Thursday, December 15, 2005

Wage Increase to Move Forward

By Laura Banish
Journal Staff Writer
    One by one, dozens of supporters of Santa Fe's "living wage" law testified before the City Council on Wednesday night about how the city's mandated hourly wage of $8.50 has improved their lives or the lives of others.
    Around 11 p.m., the council voted 7-1, with Councilor David Pfeffer dissenting, to move forward with a $9.50-an-hour minimum wage with the proviso that any future increases be subject to approval by the council after the review of the impact of the previous wage increase.
    Some of those who spoke Wednesday night had prepared speeches while others delivered off-the-cuff emotional pleas, asking the council to move forward with a scheduled increase to $9.50 per hour instead of delaying it six months as proposed.
    "What's to postpone?" asked resident Seely Solomon. "The rent comes due every month. Can we tell the landlord we have to postpone payment? When the grocery bill comes, can we postpone eating?"
    The city's wage law— passed in 2003, but which didn't go into effect until July 1, 2004, because of a lawsuit— requires Santa Fe businesses with 25 employees or more to pay employees $8.50 per hour, a little more than $3 more than the federal minimum wage, currently set at $5.15. Before Wednesday's vote, the law mandated scheduled increases to $9.50 in January 2006 and $10.50 in January 2008.
    What brought the issue to the fore Wednesday, was an amendment to the city's wage law that would delay the increase six months until the completion of a study on the wage's impact. The proposal, brought forward by Pfeffer, would also have made each future increase subject to approval of a resolution by the council upon review of the impact of the previous increase.
    "What you're being offered is that the minimum wage goes to $9.50 Jan. 1, but after that, all bets are off," Councilor Karen Heldmeyer said.
    A preliminary version of the study on the wage's impact showed mixed results.
    The study, conducted by the University of New Mexico's Bureau of Business and Economic Research, shows that average wages have increased, and employment in the private sector is growing.
    But the findings also indicated that most of the workers surveyed continue to live paycheck to paycheck. It also said that a number of businesses raised the cost of their goods to offset the wage increase.
    Businesses told researchers they've had to cut their payrolls by reducing staff, reducing the number of new hires for seasonal or part-time work, changing duties and cutting overtime. Some employers extended the time needed for workers to qualify for benefits, while other businesses kept their employee numbers to fewer than 25 to avoid having to pay the living wage.
Pfeffer had a solemn look on his face as the clock ticked and the number of those testifying in favor of the increase to $9.50 grew.
    "I wish the people well. I hope this doesn't come back to bite them," Pfeffer said. "A lot of people have talked about ethics and morality, and I personally don't think it's very ethical to enact laws to help the poor when in fact it may cost many of them their jobs."
    He later added, "Many have given emotional testimony, but there has been little testimony that says this law works ... for their sake, I hope it does."