Page One

After a year of commission discussions and staff research, Berkeley has taken a step toward adopting the highest “living wage” standard in the country. 

A resolution passed by the City Council Tuesday night outlined policies that are to be included in a Living Wage Ordinance, which will return for a council vote on June 20. 

The living wage concept applies strictly to workers whose employers have significant business ties to the city, including contracting for a significant dollar amount with the city, gaining a substantial benefit through loans or subsidies from the city, or leasing property from the city. Berkeley’s proposal would exclude very small employers with five or fewer workers. 

Determining the precise standard for the living wage, was the most debated question of the proposed policy. In the end, the council directed the city attorney to write an ordinance in which workers covered by the living wage would be paid at least $9.75 an hour and receive $1.62 an hour towards health care coverage, if they are not already would equal $11.37 per hour. 

Councilmember Betty Olds abstained in the 7-0-1 vote and Councilmember Polly Armstrong left the meeting before the vote was taken, heading to a long-scheduled family vacation. 

Some councilmembers argued that the $9.75 wage standard is too low, while others said it is too high. 

The salary of the workers in question would be raised to $1,645 a month.  

No councilmember argued that this is a good wage standard for a person with dependents. 

“One thing that troubles me about this, is that we’re claiming this a ‘living wage,’” Councilmember Diane Woolley said. “It’s not a living wage – a fairer wage, perhaps.” 

Woolley said she was concerned that employers will look at this standard and adopt a lower pay scale for their employees they might have otherwise chosen. 

“Some entity that might be paying more, might say, ‘Heck, this ($9.75) is a living wage,’” she said. 

Still, some workers will clearly benefit from the ordinance. Councilmember Linda Maio pointed out that attendants working in city-owned garages currently earn $7 per hour. 

Early in the discussion, Mayor Shirley Dean tried to get council approval for an $8.65 per hour wage, plus $1.62 per hour for health benefits. Oakland workers covered under that city’s ordinance now receive $8.65 plus $1.25 per hour for health care. 

Dean apparently saw that she would be outvoted by the liberal/progressive council faction, all solidly behind the higher pay scale. Although she voted with the majority, she stated that she did not want the public to construe her vote as supporting the $11.37 per hour wage package. Her vote was to move the council item to the ordinance stage, when she would decide whether to vote it up or down. 

Dean pointed to the argument against the higher standard, spelled out in the staff report: “It is possible to set the rate of the basic living wage so high that the people currently working at sub-living wage jobs in an attempt to support their families could be replaced by higher skilled, more experienced workers or by students thus negating the intended benefit of the ordinance.” 

“This is what persuaded me that going (with the lower wage standard) was the better way to go,” Dean said. “I think we have to think very carefully about what that means, what the impact will be.” 

Questioned by the council, however, Finance Director Fran David, who authored the staff report, conceded that the cautionary statement in the report was simply an educated guess. 

“There is no statistical evidence to that effect,” she said. “There is nothing we can point to saying it happened in such or such jurisdiction or in this particular industry.” 

The Chamber of Commerce also threw its support behind the lower standard, believing that paying workers more would force Berkeley businesses who do work for the city to charge more for their services, making the businesses lose out to competition which pays their workers less. 

The council resolution to support a higher living wage also called on the city attorney to make some other changes in the policies proposed by city staff: 

• The staff report suggests that the living wage should cover employees who work full-time for nonprofit businesses which contract with the city for $25,000 in a given year, but the council resolution asked for consideration of nonprofits contracting with the city for $25,000 to $100,000, with employees who work more than quarter time included. 

• The staff report says that “economic aide recipients” who receive more than $100,000 in loans or other economic assistance, whose employees work at least 25 percent on the premises would fall under the ordinance. Council asked for more specifics about what kind of city subsidies would cause the ordinance to kick in. 

• They also asked to reverse the proposed clauses of the ordinance which excluded people from the living wage standard who earn “stand-by” pay, seasonal employees or employees working less than half time. 

The resolution also asked the city attorney to report, within four months, on creating a “living wage zone.” That’s a concept that would apply to hospitality workers at the Marina. Advocates of the living wage asked the city to consider this because even if the living wage includes employees of businesses that lease land from the city, the leases at the Marina are not up for re-negotiation for 10 to 15 years. 

City Attorney Manuela Albuquerque agreed to look into the zone concept. 

“We have to determine what can be done legally,” she said.