Government workers are just the beginning in new minimum wage movement
CITY HALL — Workers here will earn at least $11.51 an hour and have better health benefits if local officials approve a new minimum wage expected to be presented later this month.
The plan, which is scheduled for discussion before the City Council on Jan. 27, also calls for companies with government contracts to pay the higher wage. The proposal was drafted by activists from the nonprofit group, Santa Monicans Allied for Responsible Tourism.
For nearly five years, SMART has pushed for a “living wage” — most recently $12.25 an hour without benefits — targeted largely toward workers in the tourism industry. The current effort doesn’t address that goal, but SMART spokesman Danny Feingold said activists haven’t given up.
“Clearly, there’s a need to address poverty in the tourism industry in Santa Monica,” he said, adding there is currently no living wage proposal that extends to private business. “This is where we’re at right now. We feel that it’s important that the city passes this and then we’ll continue the discussion.”
Council members are expected to decide whether City Hall staffers should explore the financial implications of the minimum wage — which would apply to City Hall workers, as well as contractors and subcontractors who have $25,000 or more in government work.
How many workers in City Hall and contract employees the plan would affect is unclear.
“There’s really no way to tell for sure,” City Manager Susan McCarthy said. “We made some estimates a long, long time ago on the original SMART proposal... but there’s no perfect way to crystal ball it.”
McCarthy said in 2000 — when the proposed minimum wage was $10.69 an hour, which would have applied to businesses with 50-plus workers — the costs to City Hall ranged from several hundred thousands of dollars to millions each year. With the current proposal, the bulk of the expense will likely come from contractors, as most City Hall staffers already make the higher wage, except possibly some entry-level workers like interns and police cadets, McCarthy added.
Councilman Herb Katz, who has taken a stand against previous wage increases, said he plans to support the analysis of the proposal. But Katz stopped short of saying he would back the $11.51 mandate.
“I want to think about it for awhile,” he said. “I haven’t made up my mind why we’re doing this... We are in a heck of a budget crunch and what is this going to do to our government, to our finances? Why is it that we pay more money to everybody when we’re doing government work than we do in private enterprise? It’s something that you say, ‘Wait a minute, shouldn’t a living wage be a living wage across the board — period?’ It’s either a living wage or it isn’t, and why isn’t it for everybody?
“It’s a burden to the public,” Katz added. “Who in heaven’s name is paying these bills?”
The battle over the living wage began in 1999, when SMART first recommended to the City Council that tourism workers be paid a higher wage. Hoping to find a different solution, hotel and tourism groups in 2000 put Proposition KK on the ballot. But that measure did too little to promote wages and more to protect businesses against future wage increases, many people argued. It was overwhelmingly defeated at the polls — 79 percent to 21 percent. Half a year later, the City Council approved SMART’s living wage, but the issue was forced onto the ballot by opponents, who gathered thousands of signatures against it. In November of 2002, Proposition JJ failed at the polls by a mere 1.7 percent. It would have guaranteed workers in businesses near the beach that gross more than $5 million a year a wage of $12.25 an hour without health benefits or $10.50 with benefits. The law didn’t apply to unionized businesses, giving the large companies an incentive to organize their labor.
Local attorney Tom Larmore, who actively campaigned against Proposition JJ, said he’s willing to examine the proposal but added it may cause too severe a strain on City Hall’s budget and should be viewed in context, especially with local schools suffering severe financial problems. He called upon the City Council to form an ad hoc committee comprised of people on all sides of the issue to work towards a mutually agreeable solution.
Larmore said the current proposal could be a political move, adding that relatively few City Hall workers or contractors are likely to benefit under it.
“I don’t know how they’re thinking, strategically,” he said. “I’m quite sure this isn’t the only thing they want to accomplish and they may view this as a stepping stone to something else.”
But SMART officials said the current proposal was long overdue.
“Santa Monica is behind the curve on the issue of the living wage,” Feingold said. “Over 100 cities have passed a living wage law similar to what we’re proposing and it’s simply time that Santa Monica join with the mainstream of American cities and pass a living wage law.”
“Santa Monica is behind the curve on the issue of the living wage.” — — DANNY FEINGOLD Spokesman, SMART
Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on January 13, 2004. Read the original PDF.