It’s not uncommon in union drives and corporate attack campaigns for organizers to blather on about the “living wage,” particularly when targeting a minimum wage workforce. The notion of a living wage has been around for about 20 years and in that time “living wage ordinances” have been adopted by at least 125 municipalities. There is no set formula or government agency that determines the living wage; if anything it is calculated on the fly to suit an agenda. As such it currently ranges from $9.50 to $17. 78 per hour nationwide. Supposedly the living wage is the hourly rate at which a worker could provide for the basic needs of a family of four. And never mind if not all workers are or should be providing for a family on their single income. If you aren’t paying the area’s living wage to all your employees the charge will be you don’t care if your employees (or their innocent often imaginary children) live or die. This week, our friends at Labor Notes inadvertently let the living wage cat out of the union baloney bag with a piece that delves into the history and limitations of living wage ordinances and the true purpose behind them. As it turns out, the average living wage campaign often spends years building a coalition, lobbying politicians, engaging the media, rallying the troops and exploiting low wage workers for their life stories before an ordinance is enacted. And even after hundreds of thousands of dues dollars are directly or indirectly spent on such a campaign, the final ordinance may only “protect” a handful of workers employed by the unfortunate city contractor that stumbles into a union’s crosshairs. 
So here’s the real objective of a living wage campaign. “Living wage activists never saw the ordinances themselves as the solution to poverty. Most saw the campaigns as a way to assist unionization efforts and contract campaigns…So living wage ordinances have often included language to assist organizing…Language on ‘access’ gives unions the ability to visit the workplace…The laws sometime forestall contracting out, since private companies lose interest in city contracts where they can’t cut wages. Whatever language they win, unions have used living wage campaigns to build ties to workers, launch organizing drives, and support contract campaigns.” In some cities some unions have actually fought against a living wage campaign out of concern for the perceptions that wages can be raised without pledging one’s troth to a labor union. In other cities, unions bought quickly into the idea of using a living wage campaign to build a union friendly community activist network or local Jobs with Justice chapter, JwJ being a much coveted source of free high-energy college-age door knockers and instant, passionate, imaginative protestors. Meanwhile, on the tax dollar side of this idiot’s equation, large cities like New York and Chicago have spent millions fighting against living wage campaigns out of fear that even a toothless ordinance would be used by unions to drive off minimum wage employers like Wal-Mart.
