Greensboro Minimum Wage Campaign

Raise the Wage marches in Greensboro's 4th of July parade

2008-07-28T14:15:00.001-05:00

Raising the minimum wage helps non-minimum wage workers...

2008-06-26T08:12:00.003-05:00

Labor Needs to Improve Conditions for Nonunion Workers, Official Warns

by Steven Greenhouse

New York Times - June 23, 2008

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/23/nyregion/23workers.html

Ed Ott, the executive director of the New York City Central Labor Council, an umbrella group for the city's labor unions, has an unexpected and unnerving warning for New York's more than one million union members.

He warns that their wages and living standards will be threatened unless the city's unions do far more to lift the incomes and living standards of the city's nonunion working poor, including restaurant workers, supermarket cashiers and taxi drivers.

"Going forward, if we don't raise the standards for the lowest-paid workers in the city, and there are literally hundreds of thousands of them, our own levels that we achieved - of wages, pensions and time off - they're not sustainable," said Mr. Ott, whose group is a federation of 400 union locals. "For a working class that is going to be making minimum wage or slightly above, what's going to happen is that as taxpayers, that will create a social base for an attack on our own standards."

Mr. Ott's remarks, made in a recent speech at City University and in a follow-up interview, were an impassioned plea as well what he said was a "wake-up call" to the city's labor movement. New York's union movement has far more members than any other city's, although it is widely viewed as less aggressive in unionizing and helping low-wage workers than the labor movements in Los Angeles and several other cities.

Read More >>

Six Reasons to Support the Campaign to Raise the Minimum Wage

2008-06-23T15:19:00.002-05:00

1. ECONOMIC GROWTH: Raising the minimum wage is a proven way for cities to improve living standards without adversely impacting the economy or business community. Santa Fe, San Francisco, Washington, DC, and Albuquerque have raised their citywide minimum wage and their economies continue to thrive.

2. HUMANITARIAN VALUES: People shouldn’t have to choose between rent, groceries and medicine. Families in Greensboro have to earn more than three times the current minimum wage ($6.15/hr) just to meet the Living Income Standard.

3. DEMOCRATIC PROCESS: Communities should have the ability to decide a minimum standard for wages. Real democracy happens when ordinary people exercise control over the issues that effect their lives. The citizens initiative process enables a more direct democracy that we should engage and expand.

4. MORALITY: Everyone who works should earn a descent wage. In a community as wealthy as ours, it is morally reprehensible that working people would not have their basic needs met.

5. CONSUMER IMPACT: Raising the minimum wage to $9.82/hour would have very little effect on the costs of products and services -- no more than 1/2 a percent to 2% overall. Experience in other communities that have raised the minimum wage above the surrounding area have shown that this is easily covered by a combination of small price increases, increased productivity from happier, more stable workers, and increased sales to people with greater spending power.

6. WILL OF THE PEOPLE: Over eight thousand members of the Greensboro community have already signed on to support raising the minimum wage. Let the people’s voice be heard!

What would MLK, Jr. say?

2008-03-07T15:38:00.002-05:00

From the Let Justice Roll campaign (full press release here):

Forty years after Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. came to Memphis to support striking sanitation workers making poverty wages, he would be shocked to see millions of Americans making poverty wages today.

[. . . ]

Dr. King told striking sanitation workers in Memphis on March 18, 1968, "It is criminal to have people working on a full-time basis at a full-time job getting part-time income… We are tired of working our hands off and laboring every day and not even making a wage adequate with daily basic necessities of life." Dr. King said, "Now is the time to make an adequate income a reality for all of God's children… Now is the time for justice to roll down like water, and righteousness like a mighty stream."

In 1968, Memphis sanitation workers at the bottom of the pay scale earned $10 an hour, adjusted for inflation.

In 1968, workers earning the federal minimum wage made an inflation-adjusted $9.70.

In 2008, forty years later, the federal minimum wage is 40 percent less, at $5.85.

"Talking about values is no substitute for valuing hardworking men and women who need a higher minimum wage," said Rev. Jennifer Kottler, Executive Director of the Let Justice Roll Living Wage Campaign. "Workers should not have to choose between paying the rent and buying food for their children. A job should keep you out of poverty, not keep you in it."

N&R column on Minimum Wage Campaign

2008-02-28T18:28:00.002-05:00

Check out Jeri Rowe's column on the minimum wage campaign in last Saturday's paper.

It includes a concise summary of the minimum wage campaign over the past two years:

One night two weeks ago, you couldn't miss the stickers at City Hall.

At least 50 people converged on the mezzanine level of the Melvin Municipal Building, many of them wearing a small sticker that claimed a big thing for Greensboro: Raise the Minimum Wage — $9.36.

The effort involved two years of talk and a year-long petition drive that corralled 8,000 signatures. The goal: Raise the minimum wage, a dollar at a time over the next few years, until it has the same purchasing power it had in 1968, the year of the first Big Mac.

It brought together a fleet of young guns and old-school activists who wanted the city — our city — to support a move they believed would help thousands of families struggling to make it.

In December, in a 7-2 vote, the City Council gave the OK for the petition drive to move forward. Then in January, in a vote split along racial lines, council members rescinded their vote because of confusion over numbers and legality.

City Council Meeting - Tuesday, Feb. 5th - 5:30pm

2008-02-01T09:50:00.000-05:00

Everyone concerned with the minimum wage citizens initiative petition should attend the city council meeting on Tuesday, Feb. 5th at 5:30pm. The issue will be on the agenda for further discussion.

This is our chance to reverse the decision made by the city council at its last meeting to rescind its original vote to move forward with the petition. We need to show the council members that citizens care about this issue.

Please pass the word to your networks. Anyone with questions should call Marilyn @ 456-1309, Jim @ 681-2890, Fahiym @ 987-4029, Ed @ 549-7810 or Debra @ 987-7689.

Final final push

2008-01-16T18:15:00.000-05:00

This just came from Marilyn Baird, co-chair of the Greensboro Minimum Wage Committee:

Last night at the City Council meeting, Mary Rakestraw made a motion to rescind the previous vote to accept the minimum wage petition. It passed by a vote of 5-3. Robbie Perkins was not at the meeting because he was hospitalized. We had heard a couple of weeks ago that Mike Barber was trying to solicit a councilperson to make a motion to rescind. Mary Rakestraw agreed to do just that.

On 1/8/2008 four (4) members of the minimum wage committee met with City Attorney Terry Woods. We were advised that over 2,000 signatures weren't valid and that we had ten (10) days to get the required signatures. The ten days would be up on Friday, January 18th at 5:00pm. This was stated to us verbally as well as in writing.

We cannot let this stop us!!

Here's the plan:

1. Continue to get signatures!! If you have petitions that need to be notarized a notary will be available at Faith Community Church tomorrow from 3p-7p. If you have a petition that needs to be picked up, please call us at 456-1309.

2. Rep. Alma Adams is in support and feels we need to move forward. We'll be at Bennett College tomorrow starting at 10am. We'll be there all day.

If you can help us at Bennett please call Debra Compton-Holt at 987-7869.

If you have any questions or suggestions please call us:
Marilyn @ 456-1309
Jim @ 681-2890
Ed @ 549-7810
Fahiym @ 987-4029

Campaign Update

2008-01-16T14:32:00.000-05:00

Not being in Greensboro anymore, I've just learned about the City Council's decision last night to rescind its acceptance of the minimum wage petition. Perusing local blogs, it seems like Yes! Weekly's Jordan Green gives the most in depth coverage here.

I don't know anything beyond what Jordan writes, but will keep the site updated if I learn more.

Anyone interested in seeing exactly what happened can watch the council meeting here.

Pres. Bush supports minimum wage hike in Greensboro?

2008-01-15T07:53:00.000-05:00

Nah, probably not. But I did run across a quote from him today that echoes an argument our committee has been making in support of a wage hike:

"When consumers have less purchasing power, it could cause the economy to slow down," Bush says.

To be fair, he made his remarks urging OPEC leaders to put more oil supply on the market and not in support of a minimum wage hike (you can see the full story here). But it is refreshing to find some common ground in our otherwise polarized political arena.

Final push - petition drive

2008-01-14T10:51:00.000-05:00

After reviewing the signatures on our petition, the board of elections determined that we are still short 1,000 valid signatures. (Several of the signatures we had originally were of people not officially registered to vote or who have since moved away.)

So if you are still interested in signing the petition, you can do so until Thursday, January 17 at 1103 West Lee St. (The building looks like a small house, but is a business.) It is open from 10:30am until 6:30pm. You just need to walk in and ask to sign the petition.

If you've already signed the petition, good for you! Encourage your friends to do so, too.

Cornel West on "Free Market Fundamentalism"

2008-01-04T13:12:00.000-05:00

From Democracy Matters (2004):

"The first dogma of free-market fundamentalism posits the unregulated and unfettered market as idol and fetish. This glorification of the market has led to a callous corporate-dominated political economy in which business leaders (their wealth and power) are to be worshipped - even despite the recent scandals - and the most powerful corporations are delegated magical powers of salvation rather than relegated to democratic scrutiny concerning both the ethics of their business practices and their treatment of workers. This largely unexamined and unquestioned dogma that supports the policies of both Democrats and Republicans in the United States - and those of most political parties in other parts of the world - is a major threat to the quality of democratic life and the well-being of most peoples across the globe. It yields an obscene level of wealth inequality, along with its corollary of intensified class hostility and hatred. It also redefines the terms of what we should be striving for in life, glamorizing materialistic gain, narcissistic pleasure, and the pursuit of narrow individualistic preoccupations - especially for young people here and abroad.

"Free market fundamentalism - just as dangerous as the religious fundamentalisms of our day - trivializes the concern for public interest. The overwhelming power and influence of plutocrats and oligarchs in the economy put fear and insecurity in the hearts of anxiety-ridden workers and render money-driven, poll-obsessed elected officials deferential to corporate goals of profit, often at the cost of the common good. This illicit marriage of corporate and political elites - so blatant and flagrant in our time - not only undermines the trust of informed citizens in those who rule over them. It also promotes the pervasive sleepwalking of the populace, who see that the false prophets are handsomely rewarded with money, status, and access to more power. This profit-driven vision is sucking the democratic life our of American society.

"In short, the dangerous dogma of free-market fundamentalism turns our attention away from schools to prisons, from workers' conditions to profit margins, from health clinics to high-tech facial surgeries, from civic associations to pornographic Internet sites, and from chidren's care to strip clubs. The fundamentalism of the market puts a premium on the activities of buying and selling, consuming and taking, promoting and advertising, and devalues community, compassionate charity, and improvement of the general quality of life. How ironic that in America we've moved so quickly from Martin Luther King Jr.'s "Let Freedom Ring!" to "Bling! Bling!" - as if freedom were reducible to simply having material toys, as dictated by free market fundamentalism."

Council votes to accept petition

2007-12-19T00:40:00.000-05:00

By a vote of 7-2, the Greensboro City Council has accepted our petition to raise the minimum wage in Greensboro. In spite of the legal department's recommendation that the nearly 7,000 signatures collected should be tossed out because of confusing/conflicting language in the city's charter and other ordinances, the majority of the city council agreed that it should, in Mayor Johnson's words "do the right thing" and allow the petition to move through the regular channels.

This was a major hurdle for the campaign, but there is still a long way to go. The ordinance to raise the minimum wage was not accepted tonight (and wasn't intended to be accepted or rejected tonight). From here, as I understand it (please let me know if I have gotten anything wrong), the City Clerk will review the signatures for legitimacy, then the board of elections will review the signatures to make sure all who signed were registered voters. If all of that goes through (meaning that we still have in excess of 4,900 valid signatures after these reviews), the city council will then have the opportunity to vote on the ordinance itself - which raises the minimum wage in the city of Greensboro to $9.36. If the city council rejects the ordinance, it will be placed on the ballot in the next local election for the voters to decide. One of the city attorneys (Terry Wood) cautioned council tonight that there would likely be legal action taken at some point against the city for what he anticipated were legal problems with the wording of the petition.

We'll see how it unfolds. For now, I am re-energized by council's decision tonight in favor of a reasonable, democratic process designed to let citizens more directly engage in local government.

Go to the City Council meeting tonight - 5:30pm - to support the minimum wage campaign

2007-12-18T06:22:00.001-05:00

Response to City Attorney's Opinion on Minimum Wage Petition

2007-12-17T22:49:00.000-05:00

To: Greensboro City Council
From: Edward L. Whitfield, Greensboro Minimum Wage Petition Committee
Subject: Response to “Opinion With Reference to Sufficiency of Initiative Petition for Higher Minimum Wage Within the City of Greensboro”

After reading the opinion of the City legal department as to the sufficiency of our Initiative Petition for an ordinance to raise the Greensboro minimum wage, the Petitioners Committee respectfully requests that the City Council consider the following before making their decision as to the sufficiency of the Petition:

First, we would like to say that the fact that 6385 citizens of Greensboro want the City Council to take action to increase wages within the City is itself a serious matter. We would hope that the city leaders fully take into consideration the moral and political issues involved here as well as paying proper attention to the legal obstacles that are being raised.

When we filed out petition on December 1, 2006, the County Board of Elections told our Committee that based upon the City Election of 2005 we needed to gather 4972 signatures of registered voters within one year to have a valid citizen’s petition. Now at the end of that period, the City Attorney says that we need 8,338 signatures because it must be based on the election held in 2007. According to this interpretation of the statutes involved, a petitioner seeking to initiate a local initiative would have to guess at the number of names that are needed, then proceed to gather signatures for what was in our case over 11 months before finding out in the last three weeks of the allotted year whether or not their guess had been correct. Clearly, the intent of these ordinances is not so dubious. We are particularly concerned since we asked the city attorney’s advice about the interpretation of the regulations for an initiative and were told that he couldn’t guarantee that the petition would meet the sufficiency requirements and that he could not advise citizen petitioners. (We attached a letter of City Attorney dated February 28, 2006. I don't have it in electronic form to attach here, but will try to get it.)

We would hope that the City Council would consider using their power under Sec. 2.73 of the City Charter to clarify this initiative system so that everyone will know what election will be used in determining what constitutes the “25% of voters who voted in the last previous election” referred to in the law.

As to the substance of the issue raised by the City Attorney about whether the proposed initiative asks for the city to do something for which it is not authorized, we feel that it is misleading that the City Attorney tells you that no local law can be adopted regulating labor without giving you any of the context of the constitutional provision he relies on to make that statement. The same Article II Section 24 of the North Carolina Constitution that says that there can be no local acts regulating “labor, trade, mining or manufacturing” also says that there can be none relating to “health, sanitation, of the abatement of nuisances.” Surely we are not to understand this as saying that the City cannot be involved any of these affairs. We would also like to understand the ability of our city to offer huge incentives to individual corporations if it cannot be involved in regulating “labor, trade, mining or manufacturing”? We obviously need a fuller explanation here of what the State Constitution disallows. (See Article II Section 24 of the North Carolina Constitution.)

The City Attorney has failed to tell the City Council that the Federal law that establishes the minimum wage, The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, specifically provides that States and Municipalities can set higher standards than the Federal minimum and that because of this 32 states and the cities of San Francisco, California, Santé Fe and Albuquerque, New Mexico have their own minimum wage. Wouldn’t it be helpful to the City Council who must make this decision to understand why these cities can raise their minimum wages using their same general “police powers” but the City of Greensboro cannot?

We also feel that the City Attorney’s reference to NCGS 160A-174 is misleading and incomplete in that he uses, in a manner that we don’t feel to be accurate, the portion of the statute that talks about what is not permissible without mentioning at all that the statute also states “The fact that a State or Federal law, standing alone, makes a given act, omission, or condition unlawful shall not preclude city ordinances requiring a higher standard of conduct or condition.” Our proposed ordinance is proposing no change in the regulation of wages, only that there be a higher standard for the City of Greensboro as to minimum wage in accordance with State law and in accordance with the original Federal Minimum wage law which provides explicitly that local areas may establish higher minimums. We would like the City attorney to explain why he left out this important part of the statute. (See NCGS 160A-174.)

If the City Attorney can find any court case in North Carolina that has ruled a City cannot have a higher minimum wage than the state minimum, he should tell the City Council. If he can’t then he should not so simply dismiss this petition on its face.

Council has authority to accept petition

2007-12-15T13:05:00.000-05:00

Thankfully, the City Council has the opportunity, and the authority under the Charter, to declare its own interpretation of the Charter's language and grant validity to our 6,412 signatures. But they need to hear from us soon. If you live in Greensboro, or are otherwise motivated to do so, please call members of the City Council and urge them to declare the Minimum Wage petition valid and use the 2005 election as the standard, given that it was the most recent city election at the time the petition was first presented to the city clerk and the County Board of Elections.

City Attorney's Office recommends Council deny petition

2007-12-14T14:34:00.000-05:00

The city attorney's office has recommended that the city council deny our petitiion. (Please see the opinion from the city attorney's office below.)

This petition will be before the city council on Tuesday night, 12/18/07, at its regularly scheduled meeting. We need as many as possible to attend that meeting which will take place in Council Chambers of the Melvin Municipal Building at 5:30pm.

We need the community to come out in force! Tell a friend and commit to bringing at least one person with you. We need to send a clear message to our elected officials that we've had enough.

Come and show your support. Any questions, please call Jim at 336-681-2890.

City Attorney's Opinion
(I know this is too long for a blog post; sorry)

Date: December 10, 2007

To: Juanita F. Cooper
City Clerk

From: Terry Wood
Legal Department

Subject: Opinion With Reference to Sufficiency of Initiative Petition for Higher
Minimum Wage Within the City of Greensboro

Background

On December 1, 2006, pursuant to NCGS § 163-218, a Petitioner’s Committee registered an Initiative Petition with the Guilford County Board of Elections indicating that it intended to circulate the Petition among the citizens of Greensboro. The Initiative Petition was prepared pursuant to Chapter II, Subchapter D, Article 2 of the Greensboro City Charter. This Article, among other things, allows citizens to Petition the City Council to proceed with an Initiative on proposed Ordinances to require Council to adopt such an Ordinance or bring the Ordinance before the citizens for an Initiative vote on the issue.

The Petition was signed by a number of persons and was presented to the City Clerk on December 3, 2007. NCGS § 163-219 requires that if the Petition is to remain effective it must be filed within one year after the date it is registered. December 3, 2007, would be a proper date for filing with the Clerk since December 1, 2007, fell on Saturday, a non-business day. See NCGS § 1A-1, NCRCP 6(a).

To be declared sufficient a Petition must meet several conditions. First, it must be signed by at least 25%, in number, of qualified voters who voted in the last preceding election for City Council Members. Second, it must request the adoption of an Ordinance that Council has the authority to adopt and which is not prohibited by Greensboro Charter Section 2.71(a)(2) or State Law NCGS § 160A-174. Third, it must comply with all other local, State and Federal laws.

Questions Presented

Is the Petition valid on its face and do the provisions of State Law and the Greensboro Charter allow such an Initiative Petition to be presented for the purpose of establishing a local minimum wage for the City of Greensboro in excess of the Statewide minimum wage established by the State Legislature pursuant to NCGS §95-25.3 (Supp. 2006)?

Opinion

In our Opinion there are least two issues which require the Petition to be declared insufficient on its face. Those issues will be discussed separately.

First, Section 2.71(a)(3) of the Greensboro Charter requires that the Petition be signed by a number of qualified voters equal to “at least 25% of the qualified voters of the city who voted at the last preceding election for City Council members.” Attached is a letter from the Guilford County Board of Elections indicating that there were 33,752 ballots cast at the last preceding election for Council Members, which was held on November 6, 2007. Twenty-five percent (25%) of that number would be 8,438 and that is the number required on a valid Petition filed December 3, 2007. The Petition filed with the City Clerk contains approximately 6,385 signatures, which is well below the required total. If there is a perceived inconsistency between the City Charter and the registration provisions of NCGS § 163-218 and 219 the City Charter provisions for filing control. See NCGS § 160A-3(b). The signatures have not been further verified for sufficiency since that process cannot in any way increase the number.

The second facial insufficiency pertaining to the Petition is its subject matter. Charter Section 2.73(d)(2) states that the Petition must be determined insufficient if it proposes “an Ordinance not subject to the power under which the petitioners are proceeding.” The Petitioners are requesting the City to adopt an Ordinance authorizing a local minimum wage in excess of that adopted by the State Legislature in NCGS § 95-25.3 (Supp. 2006). The adoption by the State Legislature of NCGS § 95-25.3 indicates a clear intent on its part to enact a Statewide law with reference to minimum wage. For a City to have independent authority to enact varying minimum wages the Legislature must, if constitutionally allowed, specifically delegate such authority to the City. See the NC Constitution, Art. II, Sec. 24(1)(j), which says no local law may be adopted regulating labor. Certainly no legislative attempt has been made to give Greensboro such authority. See also, McQuillan, 7 Municipal Corporations, § 24:320, (3rd Ed. Rev. 2005).

The statute which gives the City authority to adopt ordinances, NCGS § 160A-174 (b)(2), states that a City has no authority to “make unlawful an act . . . which is expressly made lawful by State . . . law.” Pursuant to State law, it is lawful to pay a minimum wage lower than that being proposed by the Ordinance attached to the Petition. Subsection (b)(5) of the same Statute indicates that a City may not propose an Ordinance that “purports to regulate a field for which a State . . . statute clearly shows a legislative intent to provide a complete and integrated regulatory scheme to the exclusion of local regulation.” State law NCGS § 95-25.3 (Supp. 2006) clearly shows such an intent.

It is the Opinion of this Office that the Initiative Petition is insufficient on its face. If you concur, the Petitioners’ Committee should be so notified and Council advised by a Clerk’s Certification of Insufficiency at its next Regular Meeting. Section 2.73(g) states that your determination is subject to judicial review as set out in Charter Section 2.75 and that you take no further action on the Petition unless a court directs otherwise.

Let City Council know what you think.

2007-12-10T16:11:00.000-05:00

Here is a message from Committee Co-Chair Marilyn Baird (pictured with Billy Jones and Donny Jones to the right):

Let me first thank you all for your support and the work everyone did on the petion drive. We petitioned with 6400 signatures.

We've not received an official response to our filing. But we have been advised by a source that the city attorney, Linda Miles, is trying to deny our petition.

Issue: On 12/1/2006 the petition was filed by the petitioners. We were advised by the election board prior to the filing that we would need 25% of those who voted in the most recent city council election. That number would be based on the 2005 City Council election. We would need 4, 972 signatures and we had until 12/01/2007 in which to present the required signature.

Our source has informed us that Linda Miles, city attorney has said that our petition isn't supported with the proper number of signatures. That the number of signatures is based on the most recent city council election in November , 2007. We expected this to happen.

We need your help! Below you will find an in depth piece on this issue written by retired Atty. Jim Boyett, co-chair. Here you will find a link to a listing of the city council members and their contact information. We need everyone to call or e-mail them. Let them know that Linda Miles' interpretation is FOOLISH and ask them to do the right thing! That the 6400 registered voters will not accept this foolishness.

Once again we've not received anything official from the city. The attorney will make an official decision possibly next week. It will then be sent to the city council. The city council will then make their decision on the interprtation of that statue.

Jim Boyett's piece:

This is not a legal issue it is a political issue.

The City Council should interpret its own City Charter with the advice of the Clerk and City Attorney. The City Council is the highest authority in the City and it is appropriate that they make the final decision as to what the Charter means. This is not a decision that can be left to the employees and staff agencies of the City.

Section 2.73 of the City Charter states as follows;

(a) Initiative, referendum and recall petitions shall be governed by the rules regarding form and sufficiency set out in this Section, as well as by such other rules regarding form and sufficiency as the City Council may impose by ordinance consistent with the provisions and with the spirit and purpose of this charter.

It is very clearly the responsibility of the City Council to determine the rules for how initiatives, referendums and recall petitions shall be conducted.

The Greensboro Minimum Wage Committee has submitted an initiative petition requesting an increase in the minimum wage. A lack of clarity exists in the present City rules regarding initiatives, referendums and recall petitions. This lack of clarity was caused by the State of North Carolina passing two statutes that added the requirement to register an initiative petition with the County Board of Elections prior to obtaining signatures and setting a time limit of one year on the gathering of signatures. These State changes have never been addressed by City ordinance to clarify their effect upon the City’s Initiative Procedure.

The question is how many signatures are required to meet the 25% requirement of voters who voted in the last election? Is the number determined as of the date of registration of the petition with the Board of elections or is the number subject to change during the year because of a new election being held in the City?

When we filed our petition the Deputy Director of the Board of Elections told us that we had one year to gather the signatures for our petition and that we needed 4972 signatures of registered voters to meet the 25% requirement.

The City Council should clarify the initiative procedure by ordinance so that citizens don’t have the rules changed in the middle of the game. We think that the 6412 citizens who signed our petition want the City Council to consider their petition on the merits not reject it on some technicality.

Signatures turned in

2007-12-04T13:26:00.000-05:00

Word from Greensboro is that the committee turned in 6,400 signatures to the city clerk yesterday at a press conference that was attended by numerous community leaders. I've had a few calls from folks asking if we have enough signatures, given that nearly twice as many people voted last month in the local elections than had voted in 2005. Not knowing the answer myself, I asked committee member Ed Whitfield for his input. He explained that our committee initiated the citizens' initiative petition drive on December 1, 2006 and, at that time, the city clerk's office informed us that, given the election numbers from 2005, we would need approximately 4,900 signatures for our petition to formally be presented to the city council and that we had one year in which to collect those signatures. Since election day is regularly on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November (look here for an interesting explanation of why this is) and since we can only assume that the city clerk understood that a local election would, therefore, take place prior to Dec. 1, 2007, we remain under the assumption that our number of required signatures was 4,900. (Side note: the signatures were turned in on Dec. 3 because the clerk's office told committee members that, because Dec. 1 fell on a weekend, we had until the following Monday to turn in the petitions.)

If you have other questions about the campaign, reply here and I'll do my best to get you an answer. Since I'm no longer in Greensboro, it might take a while, but I'll respond as soon as I can.

We've got our signatures!

2007-11-29T23:52:00.000-05:00

We are pleased to announce that our Committee has successfully completed the campaign to obtain the required 5,000+ signatures of registered voters. These voters want the Greensboro City Council to increase the minimum wage in Greensboro to $9.36 per hour. We will deliver our petition signatures to the Board of Elections at 12:30 PM, November 30, 2007. The campaign to gain approval of our initiative will began immediately thereafter on the front steps of the old courthouse.

In the richest society in human history the failure to pay just wages is not an economic issue. Wages are a moral issue. Tens of thousands of our neighbors in Greensboro are suffering from poverty wages. It is time to correct this injustice. The minimum wage is a floor for wages. It is the point where society says no to lower wages. To pay a lower wage is wrong. It is immoral just as child labor is immoral. People are not machines. They must have enough to sustain themselves.

The Federal Government’s own research shows that the minimum wage would need to be $9.58 per/hr to equal its purchasing power in 1968. Business can afford to pay its workers at least as much as they were paid 38 years ago. Inflation has hidden actual pay cuts for millions of hard working Americans. Minimum wage workers in 1968 could buy 35% more food, clothing and shelter than the minimum wage workers of today.

The trend towards paying working people less is accelerating. On October 23, 2006 the News & Record reported that the real inflation adjusted median household income in Greensboro fell from $46,459 to $36,733 over the last five years. The typical Greensboro family income has dropped 21%.

The Golden Rule - the ethics of reciprocity - is our most universal moral value. It is a fundamental moral principal in all of the world’s major religions. If I want decent pay for myself, I should want it for my neighbor.

We say it is wrong to pay people a minimum wage that is not enough for them to live on. What do you think?

Citizen groups have already made this happen in other cities. The minimum wage for all workers in San Francisco is $9.14 per/hr and in Santa Fe, New Mexico it is $9.50 per/hr. It is past time for this conversation to start in Greensboro. If you want to help call us at 336-681-2890.

Business leaders from all states support a higher minimum wage

2007-11-04T20:14:00.001-05:00

Business leaders from all over the country have joined together to fight for higher minimum wages. When the federal wage hike took place in July of this year, a group called Business for a Fair Minimum Wage released a statement that included the following language:

"Higher wages benefit business by increasing consumer purchasing power, reducing costly employee turnover, raising productivity, and improving product quality, customer satisfaction and company reputation. A fair minimum wage shows we value both work and responsible businesses. A fair minimum wage is a sound investment in the future of our communities and our nation."

To read more, go here.

More input from Santa Fe

2007-11-04T15:28:00.000-05:00

Thanks to Jim Boyett, co-chair of the Greensboro Minimum Wage Campaign, for pointing me to a wealth of information on the campaign for a living wage for all of Santa Fe's workers. Lots of interesting work there; here's a highlight from a column by Rebecca Wurzburger (Santa Fe City Councilwoman) and Buddy Roybal (Santa Fe small businessman):

Five years ago the two of us were both unsure of the potential impacts of Santa Fe's landmark living wage law. Although supportive of the wage in concept, as City Councilor I was uncomfortable with the fact that the proposed ordinance had no plan for evaluating its impact, particularly on smaller business. Similarly Buddy, a local business owner, was concerned about the unintended consequences of the law, particularly on young people and all local business. Today we both strongly support the proposed amendments to the living wage ordinance. They will extend coverage so that all workers in Santa Fe will earn a minimum of $9.50 per hour, not just those in businesses with 25 or more employees. This will mean that instead of covering only 60 percent of workers, the law will cover all of them. The amendments also include an automatic annual cost of living increase starting in 2009, so that inflation does not erode the value of the $9.50 minimum wage. We are not alone in our support of these proposed changes . . . By passing the amendments, with no other changes, the City Council will be respecting an historic agreement forged by this community. That, in turn, will encourage greater efforts at community consensus building on other difficult and divisive issues.

Here's hoping we'll see similar articles in Greensboro in five years. Given that yesterday was the 28th anniversary of the 1979 shootings in Morningside Homes (more information on that than you probably want can be found here), I think the last sentence holds a particularly high level of meaning for us.

Religious leaders call Santa Fe's living wage ordinance a "moral choice"

2007-10-29T11:51:00.000-05:00

(Column first published here.)

Eight years ago, at its 65th General Assembly, the Union for Reform Judaism passed a resolution supporting living wage campaigns. The resolution urged its member congregations across North America to become involved in these campaigns so that workers would be treated with justice. It did so by quoting Deuteronomy, a text held sacred by all three Abrahamic religious traditions: "You shall not oppress a hired laborer that is poor and needy, whether that laborer be of your people or of the strangers that are in the land within your gates." (Deuteronomy 24:14). Certainly as a religious body the URJ has not been alone. Many churches have been in the forefront of support for Living Wage Legislation as evidenced by the resolution passed at the 1997 General Assembly of the Unitarian Universalists of America and the resolution passed by the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America in 1999. It has been the constant teaching of the Roman Catholic Church since Pope Leo XIII that no one should work and live in poverty.

Perhaps the most difficult part in the framing of the URJ resolution was picking a single Biblical verse to quote. The Bible is replete with statements calling us to rally in the cause of social justice. In what are called the "Holiness Codes" of Leviticus 19, we are instructed to care for "the needy and the stranger," and to maintain honest business practices. We are also warned not to "stand idle while our neighbor bleeds." The prophet Amos (2:7) speaks disparagingly of those who "trample on the heads of the poor" and who "deny justice to the oppressed." These citations do not even scratch the surface of Biblical exhortations to pursue justice.

In the years following the URJ resolution, and those of the UUA and ELCA, the need for legislation to provide a living wage to workers in our communities has only increased. It seems only fair, and moral, that those who work within a community should be able to live with dignity in that community. At the very least, that is what we would want for our children, and the children of our neighbors — the ability to live with dignity.

The City Council is about to take up the issue of Living Wage legislation again, through amendments to the current law. This time though, the business community and the labor community have come to an agreement about the proposed changes. Changes that will serve us all well. The City Council will hold hearings during October and vote on the proposed changes at a meeting on Nov. 14. The changes would expand the living wage, starting Jan. 1, 2008, to cover all employees in Santa Fe, not just the current 60 percent. They would put into place an automatic cost of living increase every year starting Jan. 1, 2009. Finally, the baseline living wage will be set at the current $9.50 per hour.

We applaud the visionaries of the Santa Fe Living Wage Network, the Santa Fe Chamber of Commerce, the New Mexico Council of Churches, the Lodgers Association, the local immigrants rights group, the Restaurant Association, the 22 unions, and the Santa Fe Alliance who came together in support of the amendments to the Santa Fe Living Wage legislation. Given its moral basis and its broad based support from both labor and business, we urge the citizens of Santa Fe to encourage the City Council to pass the proposal as submitted and set a positive precedent for labor/management cooperation.

Rabbi Marvin Schwab of Temple Beth Shalom, the Rev. Richard W. Murphy of St. Bede's Episcopal Church and three additional Santa Fe church leaders signed this commentary.

Billionaires Up, America Down

2007-10-26T14:09:00.000-05:00

From an article by Holly Sklar:

When it comes to producing billionaires, America is doing great.

Until 2005, multimillionaires could still make the Forbes list of the 400 richest Americans. In 2006, the Forbes 400 went billionaires only.

[...]

The 25th anniversary of the Forbes 400 isn’t party time for America.

We have a record 482 billionaires — and record foreclosures.

We have a record 482 billionaires — and a record 47 million people without any health insurance.

Since 2000, we have added 184 billionaires — and 5 million more people living below the poverty line.
The official poverty threshold for one person was a ridiculously low $10,294 in 2006. That won’t get you two pounds of caviar ($9,800) and 25 cigars ($730) on the Forbes Cost of Living Extremely Well Index. The $20,614 family-of-four poverty threshold is lower than the cost of three months of home flower arrangements ($24,525).

Wealth is being redistributed from poorer to richer.

Read the entire article here.

"Many paychecks stretched to the breaking point"

2007-10-23T12:25:00.000-05:00

Across the nation, Americans are increasingly unable to stretch their dollars to the next payday as they juggle higher rent, food and energy bills. It’s starting to affect middle-income working families as well as the poor, and has reached the point of affecting day-to-day calculations of merchants like Wal-Mart Stores Inc., 7-Eleven Inc. and Family Dollar Stores Inc.

Check out the full AP story (published in the Asheville Citizen Times) from NY about the national cost of living increases in the US.

Study shows job growth not dampened by minimum wage raises

2007-10-16T15:57:00.000-05:00

Oregon will also be raising its minimum wage on January 1, 2008, to keep up with the cost of living. Last month, the Oregon Center for Public Policy released a study showing that not only did the dire consequences predicted by opponents of the wage hike not materialize, but that, since the minimum wage was raised in Oregon, job growth has actually been heartier there than in other states.

A few highlights from the press release:

"The data shows that the restaurant association was engaged in fear mongering," Leachman said, referring to claims by the Oregon Restaurant Association in the 2002 Voters’ Guide that "nearly 30,000 more Oregonians could lose their jobs" as a result of Measure 25.

OCPP’s analysis also calls into question claims by the Oregon Restaurant Association that increases to the minimum wage would cause menu prices to "escalate out of control." In the Portland-Salem metro area, the only area in Oregon where OCPP could easily track restaurant prices, it found that prices have risen more slowly than they have nationwide since the enactment of Measure 25. From 2002 through the first half of this year, restaurant prices
nationally increased 14.7 percent, compared to 13.4 percent in the Portland-Salem area. A variety of factors in addition to wages influence restaurant prices, including the cost of food and energy.