Laws for living wage stir virulent debate
By Adam Geller
Associated Press
NEW YORK — Ezra Mulugeta used to mark time according to the uniform he wore.
Most days started at 3:15 a.m., when he pulled a black jacket and captain's hat from his closet and headed for work as a skycap at San Francisco International Airport. Afternoon meant speeding home, showering and pulling on a blue jacket and pants for his job unloading baggage from planes.
His "days off" began when he put on yet another uniform for a third job as a security guard.
In between jobs, Mulugeta says, "I took naps."
Now, Mulugeta has shelved one uniform and gained some time off. The reason: Airport officials mandated a so-called living wage for workers, boosting his skycap pay from $4.75 an hour to $10, plus tips, and adding health insurance.
The raise allowed the divorced father of three college students to quit his security job while keeping annual income at about $44,000.
San Francisco is one of more than 60 U.S. cities and counties that have passed living wage laws in recent years, trying to ensure that low-wage workers can keep their heads above the poverty line. Most of those measures only apply to select groups of workers who have government contracts, but that may be about to change.
The battle lines in the living wage campaign — which have already spotlighted the work of parking lot attendants and hotel workers in St. Louis and janitors at Harvard University — are shifting.
In cities like Santa Monica, Calif., and New Orleans, advocates are pushing measures to raise wages for thousands of workers in companies unrelated to government. Opponents, who say living wages cost jobs or push out unskilled workers, are increasingly taking the fight to state capitols, asking legislators to keep cities from passing their own wage laws.
"It's definitely morphing," said Robert Pollin, a professor of economics at the University of Massachusetts who is one of the leading advocates of living wage laws. "This is something out there taking various forms."
There is no fixed definition of what constitutes a living wage. Advocates and opponents alike have difficulty distinguishing it from the better-known minimum wage, except that it equates to more money.
A living wage comes down to whatever local governments decide it should be — from $6.75 an hour in Milwaukee to $12.25 in Santa Monica, effective next summer.
The federally mandated minimum wage is now $5.15 an hour. The government says a family of two adults and two children needs $17,500 a year to stay out of poverty. Working at $5.15 an hour for 40 hours a week and 52 weeks a year leaves you with $10,712 before any deductions.
So far, living wages have only been enacted on a very limited scale, making it hard to determine their effect. But the measures may soon play out on a broader stage, and already many more people are being drawn into debate.
In Santa Monica, City Council members last spring mandated higher pay for workers in hotels, restaurants and other businesses in a ritzy beachfront district popular with tourists. Business owners rail against the measure, saying it will double their labor costs.
The law is limited to establishments with $5 million or more in annual sales.
"... Businesses that are labor-intensive, they just can't possibly do it. They can't survive," said Tom Larmore, a lawyer and spokesman for Fighting Against Irresponsible Regulation.
Critics call the laws feel-good measures that raise costs for businesses, leading them to cut jobs or put the unskilled out of work.
Proponents, led by the Association of Community Organization for Reform Now, or ACORN, acknowledge a very limited risk of job displacement, but say that is far outweighed by the lift in living standards for workers.
