Wage rage

Living wage veto was a step backwards

When the Ann Arbor City Council approved a living wage ordinance last week, they were on track to improving working conditions for hundreds of employees working for city-affiliated contractors. Unfortunately, the proposal never made it past the city's Republican mayor.

One reason Ann Arbor Mayor Ingrid Sheldon vetoed the proposal, according to the letter she sent the city clerk explaining her veto, was that living wage plans such as these are decided at a state or federal level, rather than a local level. But by refusing to act, she has effectively killed a well-intentioned, reasonable bill; one that has been passed in similar forms in municipalities like Miami, Boston, Los Angeles and Baltimore. Because there is no majority in the council, the veto is likely to stand.

The proposal would have required contractors affiliated with the city to pay employees $8.50 an hour plus benefits, or $10 an hour without benefits. The current minimum wage of $5.15 - which few contractors pay anyway - is insufficient to maintain a healthy lifestyle. Few people would willingly perform the grueling and thankless tasks of recycling, waste management, parking structure services and other occupations for such an insulting pay. They would much rather live above the poverty level. Other workers make more than minimum wage and do not perform tasks that directly benefit the city. When considering why many people would turn to assisted living rather than seek employment, the fact that the wage is not attractive must be considered.

Critics have predicted that prices would rise significantly in cities with living wages, but studies have shown that this is not the case. Nor have businesses turned to other cities or unemployment rates risen, like some experts proposed. While the verdict is out on cities like Detroit, Ypsilanti and Warren, they certainly have not been affected negatively by their decision to enact living wage ordinances.

Common sense dictates that companies that obtain lucrative city contracts should be required to pay their employees a respectable wage. In our prospering economy, many already must, so they would not be affected significantly by this plan. To consider the monetary effects of the plan, it would cost the city a mere $200,000 for one such contractor. In fact, in a study by the Preamble Center for Public Policy, the cost for a living wage ordinance implementation in Baltimore came out to be only 17 cents per person annually. Is 17 cents a reason to deprive hard working contractors fair pay? This is a small price to pay; especially if the workers choose to live in Ann Arbor and to spend their money in the city. Furthermore, although the study could not attribute this to the ordinance, contract costs actually decreased slightly after the bill's passage.

The ordinance is not only justified theoretically, it has been proven feasible in other cities across the nation. By ignoring the possible benefits of the proposal, Mayor Sheldon made the incorrect decision.