Reasons for Hope

David Sirota sees reason to be hopeful, when it comes to the Democrats' shameful persistance in supporting free trade "corporate protectionist pacts."

When Chuck Pennacchio was running for Senate in PA, he consistently talked about a living wage.  He was alone on that issue.  It was one of his "unrealistic" ideas.   Now, while Congress messes around with raising the minimum wage to point that would still keep people earning it in poverty, Chicago is talking about a living wage.  From Nathan Newman:

By a vote of 35 to 14, the Chicago city council yesterday approved a new ordinance requiring large retailers in the city to phase in a living wage for their employees of $10 per hour plus $3 per hour in benefits-- the highest minimum wage established for any industry sector in the country.

If signed by the mayor, this law would not only raise pay for tens of thousands of workers in retailers such as Wal-Mart, Target, Toys R Us, Lowe's and Home Depot, but will open up a new arena for activists to engage the wage issue for a broader range of workers than the minimum wage.

As discussed at Progressive States , this law is part of an emerging trend of states and local governments establishing different, higher minimum "living wage" standards for selected industrial sectors, from larger employers to tourist zones to hotels. While innovative in the modern era, the Chicago law is a return to the historic practice of federal and state laws creating different minimum wage levels both between and within different industries.

And here's the best part - take note, Thomas:

Because the Chicago ordinance allows employers to pay higher wages in lieu of paying the increased benefits required under the law, the law is clearly not preempted by federal ERISA law, as this legal analysis by the Brennan Center explains. “Every federal court of appeals that has reviewed a wage law like the Chicago ordinance," explains Paul Sonn, deputy director at the Brennan Center, "has upheld the law under ERISA.”

Tell your state candidates the good news.

Comments

[Thomas Nephew]

Thanks for this, eRobin. I'll pass along this info to candidates in my MD district.

I continue to marvel at everyone -- the judge, well-meaning candidates, the Brennan Center for Justice -- missing the point about the Fair Share Health Care bill, though. The Brennan Center brief states: The trial court found that the Maryland law was preempted by ERISA because it effectively forced covered employers to modify their health benefits offerings in order to comply with the law.

No, it did not force or "effectively" force employers to do any such thing. It encouraged that, but it did not require it. Employers had (or will have, if the RILA v. Fielder ruling) is overturned, the perfect and attractive right to pay the shortage into a state Medicaid fund instead of increasing health benefits. That is a choice, not a requirement; Wal-Mart could keep its (pathetic) national health benefits package untouched, and spend 20 seconds cutting a check to the state Medicaid fund; advantage: simplicity. Or it can increase health benefits; advantage: attracting/keeping workers.

I see nothing so far in ERISA preventing states from providing incentives to improve health plans. If it does, then it's a stupid law. If it doesn't, Judge Motz is a stupid judge.

[Thomas Nephew]

"Employers" meaning MD employers with over 10,000 employees, that is. And "the shortage" means the amount of health benefits short of 8% of payroll.

I keep forgetting not everyone follows the Fair Share issue obsessively.