The East Bay's unemployment rate fell in August as the region added 700 jobs to the payrolls.
The jobless rate dropped from 9.5 percent in July to 9.2 percent last month, according to the California Employment Development Department.
In Alameda County, unemployment decreased from 9.5 percent to 9.3 percent in August.
In Contra Costa County, it dropped from 9.4 percent to 9.0 percent last month.
The total labor force in the East Bay grew from 959,100 in July to 959,800 in August.
The construction industry added 1,800 jobs in August while trade, transportation and utilities added 1,600. Professional and business services chipped in another 1,300. Education services went up by 300 jobs.
The biggest decline was seen in government, which lost 4,000 jobs. Financial services dropped 400 jobs while manufacturing lost 100 jobs.
Most communities saw a slight improvement in their unemployment rate.
Livermore's rate is now at 6.0 percent. Neighboring Pleasanton recorded 4.7 percent while Dublin came in at 5.6 percent.
Castro Valley has a 5.5 percent rate while San Lorenzo recorded 6.9 percent. San Leandro is listed at 9.2 percent and the Cherryland district is at 13.5 percent.
In the Tri-Cities, Fremont's rate is listed at 6.7 percent, Newark is at 8.6 percent and Union City is at 8.7 percent.
In the San Ramon Valley, Alamo stands at 3.4 percent, Danville at 4.8 percent and San Ramon at 3.7 percent.
Neighboring Walnut Creek has a 6.1 percent rate while Concord stands at 9.8 percent and Pleasant Hill at 7.3 percent.
I'm not going "after" anyone here. Just pointing out to the usual local "liberals" who fume at Wal-Mart that their favorite stores like Target and the local mom-and-pops have wages that are the same or worse than Wal-Mart. As for 'silver spoon'--first off, don't have one. Second off, wouldn't apologize for it if I did.
But no, instead you wound up sitting around holding a sign on a stick when you could have been working. Real smart.
But hey, unions just make everything so much better, especially when you're out of a job. As the former workers at every factory in the Midwest.
The only reason that is able to occur is through the existence of government and the fact that it uses violence and coercive force to pick winners and losers and meddles with the entire free market. Don't hate the players...hate the game. Government is the problem, not the companies playing its game.
Reviewing the article and previous posts, this is what I can summarize. Fact; Government jobs became more scarce, thus reducing civil services. Fact; Overall unemployment rates went down in the SF East Bay. Fact; One contributing (not exclusive) factor reducing unemployment, a new mall opened in Livermore. Fact; Non-union workers were employed to build the mall. Fact; Non-union workers were employed in the mall. And thanks to David, (by the way you looked very official in the hard hat and safety vest in the sept 19 Castro Valley BLVD paving photo gallery), we now know Walmart can afford to pay slightly more than Target due to their “low employee benefits” policy. For those of you who are bickering, what are you all angry about? Because there are fewer government jobs now? Because some people were fortunate enough to find non-union employment? Or because those who found employment aren’t getting paid more because they are non-union? One could conclude based on your bitterness you all would be much happier if these people had found government jobs with union representation, union wages and benefits instead of working private sector non-union jobs.
"Two years ago, Target dropped health care insurance coverage for all part-time workers. By contrast, Wal-Mart makes its medical plan available to all workers, full- and part-time. All Wal-Mart’s employees, from store cashiers to chief executive Lee Scott, are covered under the same medical plan. All employees can choose from the same four deductible options and receive unlimited coverage for catastrophic expenses — such as organ transplants or cancer treatments — that can financially ruin an employee. At Target, store employees do not receive catastrophic coverage and deductible levels vary, according to former and current employees. Wal-Mart estimates that 56 percent of its employees receive health care coverage. (by the way, that's about the national average) I'm not the one hating on anyone. Summer and others are busy promulgating the conventional proggie "wisdom" that Wal-Mart is practically worst employer in the world, when it's the same or better than the competition.
As for the building trades, if you don't value apprenticeship, you're really missing something.
I'm sorry, but it doesn't take a full quarter to reflect changes.
>One could conclude based on your bitterness you all would be much happier if these people had found government jobs with union representation, union wages and benefits instead of working private sector non-union jobs. Summer Hemphill wrote: >"I'm angry that the Walton's became the nations wealthiest family by forcing the taxpayers to care for their employees." The essence of taxation is the use of force. The state is the monopoly of force. This use of force consumes 24% of GDP by the federal government alone. Are you angry about this? “The 'private sector' of the economy is, in fact, the voluntary sector; and the 'public sector' is, in fact, the coercive sector.” -- Henry Hazlitt What Walmart is not forcing anyone but adjusting to existing conditions, brought about forcefully by the government. Are you angry about this? Nothing illegal was done. In fact food stamps (now called "Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program." SNAP) now have commercials paid for by forced taxation. Are you angry about this? No need to answer, the questions are rhetorical.
I am a "rare" liberal that dislikes Wal-Mart and Unions. I dislike Wal-Mart because of the ill-mannered, hoodrats that shop there. I dislike Unions because they no longer help their employees. They merely continue to collect the employees' wages and protect poor performing employees.
I'm a conservative, and I don't shop at Wal-Mart, mainly because the grocery prices there aren't actually that competitive (especially with gas and hassle factored in), and other larger ticket items I just buy on Amazon and save the gas and the hassle, or I'm at a specialty store (for furniture or appliances for example).
That tradesman can take you on, IF you're union, and use your work product (sell it). If you're not union, your work product must be literally thrown away. Therefore, what is the incentive for a non-union apprenticeship program? If this is not true, then why does the Department of Labor fine people who violate these rules?
I must admit, I'm not familiar w/the "problem" of apprentices working for free. That sounds like indentured servitude. In any case, the apprentices we employ are paid, & they mix classroom training w/OTJ training. There is a ratio of 4 - 5 journeymen to each apprentice. It is a highly successful program.
indentured servitude just means you are under contract to work for someone as payment for something received. This is just a trade of labor for training entered into voluntarily. Each side benefits or the trade would not happen. "Indentured servitude refers to the historical practice of a person contracting to work for a fixed period of time, typically three to seven years, in exchange for transportation, food, clothing, lodging and other necessities during the term of indenture."
Jun 4, 2012 Of course we all copulate the abayas, hijabs and jilbabs are our Qatar graduate, Maryam, who with hecoach outlet store.<br/>Source:<a href="http://www.coachoutletshopusa.com/" title="coach outlet"><strong>www.coachoutletshopusa.com</strong></a>