THE EDITOR, Sir:WHEN OUR argument is driven by the pride of position/opinion, the brightest of us can be most illogical and even ridiculous. The current minimum wage debate is a case in point. The proponents of a higher minimum wage suggest that the opponents do not 'value the worker'. Dr. Orville Taylor, in the January 16, 2005 edition of The Sunday Gleaner, asks, "how does the princely sum of $2,400 mind your 'helper' and her three 'hungry-belly pickney'?"
I was at a business place recently and overheard a conversation between two women: first woman, 'whey yu tink bout di increase in di minimum wage? Second woman, "psssssst, whey dat caan do? A three pickney mi ha fi mine!' First woman, "yu lucky, a five mi ha'.
In my humble opinion, when the minimum wage is determined, it is not the worker who is been valued but the WORK! Also, the responsibilities of the earner of the minimum wage are irrelevant to the process of determination. Dr. Taylor in his article goes on to say, 'employing someone else to clean your house, wash your clothes, chop your bush and tend your orchids is a luxury. One cannot expect the lesser-privileged to underwrite one's lifestyle'.
True! But the reverse is also true: one cannot expect the 'privileged' to underwrite the irresponsibility of the 'lesser-privileged'. I posit that minimum wage is for persons with MINIMUM responsibilities!
Therefore, if a person's current ability allows for only the minimum wage, his/her first priority is to get out of this earning bracket by increasing his/her skills and abilities before assuming responsibilities which exceeds earnings.
I am, etc.,
E. ELPEDIO ROBINSON
elpedioart@anngel.com
12 Laurel Drive, Kingston 10
