via The Pittsburgh Comet by Bram Reichbaum on 1/20/10
This is intended as another "open thread" type post on the vaguaries of Councilman Burgess's push to activate Pittsburgh's living wage statue in conjunction with passage of the prevailing wage bill.
In 2001, council approved legislation mandating a $9.12 an hour wage plus health insurance, or $10.62 without, for virtually every worker whose job was paid, supported or subsidized with city money. "Everywhere that our shadow falls, we will ensure that workers receive a living wage," Mr. Burgess said yesterday.But City Council then added a caveat that the rule would only take effect after Allegheny County adopted similar rules. County Council narrowly rejected an ordinance, rendering the city legislation dormant. (P-G, Rich Lord)One way of thinking about this is that if it's good enough for Walnut Capital, it should good enough for the City itself. Which demands that we take into account that the City is still financially something of a basket case, and can we afford to swallow this even if it's obviously the right thing to do. Then I've heard it would not impact city paychecks so much as those of its vendors et cetera. Then there are issues of timing and momentum, due diligence, and preemption of something that could have been taken as rightfully settled.Add links as news breaks, but preliminarily: my inclination is to recommend scheduling just a little extra time for due diligence and then probably passing them both. The benefits should outweigh the costs, and I generally don't buy in to economic nightmare scenarios.*-THE DAY'S RESULTS: Yucky sounding. Go watch it on the web, and if you can figure out how to get there let me know. I'm having a l'ill trouble.