It smells like fish (or the $35.8 million government gift to Del Monte)
 

Democrats have been pounding that they will be "the most ethical Congress".

Among the promises, they promised to raise the federal minimum wage - and they are. Such a bill was recently passed in the House on January 10, 2007.

However, there is an interesting exception to the new minimum wage law. For the first time, the new federal minimum wage extends to the American territory of the Mariana Islands. But the new law exempts one American Territory - American Samoa.

Hmmm. The new minimum wage law applies everywhere in the United States, except American Samoa.

There is an apparent glaring reason why this was done.

One of the biggest opponents of the federal minimum wage is Starkist Tuna, which operates two packing plants in American Samoa. The packing plants employ a total of more than 5000 Samoans.

Starkist Tuna's parent company, Del Monte Corporation, is headquartered in San Francisco, California - Congresswoman (and brand new Speaker of the House) Nancy Pelosi's area.

According to the Del Monte Corporation web site:
( http://www.delmonte.com/Company/AboutUs/Profile.asp )
the company's annual sales are over $3 billion.

Many lawmakers have stated that the exception to the new minimum wage rate for American Samoa was not disclosed to Congress before the bill was voted on in the House.

Congress: SHAME ON YOU for putting the rosey ramrod to a small group of distant Americans in exchange for a commercial interest. Singling out the Samoans like that is immoral.

The "most ethical Congress"? NOT!

Sorry, Charlie. I don't buy Del Monte.

http://washingtontimes.com/national/...0720-2734r.htm

Notes:

The $35.8 million is my figure and is a rough approximation if increased costs to an employer of raising wages from $5.10 per hour to $7.25 per hour, including approximated increases in payroll taxes and benefits. I'm feeling somewhat off today, so I hope I didn't bork the figures.

Statutory minimum wage increase is from $5.10 per hour to $7.25 per hour = raise of $2.15 per hour (at maximum).

In a standard work year there are 52 weeks of 40 hours each (52 * 40) = 2080 hours

(2080 hours * $2.15) = increase of $4,472.00 per year per employee
$4472 per year * 1.6 to allow for increased payroll taxes & benefits = $7155.20/year/employee. The X 1.6 figure is a standard approximation for costs of employees to employers in order to account for payroll taxes and costs of benefits.

Starkist Tuna (Del Monte Corporation) operates two packing plants in American Samoa that employ approximately 5000 Samoans.

Total annual cost for increased wages at $7.25 per hour (wage at conclusion of increases) for 5000 employees, including increases in payroll taxes and benefits is approximately ($7155.20 * 5000) = $35,776,000.00


Loss of revenue to government:

$4,472.00 per year * 5000 employees = $22,360,00.00 (approximately) in increased wages

$22,360,000.00 * .15 = $3,354,000.00 (approximately) annually in lost payroll tax revenue

($22,360,000.00 - $3,354,000.00) = $19,006,000.00 annually potentially subject to income taxes
$19,060,000.00 * .1 = $1,906,000.00 (approximately) annually in lost income tax revenue

$3,354,000 + 1,906,000.00 = $5,260,000.00 (approximately) annual loss in tax revenues (pretty much that's peanuts).

dig a little deeper than the Post article and you'll find that the new minimum wage law does not grant an exception to American Samoa - in fact, it does not even mention American Samoa.

American Samoa has a federal wage review board, made of local business and government reps appointed by the US Secretary of Labor, that exempts it from federal minimum wage standards. considering this has been the case in American Samoa long before Pelosi took over, your Del Monte/Pelosi connection is tenuous at best.

not to say that Dems won't slip a little something in for their favorite corporate constituents wherever they can, but this doesn't seem to be the case here.

incidentally, where were you for the last six years of the GOP Congress, when the kind of thing you're looking for here was a way of life?

I dug deep enough to supply the information to make my point.

The article wasn't from the Washington Post, it's from the Washington Times. The Post also had a similar story.

A number of other news sources had similar stories on this subject. So, all these news sources just made the story up? I really don't think so.

Here's another article, this time a UPI report. Apparently, pressure from the GOP caused a turnaround of events in this matter.

http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/view.ph...3-101749-1793r

Ms. Pelosi got caught with her panties down.

It's "a way of life" for both sides - unless they get caught, which was my point. Again, so much for "the most ethical Congress". They'll only be ethical when they get caught and we make them be ethical.

The GOP can dig up just as much dirt on Democrats as Democrats can dig up on the GOP.

At least now ALL Americans will benefit from the new minimum wage law.

About time IMO, atleast now US citizen minimum wage will match ours.

How many sweat shops are there so far are there in the world for american corporations? Granted they are no colonies of the US but still, should they also benifit a wage increase since they are working for US corporations?

5.10$? illbet they would go nuts with that wage even if it's minimum, sure as hell beat 10 cents per hour.

Bush hasn't signed it yet.

That's true, it's still a "proposed law" as it has only passed the house.

you present stories suggesting American Samoa was exempted from minimum wage laws at the behest of Pelosi - this is factually incorrect. American Samoa has always been exempt from minimum wage laws and is not mentioned in the proposed bill. nice try, but in the end, per your link, all Pelosi actually did was rectify a past imbalance in the law's coverage.

if that's all you can dig up, it's not much.

Pelosi only "rectified" the situation AFTER being pressured by Republicans, as per the article I linked to. Nice try back to you.

I will remember your tactic of dismissing all news stories (that I post) as inaccurate. I will probably point it out to you in the future when you quote information sources. If it works for you, it works for me too, no?

I'm glad the law was fixed and the Samoans will also benefit from the minimum wage increase. It's the fair thing to do.

It's fair to the extent that it will apply everywhere, but people support the minimum wage law precisely because it unfairly redistributes wealth to people who haven't earned it.

Like you pointed out, Drak, this issue isn't about fairness, it's about making the new Speaker of the House look bad. Considering that dozens of news outlets have covered this story I'd say that it's having the desired effect.

just keep in mind that american samoa has been decoupled from mainland wage laws throughout the entire history of a republican dominated house and senate and presidency. that this goes all the way back to when the navy ran the place and that any if any "anger" directed at democrats is to be taken seriously it must also be directed at any republicans still serving for allowing this "terrible situation" to continue for so long.

i don't have an opinion on the merits of extending identical wage laws to that little island community of 57,000 people, but i can recognise a snadbag when i see one and as mazer points out i'm not alone in that regard. if naked hypocrisy is the only game the republicans can play they can rightly expect to hemmorrage even more seats in the next election.

if this wage situation really is so terrible then some credit must go to democrats for immediately fixing it in thier first week in office (where the republicans let it go for twelve years), even if their reasons were less than selfless.

twenty-one senate republican seats will be open in '08, compared with 12 in the democrat's aisle.

- js.

you are correct, democrats suck!!

so do republicans!!!


they are two side of the same coin that is controlled by corporations and pork.

I don't understand how you could think the minimum wage worker hasn't earned a bit of a raise. This country was built on the backs of common minimum wage workers while corporate fat cats get rich milking them for all they're worth. I think the wealth has been unfairly distributed for a long time and this mistake is just now starting to be rectified.

That's a fine opinion to have, and I understand where you're coming from, Vern. It's just my opinion that in a western democratic/capitalist society the market determines what's fair. I can tell you, working for a small company with a handful of employees, that my boss isn't a fat cat getting rich by paying some of his employees seven dollars an hour. Around here we earn what we're worth, it's only fair.

Face it, some people just aren't worth as much as everyone else.

The minimum wage isn't about making things fair, it's about keeping people from falling so far below the poverty line that they'll never recover. It's the so called safety net you hear about sometimes. People earning minimum wage should be motivated to work harder and earn more to better support themselves and their families. But if you raise the minimum wage too much you take away that motivation. The true measure of any welfare system is the number of people it helps raise above the poverty line. Raising the minimum wage also raises the poverty line, if you think about it, and raising it too much actually puts more people below the line than above it.

In the case of this congress, the Democrats are trying to buy the votes of the poor with someone else's money. In this case, raising the minimum wage is also unethical as well as unfair. That's how I see it.

Another history retard; this country was built long before there was a minimum wage.




Wealth isn't "distributed" it's created. If you're not smart or energetic enough to create wealth for yourself then you'll have to work for people who are. And if those people can get someone who'll work for less than you then they have every right to hire him and kick your bitchy ass out the door as another fine example of a loser who bites the hand that feeds him.

Funny; I've known welfare losers with the same attitude about their government handouts: 'those fuckers should give me more and do more for me'.

The Republicans in the Senate, 21 of which are up for reelection in 08, don't really give a crap's ass whether the minimum wage is raised or not.
They are just stalling the Iraq war resolution vote which will force them to go on record as either for the war or against it.
And while they are stalling, Bush will be deploying the new troops to the big mistake and then they can go back to the old stand-by, "that's old news".

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said, "If they defeat cloture on minimum wage, they think we're going to bring this right back? Oh, no we're not. We're going to move to another subject they don't like to talk about: escalation of the war in Iraq... they know when minimum wage is finished, we're going to Iraq."

Bush and what's left of his rubber stamping congress are still in denial.
To them, the November election either did not happen or the results were much different than what they were in reality.

The minimum wage will be increased, as it should be, and I do not see America going back to the days of company towns and company stores and paying the workers with script that can only be spent at the company store; you know; back when "the capitalists" ie. those with the money, determined what was "fair".

So basically what you're saying is that the Democrats don't really care whether this bill makes it to Bush's desk or not, they're more worried about Iraq. We're you trying to change my mind? You've only convinced me that the Dems are no less corrupt and self interested than the Republicans and that their one and only concern is playing politics so they can get Clinton back in the White House. They want to get her on record as being in opposition to the war as soon as possible so she can officially announce her candidacy on a Bush Failed™ platform. They couldn't care less about minimum wage, or any other domestic issue, could they?

Who are you and what have you done with Mazer?

Don't you mean what happened to the stereotypical wing-nut Bush lover named Mazer? I think your prejudice must have created him, because I'm not him and I never was.

No.
I meant that prior post made by you was devoid of even pseudo intellectuality.
Perhaps you were PWI?

no, really?

pathological obsession with a Clinton is usually the wing-nut smoking gun