---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 15:28:17 +1200 From: janice <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Public Dollars should Support "living Wage" Jobs If poor workers are expected to make their way without government help, we should pay closer attention to whether government policies are encouraging the creation of jobs that people can’t live decently on. Public Dollars Should Support "Living Wage" Jobs Pending the resolution of a court challenge, voters in Montgomery County will have the opportunity this fall to vote on a referendum which would set a new standard for accountability in how public dollars are spent. The proposed amendment to the Montgomery County Charter would require that companies doing business with Montgomery Country pay a "living wage." Such "living wage" ordinances have spread around the country in the last few years, spurred on by several trends. The federal government has retreated from its role in defending living standards for the majority of workers. Real wages have declined for the majority of workers over the last two decades, and workers at the bottom have been hit the hardest. The weakening of labor unions, the loss of workers’ bargaining power, increases in imports and capital flight have all contributed to this decline. Meanwhile the purchasing power of the federal minimum wage has fallen, losing almost a third of its value in the 1980s. The income of a person working full-time at the federal minimum wage is well below the official poverty level for a family of three. The passage of "welfare reform" -- removing the federal guarantee that poor families would have income -- has shone a spotlight on the grim prospects of workers at the bottom of the labor force. If poor workers are expected to make their way without government help, we should pay closer attention to whether government policies are encouraging the creation of jobs that people can’t live decently on. The move by many local governments to cut costs through privatizing and outsourcing -- often replacing decent-paying jobs for government employees with minimum wage jobs at contracted firms -- has caused many to question whether local governments are leading in the wrong direction. The Montgomery County amendment defines a "living wage" as 130% of the federal poverty level for a family of four. It requires that all County employees and employees of County contractors and subcontractors receive this wage. The amendment also establishes a Community Advisory Board to oversee implementation of the new requirements. This board would be empowered to examine not only whether companies benefiting from County contracts pay their workers decent wages; it would also seek to ensure that such businesses meet other public concerns, such as compliance with environmental laws, or the fulfillment of job creation claims when they receive funds targeted to economic development. Such ordinances have been moderately successful when tried elsewhere. Of course, they do not necessarily impact a large number of workers: typically, most workers who would be covered by such ordinances are already paid wages above the level set by the ordinance in question. This is no reason not to proceed with such policies; it makes sense to increase the wages of the lowest-paid workers in any way that we can, particularly when their jobs are supported by public dollars. In the absence of policies to increase these wages local governments are sending the message that paying poverty wages is acceptable. Of course, some would object that, if there are benefits, there are also costs. Indeed, it’s true that governments might save some money by replacing full-time workers who may belong to a union and have decent wages and benefits with contracting workers who make the minimum wage and have no benefits. However, if we agree that people who work full time should be able to earn a decent living, then, morally, savings that could be gained from impoverishing workers should not be considered a cost. It might please my tummy to take an ice cream cone away from a child for my own benefit, but few people would think that I am making a great sacrifice if I purchase my own ice cream cone. Communities adopting such policies are not going into uncharted territory. Baltimore has had a living wage ordinance since December of 1994. A study of the Baltimore ordinance by the Preamble Center for Public Policy in October 1996 found that costs to the city of the ordinance were minimal -- indeed, the real cost of its contracts actually declined, while city contractors reported no reduction in staffing levels. Let us hope that the voters of Montgomery County have the opportunity to add their voices to those who have asked that public dollars be accountable for the kind of employment that they create. janice -- For MAI-not (un)subscription information, posting guidelines and links to other MAI sites please see http://mai.flora.org/
