Livable Wages - Something that has received disappointingly little coverage in the local press is a conversation that the City Commission had over the course of the summer on the question of what constitutes a living wage in the City of Sarasota. That issue ties directly to the larger discussions taking place regarding affordable housing, but is much less often being talked about. In addition to all of the questions raised about how to bring housing prices down, there is little discussion about bringing wages up. I have heard reference made more than once lately to "people who earn $10 an hour" and how difficult it is for them to live - something that is hard to dispute.
Without getting into the genisis of the number (though that information is available), I wanted to report here that the City Commission took a stand on the subject with the adoption of their fiscal year 2006-2007 budget, which took effect on October 1. What they said was that $10 an hour is not enough - for anyone. They have said that no full-time city employee will be asked to work for less than $26,750 a year, or approximately $12.86 an hour. Of course nobody is suggesting that anyone can live comfortably at that salary within the city limits, particularly a one-earner family. But it is a starting point, and is a philosophical statement by the commission that speaks volumes.
Some will say it's easier for the city, which operates as a monopoly, apart from the competitive pressures of the private sector. But what about places like Whole Foods or Starbucks, where somewhat higher prices are willingly paid, which then channels into better benefits for those employees.
I don't have the answers, and realize that I've only made simplistic points. That's where you come in - where do you believe the employers fit into this conversation about housing, living wages, and benefits like health insurance? If you're an employer, please weigh in with your perspective.
(Note: Thank you to the folks at "Creative Loafing" for recognizing this blog and the people who use it!)
Without getting into the genisis of the number (though that information is available), I wanted to report here that the City Commission took a stand on the subject with the adoption of their fiscal year 2006-2007 budget, which took effect on October 1. What they said was that $10 an hour is not enough - for anyone. They have said that no full-time city employee will be asked to work for less than $26,750 a year, or approximately $12.86 an hour. Of course nobody is suggesting that anyone can live comfortably at that salary within the city limits, particularly a one-earner family. But it is a starting point, and is a philosophical statement by the commission that speaks volumes.
Some will say it's easier for the city, which operates as a monopoly, apart from the competitive pressures of the private sector. But what about places like Whole Foods or Starbucks, where somewhat higher prices are willingly paid, which then channels into better benefits for those employees.
I don't have the answers, and realize that I've only made simplistic points. That's where you come in - where do you believe the employers fit into this conversation about housing, living wages, and benefits like health insurance? If you're an employer, please weigh in with your perspective.
(Note: Thank you to the folks at "Creative Loafing" for recognizing this blog and the people who use it!)
posted by Michael McNees at 1:59 PM
12 Comments:
Are you sure those Starbucks and Whole Foods employees are getting better wages and benefits than at other similar businesses? Are they all earning above $12 an hour at those businesses? How about making those higher wages part of any TIF package?
It is an admirable step. I am cautious as to other ramifications however. Yes, City workers in certain positions may have been paid too low. However, they do receive benefits which assist in that level of pay. My concern is the ramifications as related to City contracts. If contractors are receiving City funds for projects will you now require the living wage. Will you establish a unit price book for specific functions? How will you monitor? A living wage could be more or less than a prevailing wage. Will contractors for developers on City land be required to pay a living wage? What will be the effect on taxpayers if indeed these wages are applied if and when City projects are included.I do not know how the $12.86 was arrived at. I know some entities use the Dept. of Health and Human Services poverty level information. Perhaps a percent above minimum wage would have been appropriate in order to address "spin-off" issues such as those above.
srq - I don't have any inside knowledge as to pay scales, I based my comments on information that's been available through the popular media. The T.I.F. idea is an interesting one, though complictaed by the fact that the individual employers aren't parties to the redevelopment agreements.
beamer - we have not as of now made any of our vendor selections contingent on wage issues, though it has been discussed, more at the brainstorming level than at a policy level.
It certainly would be a case of putting your money where your collective mouths are, as far as the City Commission is concerned, if such wages were made a part of some bids. It would certainly ensure a more level playing field for bidders when a bidder paying a "living wage" is competing with a business paying minimum wage.
srq - You raise a fair question about regulating a minimum wage among our vendors, however I think the City Commission has already put their money where their mouth is, as you so colorfully put it, with the action already taken, and deserves credit for that.
I think they do deserve credit. I believe however, that you have made a good case for "outsourcing" certain work that may be labor intensive. If you now review the cost of janitorial services for example, utilizing the "livable wage" in house versus what is paid by a contracted service, you may now find that it would be less epensive to outsource, if not now perhaps projecting over a number of years.
beamer - If we raise wages for those who clean City Hall to give the people a better standard of living, then outsource their jobs to get the job done more cheaply, what exactly have we accomplished? If saving money were the only goal, we wouldn't increase that minimum wage in the first place.
Mr. McNees, there are many ways to look at this issue. I am not sold on the "living wage" as the answer to many issues. Anyone working for the City will not earn less than $12.86 per hour. I don't think you are saying that for any outsourced work you will not pay less than $12.86 per hour, right? I understand the intent of the Commission and think it admirable as stated. I simply think there are other ramifications that will need to be addressed sooner than later. If we will now not outsource work at a lower rate based on this new wage then perhaps we have set limits for contracts anyway and this will impact the bottom line. At any rate, having been dismissed as not understanding the goal of the Commission I will take my leave.
beamer - You seem to be reaching conclusions by drawing a direct line between a hypothetical lack of future outsourcing and the new living wage, and that line doesn't exist. Nobody has said we will no longer outsource work if appropriate, or that setting a wage floor is a solution to a number of issues.
At the core of this conversation is the balancing of conflicting objectives. I answered to the specific example you raised, and how that balancing act affects that decision. If that left you feeling "dismissed", my apologies.
What would be interesting is a broader conversation including other employers, not just the city. Will anyone bring the perspective of other employers to the table?
I have always paid my employees no less than $10.00 and hour and thought that was good. After reading about the decisions at the city to raise that to $12+ I too feel I need to step up and do the same. The conversations has been interesting about his subject and I do not read enough commending the city for taking a step. I do not think the city should be responsible for everyone else's business. Everyone complains about red tape or the government being too involved in everyone business. The thought the government would not be looking at business records to decide to do business with them is a little overkill.
Harold - Thanks for bringing in another point of view. I think you also raise a good question, which is how far do people want government to go in controlling these things? And do they want local government in particular entering that regulatory arena?
WHY IS IT THAT EMPLOYERS FEEL THREATENED BY THE FACT THAT THE CITY HAS STEPPED UP TO THE PLATE AND HIT A SOLID TRIPLE ON THE "LIVING WAGE" ISSUE. I MYSELF HAVE SINCE APPLIED FOR A CITY POSITION. UNFORTUNATELY, DURING THE COURSE OF MY INTERVIEW "OVERQUALIFIED" AND THE WORK WOULD BE "BENEATH" ME. I KNEW AT THAT MOMENT THAT THE CITY WANTS TO PAY A "BARELY" QUALIFIED THE "LIVING WAGE" BUT SOMEHOW THE "OVERQUALIFIED" PERSON COULD NOT.
I THINK INSTEAD OF ASKING FOR MORE COMPLAINING CITY DWELLING OR SIESTA KEY LIVING EMPLOYERS WHAT THEY THINK. YOU AND EVERYONE ELSE COMPLAINING THAT IT IS HARD TO GET QUALIFIED EMPLOYEES - NEED TO LOOK AT HOW THEY LIVE AND HOW THEY MAKE THIER EMPLOYEES WORK AT $10 AN HOUR(IF THEY ARE LUCKY).
Post a Comment
<< Home