Groups hoping to increase San Jose’s minimum wage in November through Measure D lost a court fight on two fronts Thursday.
Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge Mark H. Pierce ruled that a line about costs from Measure D’s ballot statement must be taken out because it is misleading. He also rejected arguments that opponents of Measure D should have to change their ballot statement because minimum wage backers “failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that the subject arguments are false and misleading.”
Pro-business officials celebrated the legal ruling, while labor-aligned forces downplayed the judge’s decision.
“This is a big win,” said San Jose/SiliconValley Chamber of Commerce President and CEO Matt Mahood. “It’s a win for voters because now they’ll be getting the truth about what Measure D really does, and it’s a win for our campaign because it validates our message and points to facts the Labor Council doesn’t want the public to know about.”
“We lost, they won,” Christopher Platten, an attorney for the Measure D campaign, told the Mercury News. “Judges are human and humans make mistakes. The fight goes on.”
Measure D opponents say that the ballot measure backers were attempting to mislead the public by claiming that Measure D did not create a new city bureaucracy costing taxpayers more than $600,000 per year.
“No matter how they try to spin it, it’s a huge loss for the Labor Council and those who support this ill-advised measure,” said Tab Berg, another political consultant for the NO on D campaign.
Despite the claims of victory and trivial defeat from both sides, most experts believe Measure D will pass in November.
If passed, Measure D would make San Jose one of few major U.S. cities to have their own minimum wage law. Measure D would raise the hourly wage from the current statewide $8 minimum to $10 with a provision for annual inflation-indexed increases.
The joke of it all is Mahood doesn’t even live in San Jose, so none of these measures personally affect him or his family.
The Chamber of Commerce is in cahoots with Reed and the Murky News. Mahood is simply a vessel for Union busting and financially backs (or opposes) all legislation that affects labor negatively. It is his group that funded most pro-Measure V, W and B mailers and literature. The Chamber has countless anti-labor articles in their newsletter and is very much aligned with Republican views. Interestingly, they are in lock-step with Reed who claims to be Democratic.
My hope is that as layers of the onion are peeled back with vetting of Redevelopment, the Chamber will be exposed along with Reed. He has already been shown to misuse numbers, and soon the SEC will finish their investigation. More credit downgrades are coming and more forensic accounting too… When the lies pile on and the land developers turn on their pal Reed, will Mahood stand by his man or will he find a true Republican to carry his Chamber flag?
I can never understand why the miniumum wage advocates are so miserly.
If a government mandated minimum wage is such a good idea, why $10? Wouldn’t a higer minimum wage be better?
Why not a minimum wage of $36.72?
Or, $125.20?
Or, $1,199.56?
After all, it’s just a number that has no effect on the economy, other than allowing poor people to live well.
And if the government can mandate a wage level for SOME people to live well, why doesn’t it just mandate a wage level for EVERYONE to live well?
In fact, since we’re all just people, why doesn’t the government just mandate a COMMON WAGE for everyone. I think it should be $1,749.30.
An, by the way, if there were a common wage, there would be no need for unions, and no reason for teachers to ever go on strike.
The SJPOA would not have to constantly complain about being underpaid.