> CB: Agree with mbs. As Max says, LW ordinances regulate wages on
> contracts with the municipality only. The contract is voided if the
> company doesn't comply. So, they are bound by their agreeing in
> contract.
-Thanks Charles. But this means that all municipalities have the power to -pass LW laws except in those cases directly prevented from doing so by -state law. This raises the question-in those localities where they were -not prevented from doing so what justification could there be for not -going beyond imposing them on public sector contractors and passing more -comprehensive ordinances like that in Santa Monica?
Doing a quick Lexis search, there are definately cases where cities have been able to have higher minimum wage laws than state or federal levels, although it seems that in most states any state minimum wage law preempts city-passed minimum wage laws. New York definately prohibits local minimum wage laws but could not find a case pro or con for California.
In any case, one reason that cities are more likely to pass living wage ordinances for contractors than for general employment is that, by definition, work done under such city contracts will get done in the city by whatever wage is set, while a general raise in the minimum wage in one city may just encourage jobs to move out of the city to nearby towns without the minimum wage rules. Obviously some direct service jobs won't leave but in a city like Los Angeles for example, most of the light industry and garment trade would immediately move to a surrounding city.
One reason Santa Monica applied their minimum wage just to the seaside areas - assuming it is upheld - is that the jobs there are the least likely to be able to move next door - ie. inland. But you need unique locational advantages like Santa Monica beach areas to pull that trick off.
-- Nathan Newman