County puts 'living wage' bill on hold

PITTSBURGH: Allegheny County Council delayed action on a controversial "living wage" proposal Tuesday night, opting to reconsider details of a compromise proposal that would increase the pay of fewer workers.

The long-debated proposal would require the county and most agencies and companies the county does business with to pay workers at least $10.62 per hour, or $9.12 per hour with benefits.

A packed council chamber cheered, hissed and booed as advocates and opponents aired their positions.

Living-wage proponents have pushed the bill for about two years, staging rallies, organizing hearings and picketing the courthouse.

The Western Pennsylvania Living Wage Campaign proposed the $10.62 hourly wage mandate because it claims the wage is necessary for a two-income household of four to meet basic needs.

But Sara Davis Buss, a Mt. Lebanon attorney and member of the Sports and Exhibition Authority, warned council that a little-known provision of the proposed living-wage bill could increase costs for businesses, including Allegheny Ludlum.

"Living wage is hard to talk against," Buss said. "We all want a living wage. Good wages come from good jobs, and I think we put good jobs at risk with this legislation."

Because Ludlum and other companies receive loans from the county's industrial development authority, Buss said the living-wage bill would require those companies to pay the mandated wage.

"For all of these projects, you guys would essentially be setting the minimum wage for them," she said.

Council members, who are considering at least two versions of the bill, will meet in committee next Wednesday to discuss it again. Council as a whole is expected to vote Dec. 4, which angered the supporters of the measure.

After Jan. 1, the Democratic majority on council will have one fewer member and likely will not be able to override the expected veto of County Executive Jim Roddey.

"Mr. Roddey has been exhorting us to go out and shop," said Linda Wambaugh of the living-wage campaign. "Unfortunately, if we have no disposable income, we can't go out and shop."

Pittsburgh has adopted a living-wage proposal, as have governments in Denver, Cleveland, Boston and Los Angeles.

Lavera Brown, director of the Pittsburgh chapter of the NAACP, said the measure was particularly important to black people, who typically work the care-taking jobs most affected by the proposal. She also emphasized the benefits to the county residents who need human service agencies to survive.

"Our community pays taxes in order to have quality services for residents who need them," she said.

Stephen Herzenberg of the Keystone Research Center argued that the living-wage bill was necessary.

"Public money at least should not be used to create jobs that don't pay enough money," he said.

County administration officials have argued the proposal would cost at least $15 million for the more than 400 human service agencies operating in the county to implement.

But Herzenberg said the proposal would cost no more than $9.2 million, which he said could be covered by money pledged by the state to help with recruitment and retention in social service agencies.

"Don't start waving the red flag around the possibility of tax increases," Herzenberg said. "It just is not credible. It's not supported by the evidence."

Opponents of the measure, however, mainly from regional chambers of commerce, said it could put a serious strain on struggling businesses.

"In reality, this bill will cost jobs," said Mark Knouse of the Pittsburgh Chamber of Commerce. The current bill's provision to mandate the $10.62 wage for companies receiving economic development help from the county particularly came under fire.

Brian Kennedy, representing the Pittsburgh Technical Council, said many small, start-up high-tech companies cannot always afford to pay workers that wage. Eventually, however, many employees of such companies make high salaries, he said.

John Schnatterly, a Bethel Park market research firm owner, called the proposal Marxist.

"No one here is opposed to giving everyone the opportunity to make as much money as they can," he said. "What I oppose is the government stepping in and mandating."