Living Wage Impact Unknown
[ Excerpt from SB Independent article by Nick Welsh, 12/15/2005 ]
After months of grueling hearings on a proposed Living Wage ordinance, members of the City Council Ordinance Committee conceded no reliable information is available on what effect such a measure would have on subcontractors doing business with City Hall. That’s because many of the business owners declined to participate in two city surveys that sought to ferret out such information. “Underwhelmingly responsive” was how city finance chief Robert Peirson characterized the subcontractors’ response.
Many councilmembers had hoped to have such information before voting on the controversial ordinance, which would increase the wages paid to the employees of city subcontractors to between $11-$14 an hour, depending on benefits provided. Without this data, it’s impossible to estimate what effect, if any, such a wage hike might have on city coffers. Peirson suggested that the bigger the pay increase, the higher the cost.
Councilmember Das Williams — an ardent advocate of the LivingWage — suggested the ultimate “pass-through” cost to City Hall would depend on how much market competition existed for a particular service and how tough city vending agents were in holding the line. Williams and Living Wage advocates cite studies indicating that in some cities, the cost of subcontracted services actually have gone down. More typically, the cost increases by a few percentage points.
Unlike past Finance Committee meetings, Tuesday’s offered no verbal sparring between councilmembers Williams and Dan Secord, an outspoken critic of the Living Wage proposal. Williams playfully asked Secord, “Are we going to disappoint everybody here now by not having a fight, Dr. Dan?” Secord replied, “One never knows.”
Living Wage Impact Unknown
After months of grueling hearings on a proposed Living Wage ordinance, members of the City Council Ordinance Committee conceded no reliable information is available on what effect such a measure would have on subcontractors doing business with City Hall. That’s because many of the business owners declined to participate in two city surveys that sought to ferret out such information. “Underwhelmingly responsive” was how city finance chief Robert Peirson characterized the subcontractors’ response.
Many councilmembers had hoped to have such information before voting on the controversial ordinance, which would increase the wages paid to the employees of city subcontractors to between $11-$14 an hour, depending on benefits provided. Without this data, it’s impossible to estimate what effect, if any, such a wage hike might have on city coffers. Peirson suggested that the bigger the pay increase, the higher the cost.
Councilmember Das Williams — an ardent advocate of the LivingWage — suggested the ultimate “pass-through” cost to City Hall would depend on how much market competition existed for a particular service and how tough city vending agents were in holding the line. Williams and Living Wage advocates cite studies indicating that in some cities, the cost of subcontracted services actually have gone down. More typically, the cost increases by a few percentage points.
Unlike past Finance Committee meetings, Tuesday’s offered no verbal sparring between councilmembers Williams and Dan Secord, an outspoken critic of the Living Wage proposal. Williams playfully asked Secord, “Are we going to disappoint everybody here now by not having a fight, Dr. Dan?” Secord replied, “One never knows.”
Living Wage Impact Unknown
Posted by Malcolm on
12/16/2005
Subscribe to RSS Feed
0 Comments
Post a Comment
Links
Create a Link
<< Home