Living Wage Bill Formally Introduced; Bloomberg Smirks

appelbaum diaz living wage Living Wage Bill Formally Introduced; Bloomberg Smirks A “living wage” bill is being introduced in the City Council today, led by a set of Bronx elected officials, and the legislation itself is now up on the Council’s Web site.

The bill, dubbed the Fair Wages for New Yorkers Act, would force most every development receiving city subsidies of at least $100,000 to require a minimum wage of $11.50 an hour (or $10 and benefits) for anyone working in the development, a mandate that would mostly affect retail jobs (which tend to be low wage).

The Bronx elected officials—led by Bronx Borough President Ruben Diaz Jr.—and the Retail Wholesale and Department Store Union are launching a campaign on the issue (with T-shirts, a logo, a Web site and all), and held a press conference Tuesday at City Hall (one which Mayor Bloomberg walked by with a smirk on his face) to press the issue.

Indeed, the text of the bill certainly displays more effort and some sense of reality than a similar bill introduced by some of the same elected officials last session. That bill called for all developments receiving at least $10,000 of subsidy to mandate the living wage, something that would anger far more subsidy recipients. The new bill also exempts developments used exclusively for affordable housing, and developments that house a cultural institution or social services organization.

Here’s a piece of the bill, complete with charged rhetoric:

“It is the policy of the city that jobs supported with financial assistance, whether conferred directly by the city or indirectly by a city economic development entity, should pay wages that allow working New Yorkers to support themselves with dignity.  In furtherance of this policy, covered employers shall pay their employees no less than a living wage.”

The wage would also be tied to the CPI, adjusting for inflation (a rational way of doing policy that is often left out of legislation on issues such as, say, legislator pay).

Resistance on the issue comes from the mayor, who says it will slow development, and the real estate industry, which, too, worries it would slow development given the higher costs (and lower rents one could charge) that would come as a result.

ebrown@observer.com

 

Article continues below
More from Politics
STAR OF DAVID OR 'PLAIN STAR'?   If you thought "CP Time" was impolitic, on July 2 Donald Trump posted a picture on Twitter of a Star of David on top of a pile of cash next to Hillary Clinton's face. You'd think after the aforementioned crime stats incident (or after engaging a user called "@WhiteGenocideTM," or blasting out a quote from Benito Mussolini, or...) Trump would have learned to wait a full 15 seconds before hitting the "Tweet" button. But not only was the gaffe itself bad, the attempts at damage control made the BP oil spill response look a virtuoso performance.  About two hours after the image went up on Trump's account, somebody took it down and replaced it with a similar picture that swapped the hexagram with a circle (bearing the same legend "Most Corrupt Candidate Ever!"!). Believe it or not, it actually got worse from there. As reports arose that the first image had originated on a white supremacist message board, Trump insisted that the shape was a "sheriff's star," or "plain star," not a Star of David. And he continued to sulk about the coverage online and in public for days afterward, even when the media was clearly ready to move on. This refusal to just let some bad press go would haunt him later on.
Donald Trump More Or Less Says He’ll Keep On Tweeting as President