Comment Log Display

Most California workers work where there is so-called "free
parking". In fact, there is nothing "free" about this because
providing this parking and charging nothing reduces the wages that
can be paid to the workers. I have written a report detailing a
plan to eliminate both the economic unfairness and the incentive to
drive to work. It has a feature that protects those that drive to
work everyday, so that they do not lose any money and in fact could
"opt out" of the program. 

From the report's introduction:

This paper describes a parking policy that distributes the benefit
of parking to all employees, regardless of how often they choose to
drive. It does this by 
•	Charging a fair price for the parking, per unit of time parked,
and by 
•	Giving the total earnings (total parking-lot earnings) to the
employees, such that each employee’s share of the total parking-lot
earnings is proportion to the time they spend at the work site
served by the parking.
The following, additional, optional action would guarantee that no
driver loses money under the policy:
•	Adding a must-drive bonus to each driver’s share of the
parking-lot earnings, if it happened that their share of the
parking-lot earnings is less than their parking-lot charge. This
means that the employee’s must-drive bonus would be equal to their
parking-lot charge minus their share of the parking-lot earnings.
If an employer decided to pay a must-drive bonus to its employees,
it would be possible to allow employees to effectively “opt out” of
the program so they would not need to be mailed the car-parking
statements. The system would feel like “free parking” to them.


Would CARB be interested in viewing this report? Does CARB
understand that reducing wages so that "free" parking can be
provided is an economic discrimination to those that might not even
own a car?

Thank you.