From Deseret News archives:

'Living wages' defended

Requirement for firms doesn't boost costs, study says

Published: Monday, Dec. 15, 2003 8:27 a.m. MST
 |  E-MAIL | PRINT | FONT + - 
Contrary to what critics have feared, requiring companies that do business with government to pay a "living wage" does not generally result in increased costs, according to a new study.

The study, released Wednesday by the Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University's School of Law, surveyed 20 cities and counties across the country to assess the impact of their year-old "living wages" laws.

Utah law prohibits forcing local governments to pay wages above poverty level.

While living wage laws have a variety of different components, the key requirement is that employers who expect to do business with government pay their workers between $8 and $12 an hour, a salary that can help stave off poverty and government assistance.

Generally, the study determined that contract costs were much less than government officials had feared, for a couple of reasons.

First, most governments don't have a lot of contracts with companies who employ low-wage workers, with the exception of janitorial service providers or security guard firms.

Second, many governments found the requirement actually stimulated more interest in bidding on the contract, with companies in many circumstances absorbing the increased costs of the labor rather than passing them onto government.

Story continues below
Bill Tibbetts, Anti-Hunger Action Committee coordinator for Salt Lake's Crossroads Urban Center, said the study reflects why Utah lawmakers were wrong nearly three years ago when they passed legislation prohibiting living-wage laws.

"Generally, this study shows these laws don't cost cities very much at all," Tibbetts said. "What that means to me is that a living wage law is is one of the more cost-effective anti-poverty measures a city could take."

Tibbetts said the premise behind living-wage laws is that it makes little sense for one branch of government, such as a city, to perpetuate poverty by doing business with employers that don't pay workers enough to get off assistance provided by another branch of government.

A 2002 study, for example, showed nearly half of all Utah jobs do not pay a high enough wage to meet the federal government's poverty threshold of $17,650 for a family of four.

Typically, Tibbetts said, Utah workers make 80 percent of the national average wage but endure 100 percent of the nation's average living expenses.

"I work every day with people who are unable to feed their family even when they are working full time," he said.

The current federal minimum wage of $5.15 an hour is woefully inadequate, Tibbetts said.

Comments

You can be the first to comment on this story.

previousnext

Latest comments

How is non-discrimination a bad move? Can you explain that to me? Wouldn't...

Anything that promotes homosexuality in our community is wrong, including...

One question. If these bills are so good, why has congress optied out of it?...

I can understand that concern for a couple reasons. A landlord over multiple...

If the Republicans are voting for Healthcare bills to die, what is their...

4A preview: Springville vs. Dixie

Dixie is the best team in the state hands down. TV/MC dont stand a chance...

Mega wind project goes online

How much was paid by subsidies? What is the cost of the power? What is the...

I was in the Hill Cumorah Pageant cast this summer. Two days after Ben's...

Dixie St. campus briefs

Congratulations, ladies, on a great accomplishment! Only your second year...

How to reduce the budget; and not on creative ways to raise more taxes. ...

Advertisements
Advertisement