Liberals push campaign for 'living wage'

If certain San Francisco political leaders have their way, it will soon be illegal for many employers to pay their workers less than $11 an hour. Small businesses owners claim they will be driven to bankruptcy if city officials succeed in enacting a proposal to establish what they call a "living wage."

And that's the "moderate" proposal-- the original proposal would have set the minimum wage at $14.50 an hour. Even at $11, San Francisco's minimum wage would be the highest in the nation.

The campaign in San Francisco for a living wage is not isolated; it is only the latest in a series that gives no indication of slowing down. In fact, the activism in San Francisco comes on the heels of the passage late last year of a living wage ordinance in nearby San Jose, whose $10.75 minimum wage is currently the highest in the nation.

What is happening in San Francisco is perhaps one of the more extreme examples of a movement by municipalities across the country to require employers that do business with them to pay wages in excess of the state and federal minimum wage.

The movement is led by "community groups," most prominently the Association for Community Organizing for Reform Now (ACORN), as well as the New Party, which works to elect its members to city councils and school boards and various church groups comprising the religious left. ACORN has even established a National Living Wage Resource Center to coordinate activities in the states.

Strong Support From AFL-CIO

But the most important backer of this movement is organized labor. While all the member unions of the AFL-CIO strongly support these ordinances, certain unions have provided much of the manpower and done the most work to ensure the laws' passage. They include the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), the Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees Union (HERE), and the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME).

The modern living wage movement has existed since 1994, when Baltimore passed the first "living wage" law in the country. The campaign to enact the Baltimore law established the precedent of labor-community group coalitions.

In that campaign AFSCME oted closely with Baltimoreans United in Leadership Development (BUILD), a coalition of religious activists centered on the city's black churches. Since then, more than 20 municipalities have adopted living wage laws, including Detroit, Boston, Los Angeles, New York City, Chicago, Portland, New Haven, Oakland, Minneapolis, and Milwaukee.

Long before 1994, some cities had passed "prevailing wage" laws- They required that employees of contractors be paid what are essentially union wages.

But "living wages" are different. They are generally calculated as the wage deemed necessary to keep a three- or fourperson family above the federal government's official poverty level (usually 110% of that level). Although the effect on the labor market is essentially the same, this newer method of calculating the wage makes it easier for proponents to argue that they are defending basic human dignity rather than merely protecting union jobs.

The term "living wage" is sometimes used simply to refer to an especially high state minimum wage. For example, members of the living wage campaign considered it a victory when in 1996 a California referendum raised the state minimum wage to $5.75 an hour.

There also have been efforts in Houston and Denver to pass municipal minimum wages applicable to all area residents, and not just employees of businesses with dealings with the city or county. However, ballot initiatives in both cities were defeated by greater than 3 to 1 margins.

Although the HERE local is leading efforts in Santa Monica, Calif., to establish a minimum wage of $10.69 an hour, currently there are no full-fledged minimum wage laws on the books in any municipality in the country.

A living wage campaign usually applies to businesses that either have contracts with a city, businesses that are their subcontractors, or businesses that receive economic development assistance or subsidies, tax breaks, or low-interest loans, or that lease land from the city.

These ordinances only apply to future contracts and are not retroactive. Most living wage ordinances do not include all these provisions.

For example, they will apply to contractors or those receiving subsidies, but not both. The San Francisco proposal is one of the most comprehensive. It applies even to restaurant and small business owners who rent space from the city at Fisherman's Wharf.

Depending on the local political conditions, campaign proponents can add a number of exemptions to make a living wage bill just palatable enough to pass.

One exemption is the "hardship waiver," which requires an applicant to open its financial data to public inspection. While this can mean inspection by the government, it can also mean inspection by competitors as well as the "community groups" pushing for living wage laws.

Other exemptions can apply to nonprofits, part-time workers, and contracts for goods (as opposed to services). Furthermore, the living wage laws set thresholds on which businesses the laws apply to, based on their number of employees and the monetary value of their contract with the municipality.