Statesman Journal
Energy policies and pricing bilks consumers
What frustrates me about Peter Morici’s Dec. 23 commentary, “Dumb policies dim benefits of falling oil prices,” are his comments that come across as primarily from the oil and gas industry perspective.
For too many years, the consumer has paid the price because of the oil and gas industry’s continued greed and record profits. That, combined with fossil fuel subsidies, stoke an industry that bilks the consumer. We have no control over the price of energy or policies that provide these subsidies.
I hardly sympathize with an industry that has exhibited a pattern of greed at the expense of the consumer. Now that the consumer can experience some relief at the pump, we are supposed to feel some level of compassion for the industry?
The consumer is literally along for the ride when it comes to energy policy and pricing.
Gerry Juster
Keizer
Raising minimum wage portends more business
In her Dec. 17 letter, Jennifer Arends, a small business owner, says that raising the minimum wage to $15 portends uncertainty, and then says with utmost certainty that she will have to end all employee benefits and raise prices. She is certain the rise in prices will lead to losing customers and that losing customers means she will certainly have to fire some of her employees.
I invite Jennifer to consider the money she will save in training and turnover costs by having happier workers who don’t constantly jump ship, and the increase in productivity that comes with happier and more satisfied workers.
I invite her to consider the increase in business and revenue her company and other small businesses throughout Oregon will see because hundreds of thousands of people will now have a little extra money.
I invite her to consider her own employees who have to pay rent, bills and feed their families on the wages she pays them in exchange for their labor. They are people with families, with dignity and humanity. They are not just labor costs on a spreadsheet.
No one who works should live in poverty.
Justin Norton-Kertson
Portland
Who really benefits by raising the minimum wage?
Raising the minimum wage to $15 is a dumb idea.
Business owners, farmers, restaurants and stores will cover increased employee costs by raising prices of goods and services we all buy. Consider aging retirees with limited incomes. Rising costs will deepen their financial woes.
My husband tells co-workers when the tide comes in, all the boats rise together. If the minimum wage is increased, all the boats will not rise together. Some boats may swamp. It’s not fair to benefit one sector of the population at the expense of another. The losers are set-income folks and anyone who already makes wages over $15. They’ll see increased costs of goods with no increase in income. Frankly, even minimum wage earners won’t see that big of an increase in their spendable income.
How about an economic study telling who stands to benefit from increased minimum wages other than the employee? For instance, will landlords charge higher rents because the free market will now bear increased rents due to higher wages?
I want to know if raising the minimum wage is truly a benefit for Oregonians or is it some legislator’s idea to increase the wealth of some at the expense of others.
Linda Shearer
Turner
History of minimum wage’s intent debatable
I find it necessary to respond to the issue regarding minimum wage history as stated in a recent letter to the editor. The truth is, the minimum wage was never intended to apply only to young, inexperienced workers. The minimum wage was a part of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) enacted into law in 1938 to address the exploitation of laborers prior to and during the Great Depression.
Prior to this act, thousands of workers worked under inhumane conditions for pennies per week because there were no regulations protecting them from such exploitation. A federal minimum wage of 25 cents an hour was established to provide workers with a minimum standard of living to help maintain general health and well-being.
Other protections introduced by the FSLA still in effect today included provisions banning child labor and establishing workplace safety statutes.
The canard that a minimum wage denies a worker the opportunity to sell his labor to an employer for the maximum price just has no basis in fact. You can look it up.
Tom Homan
Keizer
Smart suggestions to help Oregon’s general fund
Since Oregon is a low income state and too many people struggle for basic needs, why does the state not do something for its own people?
I would have a sales tax on non-residents only, something around the 7.5 percent amount. Oregon residents would show their driver’s license to be exempt from the tax.
Or, having a tax on everybody then when filing your tax return you get a credit back would also work. It’s more paperwork, but would catch people who buy large ticket items but not reporting income that justifies the amount spent.
The money collected would be just about what is collected in income taxes, so the tax rate could drop to what would be lower than California by 50 percent with money left over to really do some great projects for Oregonians.
I have been thinking about this for over 20 years, waiting for someone who thinks for the people. Being a tax accountant for 51 years and having filed over 84,000 tax returns, I know about what can be done.
Jerry Larsen
Salem
Worker hopes for passage of state-mandated paid sick leave
Before Portland’s Protected Sick Time Ordinance, I’d never had a single paid sick day in my life.
The rule was if I could get out of bed despite feeling ill, I had to work. As the breadwinner, my paycheck is too important to my family.
I’ve never called in sick unless I was really ill because staying home used to mean losing pay and making tough decisions on what in my budget had to get cut. And it wasn’t a matter of new clothes or a date night, it was choosing between essentials like food and electricity. Sometimes I’d have to borrow money from my parents and I haven’t always been able to keep the lights on.
The ordinance passed in Portland has changed a lot for my family and I. The first time my boss said, “Your paid sick days will cover it. Stay home and rest up,” I was filled with relief and gratitude.
The Dec. 9 article, “Democrats plan to push for paid sick leave in 2015,” gives me hope that soon the rest of Oregon will feel the same relief and gratitude knowing that it’s OK to take time to recover.
Paula Fisher
Portland
Oregon should re-consider use of grand juries
Recent police shootings have prompted a review of grand juries.
It is the opinion of many jurists that they be abolished. Their arguments contend that when court hearings are held in secret, they do not comply with the American system of justice and democratic values.
The only attorney in the jury room is the district attorney or other prosecutor. The jury only hears his or her side of the story. The D.A. can present evidence in any way they choose to get the results they want.
The entire proceedings are held in secrecy. The D.A., court clerk, court reporter and the bailiff are prohibited by law from disclosing whatever occurs. Grand jurors can never disclose to anyone how they reached their probable cause decisions.
District attorneys choose the witnesses, question them and decide what evidence the jurors will consider but witnesses are not cross examined. There are no rules of evidence and therefore no objections.
The modern day trend is to replace grand juries with with an adversarial preliminary hearing, open to the public, before a trial court judge. This can only be accomplished by a change in the laws of a state (such as Oregon) that still employs grand juries.
Joseph Willett
Harbor, Ore.