Agenda - 05-21-1997 - 10b - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

APPENDIX 5. 41 Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN).2 Living wage campaigns are underway in more than a dozen states and municipalities. In contrast to recent federal legislation, many state and local living wage campaigns make an explicit effort to raise wages to the level necessary to keep the family of a full-time worker above the poverty line. Some of the proposals would raise the minimum wage in a state or municipality to its peak historical value under federal law ($6.47 per hour in 1995 dollars, achieved in 1968) and thereafter index it to inflation. Others would mandate insurance benefits for low-wage workers. And others would set wages according to local cost of living levels. The California Liveable Wage Coalition, for example, took California's high cost of living into account when setting its minimum wage goal above the federal level. Many living wage campaigns do not seek to increase the minimum wage across the board in a particular location. Instead they target only those employers who receive public money or public contracts, requiring that these employers pay a certain wage as a condition of receiving these funds or contracts. State and local programs that provide subsidies, tax abatements and other benefits to private employers for the purpose of job creation and retention rarely distinguish between high and low-wage employment. Nor do most cities and states that contract with private corporations for the provision of public services impose any pay and benefits standards on contract recipients. As a result, many companies receiving public subsidies and/or public contracts pay wages well below the poverty level. The argument behind living wage laws is that governments should not be using tax dollars to create or subsidize poverty-wage jobs, but rather should set a positive example by requiring employers who receive public funds to pay a living wage. Baltimore's living wage law is one of the first to compel contractors to pay employees enough to keep a family of four above the poverty line. Other cities with such laws include San Jose, where city contractors must pay employees union-scale wages. A Milwaukee ordinance requires city contractors to pay employees $6.05 per hour, and increases yearly until the wage can raise a family of three above the poverty line. Jersey City,New Jersey, requires a minimum wage of$7.50 per hour be paid to employees of certain city contractors. And New York City recently established union-scale wages and benefits requirements for some city service contractors. Campaigns to ensure that beneficiaries of public funds pay employees a living wage are underway in Los Angeles, Chicago, Boston and other locales. The Los Angeles Living Wage Coalition drafted an ordinance that would require companies"that benefit from city taxpayer dollars" (any business in receipt of a city contract, lease agreement, tax abatement or subsidy valued above $25,000) to pay employees $7.50 per hour and provide them with health insurance benefits. The estimated number of affected workers is over 14,000. A city council vote is expected this fall. Chicago's Jobs and Living Wage Proposal, which would require a $7.60 per hour wage for employees of city contractors or companies receiving city financial assistance, would affect 10,000 workers. The ordinance,introduced in the city council in May 1996, is now in the finance committee. Community and labor groups in Boston plan to introduce a similar ordinance by the end of the year. The Corporate Accountability and City Contracting proposal would tie financial assistance and city contracts to business to community hiring requirements and a living wage of$7.49 per hour. Table 1 lists living wage proposals under consideration around the country. 2ACORN is a national grass-roots community organization of low and moderate-income families. 2