General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWhat's with the lip service Hillary gave the Fight for $15 group without endorsing a specific wage?
Hillary Clinton asserted her support for union rights at a convention of fast-food workers in Detroit Sunday. She used the event to take a not-so-subtle jab at Republicans who have sought to limit them and hinted that she might support a $15 minimum wage the type that her chief rivals for the Democratic nomination back.
"We need you out there leading the fight against those who would rip away Americans' right to organize, to collective bargaining, to fair pay ," Clinton told the audience. The Washington Post noted that she used language in her remarks that mirrors that used in the Service Employees International Union's call for a $15 minimum wage.
A Clinton spokesman did not immediately reply to a request for confirmation of whether she intended to endorse the wage floor that Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley already support.
read: http://www.vox.com/2015/6/7/8743527/Hillary-Clinon-labor-wage
related:
OMalley speaks out against trade deal, supports $15 minimum wage
O'Malley said he could support raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour -- more than twice the current federal rate. He noted legislation passed in Maryland during his tenure that will raise the state's rate to $10.10 an hour by 2018, calling that "the furthest I could push it and still get the consensus to get it done."
But O'Malley predicted that several large metro areas across the country would move toward $15 an hour -- there's a push underway in the District -- and said that it would be good for the economy.
"It's going to fuel economic growth, greater consumer demand," he said.
Sanders:
Sanders called income inequality "grotesque" and "the great moral issue of our time." He also listed universal health care, campaign finance reform and climate change as key issues in his progressive agenda. Among the specific items on his campaign platform include establishing a $15 minimum wage, closing the gender pay gap, investing $1 trillion over five years to rebuild infrastructure, and overturning the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision.
read: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/26/bernie-sanders-2016_n_7446570.html
from Salon:
OMalley:
Supports $15. As governor of Maryland, supported legislation to raise the states minimum wage to $10.10 by 2018 because that was the furthest I could push it and still get the consensus to get it done.
Heres OMalley during a speech at Harvard University when he publicly backed the Fight for $15:
As we gather here tonight, wealth and economic power in the United States of America have now been concentrated in the hands of the very few as almost never before in the history of our country the vast majority of us are working harder but were watching our families slipping further behind
Sanders:
Supports $15, and also wants the United States to be a Scandinavian dreamscape.
Heres Sanders on why $15 is a minimum:
Well it wasnt what I chose, I think its what the sentiment is all over this country. And the answer is that if you do the arithmetic and people have to pay rent, have a car, and take care of their kids, and provide heat, and buy food and buy medicine, thats what it takes as a minimum to live a decent life.
Clinton:
Supports a boost to the minimum wage, but is murky on just how much of a boost. Theres speculation that shell back a proposal for $10.10 or even $12 an hour, but she hasnt come out in favor of $15, the floor being advocated by organizers in the Fight for $15 movement and the SEIU.
A sampling for her supportive-but-vague rhetoric: In April, she tweeted support for striking workers, specifically shouting out fast food and childcare workers who shouldnt have to march in streets for living wage. Earlier this month, she told a crowd in Chicago (a city that voted to raise its minimum wage to $13 by 2019):
We have to stand firmly together and united on behalf of your right to organize, your right to bargain collectively, your right to fight for the higher wages that reflect the value of your work.
...this is the same coy stance Clinton has taken on TPP. It's made even worse by the absence of any excuse (like waiting for the 'details' of TPP to emerge) for refusing to produce a number for the wage level she'd support and 'fight' for. It's almost sickening to see her get publicity for saying was going to 'fight with' the group and to realize that she's yet to take a stand. Is this one of the privileges she imagines comes with her frontrunner status in the polls?
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)You're much like the right in my opinion in that you have to have a boogie man or in this case a boogie woman.
Support your guy. Tell us how great he is. Maybe Hillary will give him a cabinet position.
bigtree
(86,020 posts)I make 13.00 an hour/full-time and my wife makes 10.00 an hour/part-time.
It's disgusting listening to wealthy politicians quibbling and equivocating about a higher minimum wage while I'm struggling to pay the bills (much less deal with emergencies and other home expenses).
I advocate for 'my guy' every day here. If Hillary is the nominee, I'll vote for her (I've even made favorable posts for Hillary and supported ones where I agree with her). That's not going to stop me from questioning her or criticizing her when I think she's wrong. If you can't take my questions and criticisms then ignore me.
I'm 'like the right' for questioning this? Fuck that bullshit.
FSogol
(45,595 posts)are better on that position. Stating some facts about an important issue is not acting like the right. Condescending claims of inevitability would be better supported with some specific positions on issues.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)I know it is inconvenient to have them pointed out but I thank the OP for posting this so we can all be informed.
Sancho
(9,072 posts)Who cares if she advocates a specific $ amount?
If you want start the Hillary bashing, just remember that Sanders has not faced an organized attack yet, and he has plenty of issue to pick over.
bigtree
(86,020 posts)I care if she refuses to support a specific wage. That's not 'bashing' it's my opinion. It's a goddamn shame to be attacked for expressing it.
Sanders SUPPORTS a $15 minimum wage. Nothing to criticize him for on the subject of this post.
How does she support unions? Just by saying so? What about the specific issues they represent? Does she support all of them, as well?
Sancho
(9,072 posts)"Hillary has long been a supporter of raising the minimum wage, equal pay, higher wages, and union bargained wages." That's not lip-service; it's a lifetime of fighting for workers.
If Hillary announces support for a $20 minimum wage, will you demand that others revise their speeches and up the ante to a specific amount? What's the magic number? Hillary has been on this topic for...hmmmm...decades? You do understand that a minimum wage (especially in a right to work state) is not a substitute for a good union contract. You also understand that the bigger issue is that women are paid equally; that international immigrants are citizens so they can be paid minimum wages of any kind and not abused; and that judges/courts fairly support challenges to unfair wages. A higher minimum raise is a simple talking point that all Democrats will support, but Hillary understands the real problems of workers. Putting all your effort into raising the minimum wages to some arbitrary number distracts from more important salary issues.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2015/06/07/hillary-clinton-sounds-populist-note-at-fast-food-workers-convention/
http://www.statecolumn.com/2014/04/hillary-clinton-promotes-womens-rights-in-front-of-thousands-of-methodist-women/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/15/hillary-clinton-minimum-wage_n_7075258.html
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/204772-group-touts-hillary-clintons-minimum-wage-efforts
http://correctrecord.org/hillary-clinton-less-minimum-more-wage/
bigtree
(86,020 posts)...the issue I'm responding to is 'her schmoozing and lip service with the 'Fight for $15 group without committing to their wage number.
So, you're basically arguing against the importance of a minimum wage. That's not a position I support. The minimum wage provides a base under union negotiations. Unions certainly contribute to raising wages, but their percentage of workers is unfortunately declining, even in their fraction of representation of the total U.S. workforce. I worked in a union for 30 years (UFCW 400 and 27) until I was discharged last year, so I understand the benefit and importance of unions.
As for the minimum wage being a 'talking point, I'll let that argument of yours speak for itself. It's certainly not the only issue in the workplace regarding wages, but it's an important one to workers like myself who are struggling to survive in a non-union job without a decent wage.
bluesbassman
(19,387 posts)Constantly invoking the "bashing" meme to address a legitimate questioning of her positions displays a both a lack of confidence in her positions and a desire to stifle discussion.
Sancho
(9,072 posts)and I find nit-picking on some of these details bashing (for any candidate). Is there any point? Do you find that Hillary would NOT support raising the minimum wage? Of course not.
That's just my view of any of these discussions. I found the term "lip-service" inaccurate to Hillary's support of the minimum wage, fair wages, bargained wages, and equal pay. She's been an advocate for workers for a long time.
I think the legitimate issue may be "Does the candidate support workers? How so?"
It's not a meme, it's an observation.
bluesbassman
(19,387 posts)Just as I have done in every election since 1976. There has never been IMO a good GOP candidate during my voting lifetime, and the current crop is even worse than usual, so even a far too centrist (for my taste) Democratic candidate is vastly preferable to the alternative.
Of course there is a point to discussing these details. It's called vetting. If a candidate wins the Primary while skirting issues, do you see that as a good thing? I certainly do not, and I welcome any legitimate discussion offered on Sander's, Clinton's, O'Malley's, or any other pol's positions, that decides to toss their hat in the ring so that come time to check off the name on a ballot I have as much information as possible regarding each of their positions and stances so that I can make a choice based on those areas. To find out what they really think, in the GE, where my vote is limited to R vs D is not the way I was taught to utilize critical thinking.
To address directly your comments: Of course Clinton supports raising the minimum wage. It would be political suicide for her to oppose it. However, it would be nice to know what her thoughts are on the amount as that is pretty critical moving forward with any semblance of addressing the need for a living wage standard in this country. She could easily claim to support raising the wage and then oversee a hike to $9 and claim that she raised the wage without accomplishing anything meaningful. That may be a good political maneuver, but it's not the kind of leadership that will correct the path this country is on.
Guess that's why I see these types of discussions not as bashing, but as critical to making sure we have the best candidate availble to run in 2016, and that should that candidate win the election, we have a President that is clear in their convictions and goals so we have some basis to know what to expect from them.
Jesus Malverde
(10,274 posts)Of union support.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)Actually endorsing something one's fellow 1%ers (and sources of financial support) hate is another thing entirely.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)O'Malley wants to seem way progressive in the primaries and then, if he got the nomination, he would take a hard right turn in the general election.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)working for minimum wage and still not able to get out of poverty.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)jwirr
(39,215 posts)bigtree
(86,020 posts)...one sure way to 'turn' after elected is to remain vague on the wage level you support.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)It is easy to support eventually getting to $15 per hour minimum wage. Saying that we should adopt that minimum wage right now would be a radical proposal that I doubt Clinton or O'Malley would support.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)bluesbassman
(19,387 posts)All I could find was her speech mirroring some of the language the SCIU is using in their push for $15 an hour, but no actual mention of a dollar figure.
Thanks in advance!
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)bluesbassman
(19,387 posts)Whoever wrote that headline pulled the $15 "endorsement" out of thin air. Nowhere in the article (or any other Google search provided) shows where she actually endorsed a specific number.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)bluesbassman
(19,387 posts)Now that's fine if you choose to read that into her reported statements to the group, but to state that as an absolute when even a cursory reading of the article provides little more than general allusions to standing with the union, and that is not what I would consider splitting hairs.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)to publicly or officially say that you support or approve of (someone or something)
: to publicly say that you like or use (a product or service) in exchange for money
bluesbassman
(19,387 posts)So where in the reporting of her phone call did she support or approve of the $15? She did not. So while it is correct to say that the verbiage reported implied an endorsement of the union, it's members, and the struggle they are engaged in, it is not true that she endorses the target goal. The closest anyone has come to indicating what her thoughts are is to say that she supports raising the minimum wage and will be stating the dollars and timeline when she rolls out her platform. That is not endorsing $15 an hour no matter how fine you want to split hairs.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)bigtree
(86,020 posts)"Just how high a wage hike Clinton supports, however, remains a mystery. The candidate has not provided a figure yet. Her campaign did not return a request for comment Sunday night."
Yet the article's headlines screams that she 'champions' a minimum wage increase. Some freaking champion, mealymouthed 'support' while playing politics with the actual wage amount.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Why isn't there a bill in the House and Senate at all times. The election is in 2016, there should be a bill already. Congress is sitting sleeping their terms away, where is a bill for $15 right now. Why do we have to wait until a new president is elected? I would bet if a bill got to Obama's desk it would be signed. It us about mealy mouthed Congressional members.
bigtree
(86,020 posts)...jumping all around to excuse the political dithering on this from Hillary.
Pathetic. She needs to commit soon or she's just playing these folks.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)It still has to come from Congress and now that Hillary has not said $15 even though she has endorsed the $15 wage she us being mealy mouth. We don't have congressional members who care about the working class to sponsor a bill, give it to congress who is failing. If we have to wait until a new president is elected, we have a president waiting on the bill getting passed right now.
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)which hasn't been rolled out yet.
http://www.thenation.com/blog/204537/hillary-clinton-progressive-democrats-back-fight-15-protests
Many see the Report of the Commission on Inclusive Prosperity, co-chaired by Lawrence Summers and UK Labour leader Ed Balls, as a tentative economic blueprint for the nascent Clinton campaign. Clintons support for the Fight for 15 movement is consistent with whats outlined in the report: among other things, it says that its important for minimum wages adjust to keep up with pay at the middle and top. It calls for a minimum wage that is at least high enough to prevent full-time workers from living in poverty, specifically, a pay rate of at least $10.10 per hour and linked to the consumer price index.
The repeated at least qualifiers left uncertain what pay rate, exactly, Clinton thinks should be the floor. In the Times story Monday, progressive economist Dean Baker noted there is pressure on Clinton to come up with a number, and her tweet Wednesday was clearly intended to support the workers asking for $15 per hour.
Does that mean $15 is her number? We may have to wait for the campaigns official platform to be unveiled. A campaign spokesperson told The Nation only that Hillary applauds the efforts of organizers coast to coast fighting for an increase in their wages because you shouldnt have to be a CEO to get a raise. Everyday Americans should be able to make a little more so you can worry a little less. Higher wages dont just help those at the bottom of the pay scale, they have a ripple effect across the economy and helps millions of American workers and middle class families.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)She weasels in a way that I have no patience with
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)All the proposals are based upon phased-in numbers. By the way, I support it as soon as reasonable, well before 2020.
bigtree
(86,020 posts)...it's elitist and cheap politics to appear before this group, claim she'll 'fight' with them and still keep the wage level she'll support to herself. That's not support, it's lip service.
With enough pressure, perhaps, we can get her to commit to the number advocated by the fast food workers and others in the coming days. Right now, she's just playing an infuriating politics with the livelihood of millions of workers.
cali
(114,904 posts)gollygee
(22,336 posts)she supports what they're fighting for, isn't she supporting $15 an hour?
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)I'm still laughing.
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)Those who wear Hillary Decoder Spex can read her like letters of fire though. Or something.
bluesbassman
(19,387 posts)According to all reports linked to, and additional ones I found on search, she called in and told the assembly she supported them. I applaud her for the gesture, but it's not the same as saying I support the goal you have set. She used words that are non-committal should she include a figure less than $15 in her soon to be rolled out platform.
gollygee
(22,336 posts)There was a picture of a podium with "Fight for $15" on it. The article made me think that she'd been there and said that. I could certainly be wrong. But then it's a confusing article.
bluesbassman
(19,387 posts)Vox's headline was that she "hinted" at the $15, the Washington Post Headline stated that she "endorses fight for a $15 minimum wage", but in neither article did it quote her as saying that she supported the figure, only the struggle that the workers are engaged in.
bigtree
(86,020 posts)...that's well known.
What was the point in standing before this group and still refusing to state the wage level she'd support? What's her thinking in refusing, so far, to actually state a number, as her Democratic opponents have - as this group and others have been demanding? Why doesn't she get on with it?
orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)that's why the weak follow her and the 1% Pays her .
Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)We are doing Seinfeld style posts here... right?
A listening tour that costs ~$2500.00 each to be heard?
A listening tour where at her last stop "Her speech will be the interview".
If she has so much experience, why is she out there gathering information this late in the game? Doesn't she know what her positions are?
Is this just a way to avoid answering questions?
Is this just a way to claim that her positions are what the people want?
Seriously, what is up with this? It sounds crazy to me.
orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)has to .