Posted on 11/19/2004 7:04:58 AM PST by chambley1
Expect a 2005 General Assembly showdown over Arlington County’s so-called “living wage” ordinance.
The County Board’s draft 2005 legislative package, set to be adopted on Dec. 11, makes an explicit call for the General Assembly to leave the ordinance – now 18 months old – alone. But the General Assembly, which came close to nixing the living-wage rules during this year’s session, may again take up the matter after it convenes in January.
In June 2003, County Board members voted 5-0 to establish a living-wage ordinance, joining a handful of Virginia localities that include Richmond, Charlottesville and Alexandria.
Under the provision, county government employees and employees of contractors doing business with the county government would be guaranteed a minimum pay rate of nearly $11 per hour, more than double the $5.15 per hour guaranteed by state and federal law.
Supporters of the measure say it provides a degree of fairness to those who work in Arlington, while opponents say it is counterproductive and too costly.
While a showdown was expected in the courts last year, no business owner stood up to challenge the legislation, as others have done when the county enacted proposals on domestic-partner benefits and affordable-housing guidelines. So the battle shifted to the General Assembly.
The House of Delegates passed a bill that would outlaw such living-wage ordinances, but the measure died in a state Senate committee, in part because all focus had shifted to the commonwealth’s budget mess. Living-wage opponents promise to be back in the legislature this year.
Business groups in general oppose portions of living-wage ordinances that apply to private companies, although Arlington’s ordinance is restricted to those businesses who do a certain level of work for the county government. Businesses that are not contractors with the county government are not affected by the legislation.
The Arlington Chamber of Commerce has not taken a formal position on the county’s living-wage ordinance, but may do so in its 2005 legislative package, scheduled for adoption in December.
In December 2002, state Attorney General Jerry Kilgore issued an advisory ruling that localities could not impose a living-wage requirement on contractors without obtaining authority from the General Assembly. While such rulings often carry weight with judges in legal proceedings, they do not carry the force of law by themselves. County officials have brushed aside the advisory opinion as simply the view of one lawyer.
Among the other items in the county government’s 2005 legislative wish list:
* Supporting an increase in the gasoline tax for local transportation projects.
* Opposing restrictions or ceilings on real estate tax assessments or rates.
* Creating state tax incentives for energy-efficient building and development.
* Repealing the state’s Affirmation of Marriage Act, which bars civil unions.
* Decriminalizing private sexual relations between consenting adults.
* Imposing a moratorium on executions.
* Enabling localities to restrict firearms in publicly owned buildings, recreational facilities, libraries and airports.
* Funding new youth programs to divert gang participation.
* Expanding the definition of a “vicious dog.”
* Extending state hate-crime statutes to include sexual orientation.
* Continuing the county transient occupancy-tax surcharge for tourism promotion.
* Declaring English ivy to be a noxious weed.
Many of these proposals have been made in prior years, but have not made it through the legislature.
The General Assembly convenes on Jan. 12 for a 45-day session. The County Board will hold a work session with the county’s legislators on Tuesday, Dec. 7 at 7:30 p.m. in the County Board room.
The county school system approves a separate legislative package that is forwarded to state officials.
"We're from the Government, and we're here to help."
Cut to the point and tell people: "We want to double your local taxes so we can pay city employees double the going rate."
WOOHOO!!!! We're all going to be Rich!!!! finally the government has figured it out! All we need to do is make a rule and everyone can be a gazillionaire!!!! WOOOOHOOOOO!!!!
Hard to live on a living wage when you haven't got a job.
I ask myself quite often, why do I live in Arlington?
"We're from the Government, and we're here to help."""
This kind of legislation is the kiss of death for counties and cities and states in many respects.
If I were a business that did contracts with areas that were working on this "living" wage, I would cancel my contracts immediately.
There is no law that says anyone has to do business with government entities. You want me to pay twice the correct payroll for the job, and I am locked into a contract which is based on my currect payroll. Not going to happen.
You have put me into bankruptcy. See if you can enforce your goods and services contract with me then. I am gone out of business and NO ONE has a job. GOT WHAT YOU WANTED???? Is unemployment a "living wage"? If so, everyone would be on that.
This is stupid, stupid, STUPID.
I support these initiatives wholeheartedly.
I own a condo in the Huntington area just outside the city limits of Alexandria. We have a subway stop there and the neighborhood is starting to do well. If Arlington wants to tax and overregulate itself to the point it's no more appealing as a place to live than Washington, DC, it will no longer be the residency of choice for young adults. Instead they will seek out other areas that offer a safe relatively urban existence. And Huntington is poised to fill the bill. Much dough for O.M.I.W. when he decides to sell his condo and move to a more conservative part of the country!
Okay, I still oppose Arlington being stupid. But for me, that's the silver lining!
Better idea: Make the "living wage" $50 an hour and all citizens will make over $100,000 per annum, increase revenue to the federal government, and poverty will become a thing of the past...and don't tell me it won't work.
By definition, wouldn't anyone not earning a 'living wage' be dead, and therefore not earning something below a 'living wage'? If you are earning a wage, and alive, it must be a 'living wage'.
Any county that votes for Jim Moran as its congressman is a proven cesspool.
The "Living Wage" program is promoted by the "New Party" and heavily funded by the AFL / CIO. Its intention is to eliminate the economic advantage that non-union employers have in bidding for public contracts, thereby making it easier for unions to organize or retain their current labor agreements. It's being sold all over the country by a well-organized campaign, usually wrapped in the flag of an "anti-poverty" measure.
Those city and country agencies that have fallen for the proposal have increased costs to their taxpayers and have often come to regret their actions. As with most entitlements, though, these ordinaces create a constituency and thus it's easier to adopt a "living wage" measure than it is to get rid of one.
I recall Pat Buchanan ("Death of The West") writing about "living wages" in the context of post WWII, where men (the predominant wage earners at the time) earned a salary that was able to comfortably sustain a moderate lifestyle for an average family of four.
He had posed the question as to whether the US was better off now with two working parents per family earning the roughly the same low income wages, as opposed to single income families where a spouse stays home and the other making a higher salary.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.