living wage

California is an extraordinarily expensive place to live. But what does one actually need to earn to afford to live here? A new study has the answers, and the results are stunning. There is absolutely no way a minimum-wage job comes close to meeting basic needs. LAT:

A person working full-time for the state's minimum wage of $7.50 an hour earns $15,600 annually. But a single adult in Los Angeles needs to make $28,126 a year to live modestly, while a single parent needs $62,393, according to the California Budget Project, the policy group behind the report being released today.

The numbers are even worse in Los Angeles.

A two-parent family in Los Angeles with one working member needs $51,035, while a two-working-parent family needs $74,044, the report calculated.

We are not talking about living high on the hog here, jut the absolute basics.

The group estimated the cost of housing, food, transportation, child care, healthcare, taxes and miscellaneous items in regions across the state.

The results also are indicative of the huge need to ensure there is affordable health care for folks earning at or below these amounts. The calculations assume that these individuals do not receive health care through their employers.

One thing is clear. Using the federal poverty line to determine who needs assistance is not useful here in California. It severely underestimates what people can afford.

The report is intended to help policymakers assess where families need the most aid, Ross said. It presents its calculations as alternatives to the federal poverty line, which is often used to measure how families are faring economically.

But the poverty line, the report says, "is an obsolete measure that fails to take into account the reality of modern families." The federal poverty line for a family of four was $20,650 in 2007, less than a third of what this report estimates they need.

Housing and health insurance are two of the most expensive items in a family's budget, Ross said, which highlights the need for programs to help families pay for them.

The report "really points out the need for healthcare reform," said Annelle Grajeda, president of the Service Employees International Union Local 721. "That part of our everyday life should be taken care of."

The Los Angeles Times is systematically moving away from coverage of labor, work and class issues and putting more resources into following celebrities and style. Apparently, the editors see no room at the paper for covering issues specifically effecting working Californians, unless they "work" like Paris Hilton. The paper is in turmoil and in the wrong direction. The LA Observer has done an excellent job charting the departures from the paper and the individual reporters motivations.

Budget pressures are the stated reason for ending Rick Wartzman's weekly California & Co. column in the Business section. But as usual with the L.A. Times these days, there's a backstory or two going around. Wartzman, you may recall, got the column when he left the paper abruptly in December to become a senior fellow at the New America Foundation. Until then, he was viewed as a rising star, the former editor in charge of the Business staff who was tapped to reinvent the paper's Sunday magazine as West. Friends say he left ten months into the new magazine's run because it was clear that, after LAT editor in chief Dean Baquet left for the New York Times, West would be gutted by associate editor John Montorio. The column was apparently a negotiated part of Wartzman's departure.

No longer will we have Wartzman to advocate for a "real, honest debate about implementing a citywide living wage." Not only are we losing his weekly column, but the Sunday magazine is going in the opposite direction from Wartzman's revamping attempts.

Now newsroom gossip says the Montorio plan for West is to ditch the literary California-centric format and re-invent yet again as a style and celebrity-driven magazine, perhaps with less-than-weekly frequency. Lennie Laguire, the former Calendar editor who took the buyout, is said to be working on the redesign on a contract. All the staff writers, including Pulitzer winner J.R. Moehringer, and many of the editors who used to work for West left last week on the buyout or were reassigned. Top Times editors might also have seen a third strike on Wartzman's resume: he co-authored a book with Mark Arax, the Armenian American reporter who has engaged in a public difference of opinion with managing editor Doug Frantz.

The new managing editor is the source of this problem. He has systematically moved away from coverage of hard news and towards infotainment. The paper is losing Pulitzer prize winners and substituting gossip writers. The biggest losers are working Californians who now have one less news source for coverage of issues that effect their daily lives.

They can't be entertained, if they can't afford the newspaper subscription.

Todd beat me to the punch. The LAX Living Wage has already been blocked.

A Superior Court judge Wednesday temporarily blocked a new law extending the city's "living wage" to workers at LAX-area hotels from taking effect until May at the earliest.

The ruling, by Judge Dzintra Janavs, came in response to a challenge to the law filed Wednesday by seven of the dozen hotels that would be required to pay all workers a living wage — $10.64 per hour including health benefits — under the new law.

Judge Janavs did not rule on the substance of the lawsuit, but simply blocked the bill until the hearing on May 11th. Thousands of workers will be denied a long overdue raise because of the hotels' legal action. The lawsuit claims that the City Council denied the constitutional right of those who signed the petition to place the industry sponsored initiative on the ballot.

It is disappointing to see these stall tactics, but we feel confident that if we eventually do end up having to go back to the ballot that we will win overwhelmingly. Our poll made it clear to the hotels that we would win that fight, but the still have chosen to delay implementation with a court battle. Now we have a three month freeze on the wage increase thanks to the court and the hotels. It is just a shame to see how determined these big companies are to pay their workers a poverty wage.

Not all elections are created equal. In fact, one of my favorite quotes about the American electoral system comes from former President Jimmy Carter, who's foundation certifies election system in other countries.

"It's a tragedy in many ways that the standard for accountability and integrity and objectivity is better in many Third World countries than in ours," says former President Jimmy Carter, who explains that the Carter Center, which monitors elections around the world, could not do so in the United States because of a lack of consistent standards and a lack of commitment on the part of both major parties to cooperate with the monitoring process.

The sad thing is that the American elections are a heck of a lot more fair than the ones overseen by the National Labor Relations Board. It isn't just the stacked deck rules, the massive industry that exists to deny a fair process is shocking in its size.

Most companies faced with organizing campaigns hire consultants or lawyers who specialize in "union avoidance." By one estimate, the business of battling union organizing is a $4-billion industry.

Unions allege systematic attempts by companies to fire, discipline or intimidate workers who support a union. The balance of labor complaints about the election process focus on delays. Even when unions win, some companies delay contract talks or refuse to bargain collectively.

These elections are not fair or democratic. They encourage nefarious tactics. The lack of effective oversight enables companies to try and drag out the process, ensuring it lasts years and not a few weeks.

In response, many unions have tried to avoid elections. Before submitting signed union cards, they build campaigns to push employers to sign "card-check neutrality" deals to recognize the union without an election.

Such campaigns have been successful in Los Angeles. Security officers in office buildings around Los Angeles County are being organized under a neutrality agreement between Service Employees International Union, building owners and security contractors.

It is possible for employers and labor to work together on these issues, but that is not the norm.

The most prominent ongoing labor dispute in Southern California — over a unionization drive at hotels near Los Angeles International Airport — is about a card check. The union seeking to organize, Unite Here, is demanding that hotels agree to a card check. The hotels want their workers to have a secret ballot.

Asked about the effect on hotel workers, Maria Elena Durazo, head of the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor, said, "I'm confident that if the Employee Free Choice were law, workers on Century Boulevard would now have better wages, family health insurance and a pension through a union contract."

The hotels are trying to drag this out and frustrate their employees who would like to have a union. They are willing to pay to lengthen the process rather than pay their employees a fair wage and benefits, much like they would rather sue than pay a living wage.

Within 72 hours of Mayor Villaraigosa signing the living wage bill, we should see a law suit filed by business interests seeking to repeal it. Despite clear public support for the initiative and after having received millions in governmental assistance, the hotels are determined fight paying their workers a living wage.

Councilwoman Janice Hahn, the driving force behind the effort, said she believes the council acted fairly on behalf of the 3,500 workers in the Century Corridor.

"We rescinded the earlier ordinance to comply with what the business community wanted," Hahn said. "We made significant changes in the ordinance to accommodate that.

"To be honest, I feel like (the business community) betrayed us by threatening us with legal action."

The measure also calls for studies into a possible conference center and business-tax reductions for the area, as well as various studies on the impact of the living wage.

The City Council negotiated in good faith with the business community, only to have them back out and then threaten this law suit. Their reasoning is interesting and by interesting I mean full of crap.

"I think within 72 hours of the mayor signing it, you will see a legal challenge," said Harvey Englander, spokesman for the Century Corridor hotels affected by the measure.

"I think everyone realizes that litigation is the next step. It's unfortunate that it has come to this, but the council is basically ignoring what 103,000 residents said they didn't want to see."

The 103,000 residents remark is a reference to the people who the got to sign their petition. They paid petition gatherers to collect enough signatures to try and get on the ballot, which brought about the negotiations.

If the business community really wanted to see what Angelenos think of a living wage for the LAX hotel workers, they would bring it to the ballot. But their polling and ours shows overwhelming support for the ordinance the City Council just sent to the Mayor's desk. A lawsuit is not the way to gage public support. It is an attempt to continue paying poverty wages.

(Nevada Economic Development Partnership file)

One of the favored attacks by business interest on progressive economic policies is the claim that they will drive employers away. It is one we have heard frequently during the living wage battle in LA. They like to use anecdotal evidence or simply scary language to try and deny fair working conditions and wages. They have a theory and it was just disproved by the PPIC, again.

The study, being released today by the nonpartisan San Francisco-based institute, says that while some California companies are moving jobs out of state, non-California companies are moving operations here. And, of course, existing companies are adding jobs.

"California's share of national employment dipped in the early to mid-1990s and has risen since then," says the study, co-authored by the institute's Jed Kolko and David Neumark. The numbers "make it difficult to argue that these changes reflect a bad business climate in recent years."

California is doing well because "cost is only one element of the equation," said Kolko, an economist and research fellow, in an interview. "If firms can be more productive here ... firms will choose to be here."

Like the rest of the country, the growth here is not coming in industrial jobs, but in the service industry. However, even in factory jobs we are doing well compared to the rest of the country.

Of course, business interests try and put up a straw man again.

Unfortunately, it seems likely that the new living wage legislation will be heading to court. Rather than pay fair wages to their employees, after getting $110 million in incentives in recent weeks, it appears that business interests will sue to block the ordinance. From today's LAT:

Though the law is expected to win final approval next week, it is likely to be challenged in court, union and business officials agreed Tuesday.

The city had rescinded its original ordinance for the hotel workers under threat of a referendum, and some business interests say that would make it difficult for the city to defend a new law in court — particularly if the new law isn't much different from the old one.

Council President Eric Garcetti, however, said the city was on solid legal ground.

I am no lawyer and will not begin to pontificate on the merits of such a lawsuit. Instead, I will simply lament this turn of events. It was only a short time ago that the business groups were on board and supporting the ordinance. Now, they have withdrawn support and are talking about going on the attack, all to avoid paying their workers a fair wage.

Talk of a potential lawsuit added to the charged debate on Tuesday.

A livid City Councilwoman Janice Hahn asked business officials to reconsider giving the money they would use for lawyers to the hotel workers.

"I implore you not to tie this up in litigation," said Hahn, her voice rising. "Pay your hotel workers what they deserve."

LA City Council Approves Living Wage Ordinance: Business Withdraws Support

In a 9-3 vote today the L.A. City Council approved a new ordinance that expands the living wage to the thousands of workers employed at the LAX area hotels. The law will have to come back for a second vote on Feburary 20th, but it would only need eight votes and thus should be a mere formality before heading to the Mayor's desk for his signature.

Unsurprisingly, business has withdrawn their support for this new ordinance. There is no LAT article to link to yet, but this is behind the paywall of the LA Business Journal:

But living wage proponents and supporters on the Council, including Councilwoman Janice Hahn and Council President Eric Garcetti, accused the business community of reneging on their agreement to the compromise.

“It’s very disappointing to me about the absolute betrayal of the business community. We should not have rescinded the original ordinance. But in good faith, we did. They wanted to make sure we didn’t do this again without an agreed upon process. We did that. We gave them business incentives and tax rebates. It’s really an abomination that they then reneged on the deal,” an angry Hahn said.

Hahn and Garcetti also noted that the Council had earlier Tuesday voted to grant more than $60 million in city subsidies to the developers of the $2 billion Grand Avenue project, following a similar grant of about $50 million in subsidies last week to the developers of a major Chinatown project.

“That’s $110 million for business in two weeks. We can hardly be called anti-business after taking actions like that,” Garcetti said.

(emphasis mine)

As Maria Elena Durazo from the LA Labor Fed says:

The L.A. City Council should be applauded for doing what’s morally right for the workers employed by the hotels along Century Boulevard. Today, they acknowledge that these workers should not have to live in poverty to continue to make the hospitality industry profitable and successful. They acknowledge that Los Angeles should no longer be a city where within its boundaries resides the wealthiest and the poorest in the state. In 2004, nearly one in six Los Angeles residents had incomes below the poverty line, compared to less than 1 in eight in the rest of the state. Just a year prior, the share of Angelinos grossing more than a million doubled, outpacing the rest of the state.

Despite today’s support, I am disappointed that after countless hours of hard work to ensure that the needs of the business community were met in the language of the new living wage law that the Chamber of Commerce and Business would renege on their support.

Hear, hear. This is a good step forward, but it is disappointing to see the Chamber and other business interests withdraw their support, despite the generous subsidies they were granted.

The LA City Council released the new living wage proposal last week and it was immediately attacked by big business interests.

This is not an us vs. them issue. Economic growth should mean better quality-of-life for workers as well as CEOs. Unfortunately, that has not been happening as of late. It was something Sen. Webb addressed in his response to the State of the Union:

When one looks at the health of our economy, it's almost as if we are living in two different countries. Some say that things have never been better. The stock market is at an all-time high, and so are corporate profits. But these benefits are not being fairly shared. When I graduated from college, the average corporate CEO made 20 times what the average worker did; today, it's nearly 400 times. In other words, it takes the average worker more than a year to make the money that his or her boss makes in one day.

It's generally a good idea to invest in economic development and it's an even better idea to invest in quality education, health care and other quality-of-life issues that are the sign of a productive workforce.

If the business lobby wants to view this as some sort of quid pro quo, then I don't see what they're whining about. While we should not prejudge this plan, it looks like a significant investment in business. So, how much does the business lobby want from LA taxpayers? In exchange, all they have to do is just do the fair, smart thing by their lowest-paid workers, which is actually good business as well as good for families and LA.

Interestingly, an column in the LA Business Journal (sub. req.) basically said the same thing in yesterday:

This will be one of the rare times where I write a post grounded in national issues, rather than local ones.

The battle for a living wage in LA highlighted a well known issue, many big businesses are openly hostile towards workers organizing themselves collectively. They will engage in any number of illegal activities to discourage unionization, to try an head off the "cancer" of a living wage, or better working conditions.

There is a legislative solution to a lot of this. Tomorrow, the Employee Free Choice Act will be introduced in Congress. This is from the AFL-CIO Weblog. The EFCA would:

• Establish stronger penalties for violations of employee rights when workers seek to form a union and during first-contract negotiations.
• Provide mediation and arbitration for first-contract disputes.
• Allow employees to form unions by signing cards authorizing union representation.

There are already 230 co-sponsors of this legislation and growing.

If we needed further proof why this legislation is needed, we have some courtesy of Steven Law, a former Bush Department of Labor official. The Daily Labor Report from the Bureau of National Affairs provides an account of his apperance in front of the National Association of Wholesaler-Distributers, where he launched a full scale attack on the Employee Free Choice act. From my friends over at EdWize:

"If you think that unionizing is a great thing," Law told the assembled, "then this (legislation) is a great thing."

The Daily Labor Report recounts an episode in the question and answer session:

According to that audience member, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters sought to organize 30 of his company's drivers in 2003, but obtained only 11 signed union authorization cards. Unless an employer learns of the organizing drive, "You have no chance to retaliate — I shouldn't say retaliate," he said to peals of nervous laughter from the audience. Rather, he corrected himself, "You have no chance to say [as an employer] what's going on."

No, you shouldn't say retaliate, nor should you speak of a living wage like it was cancer. These are people who struggle every day to provide for their families and organize collectively so they can have a voice and a seat at the table. They keep you from running roughshod over them, all in the name of profit. Open hostility to workers is deplorable and should be called out whenever it rears its nasty head.

Rick Wartzman's weekly column in the LAT business section is focused primarily on the economics of the living wage deal in LA.

In addition, the new legislation would establish rigorous requirements that the city must follow if it wants to extend the living wage (heretofore reserved for municipal contractors) to other neighborhoods or industries. Business leaders say the upshot will be to halt the living wage from spreading any further. "This is a major point," says Gary Toebben, president of the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce, sounding as if some terrible cancer has finally stopped metastasizing.

Big business views paying their workers a living wage as a "cancer". They are often short sighted thinkers when it comes to the actual economics of paying a living wage. Paying workers more leads to a higher quality workforce and less turnover. It is something on of the LAX hotel owners touched on. He was the only one to voluntarily pay his employees a living wage:

Yesterday was not just a big win for workers in LAX-area hotels; it was a big win for working people throughout LA and California. So today, let's break down all of the moving pieces and give credit where it is due.

Big business lobbyists have now dropped their efforts to use a ballot initiative to overturn the landmark law that extended LA's living wage ordinance to thousands of workers at hotels near LAX. This is part of a deal reached between unions and other supporters of the living wage, Mayor Villaraigosa and members of the City Council, and business leaders. The agreement allows for the repeal of the original ordinance and passage of a new law that will raise wages for the Century Boulevard hotel workers while providing certain assurances to business leaders. That will not happen immediately. It will take a few weeks for the legislation to be crafted and voted upon.

Immediately after that new bill is passed, workers will get a boost to $9.60 an hour. There will be a second increase in July, bringing their wages to $10.64 ($9.39 for those with employer-provided health benefits). This will bring much needed relief to the 3,500 workers in the 13 hotels along Century Boulevard even earlier than the original legislation, where the increase was to come in May.

This victory is a long time coming. It took thousands of petitions, marches, long negotiations, but is a perfect example of what a strong labor movement can do to improve worker's quality of life. There were many heroes -- none more so than the workers who made this their fight -- but in particular, Maria Elena Durazo, the Secretary-Treasurer of the LA County Federal of Labor, deserves a lot of credit for her leadership, vision and strength.

Moreover, there is strong public support for even greater progress for working people -- as the Working Californians poll showed.

But in the meantime, winning a living wage and health care benefits to tens of thousands of workers is a great step forward that we can build on.

As Vivian Rothstein, Deputy Director of the Los Angeles Alliance for a New Economy says:

It is clear that the public cares deeply about working poverty and believes that city leaders have a responsibility to ensure that people who work hard can support themselves and their families in dignity," said Rothstein. "The Mayor and City Council have shown tremendous leadership on this issue, and residents of Los Angeles will continue to support them in finding solutions that help create better jobs and rebuild our middle class.

That first sentense in Rothstein's quote points to another lesson from this fight: Advocacy efforts are immensely strengthened by accurate, timely and credible data on public opinion. That's why Working Californians focuses on strategic research so much.

This win for hotel workers helps raise quality of life for all of LA. Now others will be able to use this wage as leverage for their own living wage. This is a basic building block that we hope to use for further expansion of a living wage for all Californian workers. It is impossible to have a shot at reaching the American dream when you are working on below poverty wages. The increases may be relatively small, but every little bit helps for workers like Maria Luisa Avalos, a housekeeper at the Hilton LAX:

It is my dream to give my children a better life. This is what every mother hopes for, and a living wage will help me fulfill this dream. But our struggle to achieve our dreams is not over.

I will have more later, but we took a step forward today towards ensuring a living wage for the LAX hotel workers. Here is the initial LAT article.

This is the main piece:

Chief among those elements would be a three-part "phase-in" of a living wage over the next year. Workers at the hotels would get a small raise upon passage of new legislation, a second raise in July that would bring them to $10.64 per hour, and finally a cost of living increase on Jan. 1, 2008.

Our poll indicates that we can do way more towards ensuring all workers earn a living wage, but this is encouraging news.

We got a decent amount of blogosphere coverage yesterday on our living wage poll, even if there were no print articles. Here is a quick roundup of the posts and comments in reaction.

Today we released the results of a poll of likely Los Angeles voters that demonstrates wide and deep support for the limited Living Wage law enacted last year by the Los Angeles City Council and Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa – and tremendous potential support for a much broader, citywide Living Wage.

The poll found wide and deep support – across income levels and political, geographic, ethnic and racial sub-groups in Los Angeles – for the existing, limited Living Wage law, which requires airport-area hotels to pay service employees at least $9.30/hour plus contribute at least $1.25/hour to their health care coverage. Business lobbyists are trying to overturn it by forcing a special election this May, at a potential cost to taxpayers of some $3 million.

Specifically, the Working Californians poll found the following:

• When read a description of the Living Wage law, 74 percent of likely L.A. voters supported it, while only 23 percent opposed it, and just 3 percent were undecided.
• A majority of likely voters (51 percent) would definitely support the existing Living Wage law, while only a very small minority (14 percent) would definitely oppose it.
• After hearing arguments from both sides, support held strong at 69 percent, while opposition increased only slightly, to 27 percent.
• The strongest argument against the existing Living Wage law is that it is not broad enough. In fact, likely voters strongly support all of the law’s individual provisions – except for the fact that it is limited to just hotels near LAX.

Says WC Co-chair Brian D'Arcy:

The data is loud and clear: Los Angeles voters overwhelmingly support the Living Wage. If big business lobbyists insist on trying to roll back the Living Wage law, then they’ll just be wasting $3 million in taxpayer money – and they’ll lose.

And fellow WC Co-chair Marvic Kropke:

This is a slam dunk. L.A. voters strongly believe that people who work hard every day deserve a Living Wage and health care. And they think the Living Wage law should apply to all workers – not just at hotels near LAX.

From Diane Feldman's polling memo:

If a Living Wage Initiative is on the ballot in Los Angeles this spring, it is virtually certain to pass. Support for the initiative cuts across nearly every demographic and political subgroup. By geography, the vote is highest in the South, with 82 percent support, but remains strong in the San Fernando Valley with 68 percent support to 30 percent opposition. The Living Wage Initiative garners the support 66 percent of Anglo voters, 86 percent of African Americans and 89 percent of Latino voters.

We can fight and win a battle over living wage here in LA. It may not come to that, but we do have the voting public on our side. In fact, the biggest knock against such an initiative is that it is not broad enough. That bodes well for this and future campaigns around a living wage in California.