Living wage campaign arrives in Asheville
May. 29- Asheville, North Carolina, May 29 (AGR)— From the steps of city hall a local organization announced bold plans to put into action a campaign aimed at raising the pay of some area workers. At the May 10 press conference, the Asheville Buncombe Living Wage Campaign (ABLWC) said it hopes to increase the pay of city-county employee's, including contract workers. Coupled with a bill before North Carolina lawmakers to increase the state minimum wage, the ABLWC has provoked a local debate on wage issues.
Movement gaining steam
Claiming well over 100 victories across the US, the Living Wage Campaign (LWC) is a labor-focused social movement gradually building momentum. The LWC recorded its first success in 1994 when the city of Baltimore, MD, approved an ordinance requiring city service contractors to pay a "living wage." Since then, community, labor and religious coalitions have achieved similar ordinances in cities such as St. Louis, Boston, Los Angeles, Tucson, San Jose, Portland, Milwaukee, Detroit, Minneapolis and Oakland. Today, more than 75 living wage campaigns are proceeding in cities, counties, states and college campuses across the nation.
"The concept behind any living wage campaign is simple," states the group's website. "Our limited public dollars should not be subsidizing poverty-wage work." The organization argues that when contract employers are allowed to pay their workers an insufficient wage, tax payers pay twice: the initial project, then "the food stamps, emergency medical, housing and other social services low wage workers may need to support themselves and their families."
Now the movement has arrived in Western North Carolina with the formation of the ABLWC. The coalition is seeking to pass an ordinance requiring local governments and municipal contractors to pay their workers a "living wage." Campaign organizer Tyrone Greenlee says the group has not yet set a pay rate. "[We] want to work with the community, our representatives and economic data," said Greenlee, "to determine a reasonable living wage standard that could be adopted by our local governments." Locally, 24 organizations have signed on to the campaign, including the United Way, the League of Women Voters, legal organizations, churches and state and local labor unions.
Minimum wage vs. Living Wage
The failure of the federal and the state governments to create a meaningful wage requirement has prompted the LWC to push for a raise in pay rates. Different from the federal minimum wage, a "living wage" targets public employees and employees of organizations that do business with local governments, and is based on realistic costs of living.
While the LWC supports raising the minimum wage, proposed increases are still woefully inadequate. Lagging behind the nation's cost of living, today's rate is near half of what it should be. "If the minimum wage had kept pace with inflation, it would be more like $9 right now," said Jen Kern, director of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, an advocacy group that has led the "living-wage" movement. "We've let the floor sink so low, it's historically less than we were paying back in the 1960s."
"Minimum wage," explains Ernie Boyd, a member of the ABLWC steering committee, "is set by the federal government, applies to just about all workers, and has been steadily eroding since the late 60s. North Carolina is considering an increase to $6. The [ABLWC] supports this effort [albeit, with some qualms about the relatively trivial amount of the increase], but it is NOT the focus of our work. Living wage is a concept [and movement] that grew out of concerns about the nationwide decline in real wages over the last 30 years, the failure of the federal government to increase the minimum wage in line with inflation, and the tiny minimum wage increases passed by some states."
Does it work?
Critics of living wage ordinances claim the laws actually harm those they are intended to help. Many business groups allege that as the price of labor swells, the demand for it will decrease, ultimately resulting in higher unemployment rates.
Arguing that there are already institutional measures to help the disadvantaged, critics point out that a boost in income could push workers away from government programs to assist the poor — such as the earned income credit and food stamps. Low-skill workers will also be at risk, as they will be the ones to lose their jobs first. In a CBS news interview, Richard Toikka of the Washington-based Employment Policies Institute said, "[a 'living wage'] is not the best way to go. The workers that are harmed are the ones that have the most serious skill deficits."
Carl F. Horowitz, a labor consultant and policy analyst for the Heritage Foundation and the Cato Institute, believes living wage laws miss the mark. "In the living wage, like its close relative, the minimum wage, most beneficiaries come from non-poverty homes. They are teens, college students and other secondary income workers. There is a big difference between making a poverty wage and coming from a poor home."
Despite the criticism, living wage supporters say the ordinances, though not a fix-all solution, do help the poor. "Living wages actually reduce poverty," said author David Neumark, an economics professor at Michigan State University. "If someone's getting up on a soapbox saying these are a disaster, they may believe it, but there's really no evidence." Still, Neumark projects, the 10 percent of workers who earn the least would experience a seven percent increase in unemployment. On balance, however, Neumark said. "it looks like the winners win more than the losers lose."
In 1996, the Preamble Center for Public Policy evaluated the effects of the 1994 living wage ordinance in Baltimore. In many ways the study contested the claims of some living wage critics. For example, the report found that companies which held contracts before and after passage of the ordinance did not reduce staff levels in response to the higher wage requirement. According to the report some contractors praised the law for "leveling the playing field" by relieving pressure on employers to squeeze labor costs in order to win contracts. Costing only 17 cents per person annually to pay employees a living wage, the study found that the financial burden to Baltimore tax-payers has been minimal.
The steady rise of the working poor in the US is sure to kindle a discussion of workers rights in this country. And the LWC, emphasizing fair pay and worker's dignity, is a social movement at the forefront of this debate.
Source: AGR |
