISE!!!!!!.....all this Minimum wage nonsense is nothing more than political grandstanding. Yeah but, how many people that are not 17 year old burger jocks make below the proposed minimum wage? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted January 12, 2007 Share Posted January 12, 2007 Yeah but, how many people that are not 17 year old burger jocks make below the proposed minimum wage? Not enough for this to be THE issue Congress concerns itself with and thumps its chest over, thats fer sure. But going for the low hanging fruit those first few days in office seems to be the norm. Makes those new guys and gals look like they are really....ya...know.....going to DO SOMETHING, DAMMIT!!!!! Talk to me in a month when Pelosi cuts a session short for nothing more than so she can jet back to San Fran in time to get up to Lodi and score some good Zin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yall Posted January 12, 2007 Share Posted January 12, 2007 Not enough for this to be THE issue Congress concerns itself with and thumps its chest over, thats fer sure. But going for the low hanging fruit those first few days in office seems to be the norm. Makes those new guys and gals look like they are really....ya...know.....going to DO SOMETHING, DAMMIT!!!!! Talk to me in a month when Pelosi cuts a session short for nothing more than so she can jet back to San Fran in time to get up to Lodi and score some good Zin. How 'bout I talk to you now after they already cut out to watch college football? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted January 13, 2007 Share Posted January 13, 2007 Yeah but, how many people that are not 17 year old burger jocks make below the proposed minimum wage? Below minimum wage? Zero. Zero that are legal citizens of this country who don't have multiple layers of government bureaucracy to complain to if that were ever the case for even five minutes. Below that proposed minimum wage? Not many if the total is only 500k Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted January 13, 2007 Share Posted January 13, 2007 Some data: http://www.heritage.org/Research/Economy/wm1186.cfm Disclaimer: its from the Heratige Foundation, a Conservative "think tank" (hate those). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted January 13, 2007 Share Posted January 13, 2007 The major (75%) employer in American Samoa is Starkist which is owned by Dole. Where is Dole HQ? -San Francisco, which is "Stretch" Pelosi's district. Surprise, surprise surprise! Some pigs are more equal than others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted January 13, 2007 Share Posted January 13, 2007 The major (75%) employer in American Samoa is Starkist which is owned by Dole. Where is Dole HQ? -San Francisco, which is "Stretch" Pelosi's district. Surprise, surprise surprise! Some pigs are more equal than others. Jan 13, 2007 - Wacka makes Orwell allusion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted January 13, 2007 Share Posted January 13, 2007 Don't labor unions base their pay scale off minimum wage? So by raising the minimum wage won't that also raise the union scale? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted January 13, 2007 Share Posted January 13, 2007 Below minimum wage? Zero. Zero that are legal citizens of this country who don't have multiple layers of government bureaucracy to complain to if that were ever the case for even five minutes. Below that proposed minimum wage? Not many if the total is only 500k I don't how they figure that number out?... But at the library where my wife is the director... And this is in the local (village) government sector... Hourly employees v. salaried employees may be another way to manipulate the numbers... 40/40 employees will be affected 30/40 employees have been making UNDER the proposed minimum wage 12/40 are currently making the CURRENT minimum wage. This is just one library in a village of about 22k people... Other libraries, larger and smaller are all facing the same question... The number has to be larger than 500,000k throughout the whole country? As the "Riddler"... I say riddle me this quirky situation that is most likely playing out through more than 500k employers and employees in the country... As director and flaming lib, my wife is all for raising the minimum wage... But, for a non-private sector employer... This is an unfunded mandate... That means cuts will have to be made in service or the way they "do business"... Not sure if they let people go?... Which I am sure they aren't gonna do anyway... Raising taxes is out of the question... That means you are getting less money for your tax dollar already spent... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted January 13, 2007 Share Posted January 13, 2007 Don't labor unions base their pay scale off minimum wage? So by raising the minimum wage won't that also raise the union scale? Yes. As noted above... The library... Though NON-union... The whole pay scale will have to be raised. 12 out of 40 make the CURRENT minimum... 18 will now fall below the PROPOSED minimum and the rest will be affected when their pay meets or exceeds the other 10 or less... So not just unions... This whole scenario is playing out through the whole work force, union or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverNRed Posted January 13, 2007 Share Posted January 13, 2007 Washington Times On Wednesday, the House voted to raise the minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25 per hour. The bill also extends for the first time the federal minimum wage to the U.S. territory of the Northern Mariana Islands. However, it exempts American Samoa, another Pacific island territory that would become the only U.S. territory not subject to federal minimum-wage laws. One of the biggest opponents of the federal minimum wage in Samoa is StarKist Tuna, which owns one of the two packing plants that together employ more than 5,000 Samoans, or nearly 75 percent of the island's work force. StarKist's parent company, Del Monte Corp., has headquarters in San Francisco, which is represented by Mrs. Pelosi. The other plant belongs to California-based Chicken of the Sea. I guess when Nancy surrounded herself with those little kids and said she was doing it for the children she meant "not the Samoan children." And if that wasn't bad enough, Nancy Pelosi's husband is supposedly a primary investor in Del Monte. I had no idea that the first 100 hours plan included making federal government corruption hit a fever pitch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted January 13, 2007 Share Posted January 13, 2007 Yes. As noted above... The library... Though NON-union... The whole pay scale will have to be raised. 12 out of 40 make the CURRENT minimum... 18 will now fall below the PROPOSED minimum and the rest will be affected when their pay meets or exceeds the other 10 or less... So not just unions... This whole scenario is playing out through the whole work force, union or not. Yeah there's that too. But don't the unions also contribute heavily to Democrats Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yall Posted January 15, 2007 Share Posted January 15, 2007 Below minimum wage? Zero. Zero that are legal citizens of this country who don't have multiple layers of government bureaucracy to complain to if that were ever the case for even five minutes. Below that proposed minimum wage? Not many if the total is only 500k I said below the PROPOSED minimum wage, not the CURRENT minimum wage. The point is, the post I was referring to made it seem as those the only people that would benefit from the minimum wage increase were those making the minimum wage, which is not true. Anyone making below the proposed minimum wage would benefit. I'm pretty sure there are more than 500k of those people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill from NYC Posted January 15, 2007 Share Posted January 15, 2007 Washington Times I guess when Nancy surrounded herself with those little kids and said she was doing it for the children she meant "not the Samoan children." And if that wasn't bad enough, Nancy Pelosi's husband is supposedly a primary investor in Del Monte. I had no idea that the first 100 hours plan included making federal government corruption hit a fever pitch. Did one representative from either party bring this up on the congressional floor? One would have to think that it would have been harder to pull this off if anyone at all had raised this issue, no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts