mbs: right so far. The wages paid for public service provision, whether by the gov or its contractors, are a legitimate object of public policy.
applies to contractors for public sector projects. For private sector projects, the same firms can continue to pay prevailing wages. Is this correct?)
mbs: depends on what the local law reads. Most LW apply only to those who contract w/the local gov. I don't do LW stats. There might be something on our web site.
LW might affect the mix of gov services marginally; I would not expect it to reduce their level. That decision is made separately, by and large.
. . . Perhaps you have to live here in one of the great capitals of liberal hipocracy to be able to imagine this scenario. A recent indication, the alderman (a Yale School of Management grad) who put forward the living wage bill recently quit his job to work for Solomon-Smith Barney, saying on his way out that he wanted his successor in office to have a "strong committment to social justice."
mbs: hypocritical politicians come in all colors.
. . . Are there instances where collectively bargained contracts were below living wage levels? Seems scandalous if this is the case. On a related
mbs: I don't know. It would not reflect well on the union in question.
. . . Final question: what are the specific legal barriers which prevent municipalities from exercising control over private sector wages and how did Santa Monica get around these? John
mbs: you'll have to ask a lawyer. State law in general, I guess, since local govs are creatures of the States.
The importance of LW is that it is one of the most active, ongoing, local, labor-oriented struggles in the U.S., outside of union organizing proper. Anybody can play, so the results are going to be imperfect and diverse. But it is something to build on, for those into local labor-focused organizing outside of the Democratic party orbit.
mbs