Comments on: Human Services Group Ponders Living Wage

By: Vivienne Armentrout

Vivienne Armentrout — Fri, 04 Jan 2013 22:40:28 +0000

Re (6): From the article:

The city of Ann Arbor’s living wage ordinance does not apply to employers in the city of Ann Arbor generally, but rather only to those that have contracts with the city. So a private company, based in Ann Arbor and operating within the city limits, is not impacted by the city’s living wage ordinance – unless it seeks to win a contract or receive a grant from the city.

To repeat – the Living Wage Ordinance applies only to contractors with the city. It does not apply to businesses or anyone else (certainly not “everyone else”) in the city or elsewhere unless they contract with the city.

]]>

By: Roger Kuhlman

Roger Kuhlman — Fri, 04 Jan 2013 21:58:15 +0000

It is outrageous for the city to exempt non-profits and the city itself from the City’s living wage ordinance. Whatever happened to the central democratic concept of Equal Application of the Law? Left-wing politicians in Ann Arbor have one very lenient and benefit-bestowing law for their friends and political allies and a very different, tougher law for the non-favored everyone else.

]]>

By: Scratchingmyhead

Scratchingmyhead — Sun, 30 Dec 2012 15:02:06 +0000

By: David Cahill

David Cahill — Fri, 28 Dec 2012 21:32:47 +0000

The living wage ordinance is already Swiss cheese. Proponents of further exemptions, raising limits., etc., plainly want these exemptions to swallow up the ordinance altogether.

I hope the Board takes a principled stand. It should urge Council to narrow the existing exemptions and to include all City employees in the ordinance’s coverage.

]]>

By: Joan Doughty

Joan Doughty — Thu, 27 Dec 2012 21:32:42 +0000

Interesting conversation.

A few points of clarification.

1. Ingrid Ault’s point of why part-time positions were not exempted (organizations might then take legitimately full time positions and break them up just to by-pass the living wage requirement)misses the point that some positions truly are and can only be part-time – like the ones CAN would like to see exempted. CAN hires about 12- 15 work study students every semester to assist with the after school programs (ASP) and tutoring that take place on school day afternoons in the community centers. Those positions start around 3:30 PM and end around 7:30 PM — they can not ever be full time positions. Ever.

Several organizations offering the same tutoring services rely on volunteers only, because they cannot afford to pay the living wage. CAN’s 96% high school graduation rate (vs. 64-69% reported by AAPS as its graduation rate for students from low income families) is a clear indication that CAN’s strategy is wise. Students do better when the same reliable people help them – and most of CAN’s ASP staff work at least 2 afternoons a week, if not more.

2. While the increase in the living wage this year would have cost CAN over $2,000, the living wage itself costs over $20,000 a year. And that’s if CAN were paying ASP positions $9.50 an hour – still well above the minimum wage.

3. The most ironic part of this discussion is that part of why CAN is lobbying so hard for a change in the living wage is that it would like to pay its full time staff MORE. CAN’s community center directors are essential to the operations of the community centers- and it is in the best interest of CAN’s clients to keep those people around. Consistency is important. These are the professionals who are truly “making a living” — not students earning spending money — and their salaries are kept lower than they should be because of the living wage paid to ASP program assistant work study students.

]]>

By: Vivienne Armentrout

Vivienne Armentrout — Wed, 26 Dec 2012 19:37:21 +0000

Bob, to do the city justice, the ordinance applies only to city contractors. No other group of employees in Ann Arbor enjoys the protection of a Living Wage ordinance. So any exceptionalism runs the other direction.

]]>

By: bob elton

bob elton — Wed, 26 Dec 2012 18:32:50 +0000

Am I the only one who sees the irony, maybe even hypocrisy, in watching the city manage to exempt themselves & their friends from their own ordinances?

The city already exempts themselves from zoning, building and parking ordinances, and lots of others as well. So, I suppose it’s only logical that they should exempt themselves from this one as well.

None of that makes it right, or even defensible on moral grounds. It also shows a total lack of leadership, a sort of “do as I say, not as I do” ethos that permeates local government.

]]>