Living Wages May Be Issue In November The Secession Question By JACQUELINE FOX Staff Reporter Let the games begin. As of Aug. 1, 97 people had filed papers to run for mayor and 14 city council seats in a proposed new Valley city, banking on passage of secession Nov. 5. Yet even with election day now exactly three months away and an Aug. 9 filing deadline looming, candidates have offered few clues about their positions on the issues a new city could face or how they will go about differentiating themselves from one another. One issue that could carry at the very least great symbolic significance in the business community is whether or not a new city council would vote to keep Los Angeles’ current living wage ordinance intact. A few hardy candidates have already pledged their “no” votes but most, including the leading candidate for mayor, are doling out the “requires more study” answer to the question. Enacted in 1997, the ordinance aims to boost pay above the federal minimum wage, now set at $6.75 an hour, at companies that contract with the city, lease city property or benefit from city funding. As with countless other issues, the status quo would remain in place for 120 days after cityhood becomes official, giving the new city council time to make decisions about what to keep, change or toss out. Some candidates vehemently opposed to the living wage ordinance perhaps see their positions appealing to a business community pushing for reforms and probably opposed to the ordinance since its inception five years ago. Meanwhile, labor unions, some of whose members benefit directly from the ordinance, already have threatened to wage a unified campaign against secession, and it’s likely the living wage issue will play a key role in it. The wage, tied to the consumer price index and boosted each July, is currently $9.52 per hour without benefits, or $8.27 with benefits. Businesses with fewer than seven employees or annual gross revenues under $350,000 are exempt. The top contender for mayor (so far there are seven), state Assemblyman Keith Richman, declined to take a position on the issue or say whether it would be part of his campaign. “I really don’t think the issue should be discussed until after a new government is in place,” Richman said. “I’m not going to take a position on it for now. I think it’s too early to talk about that.” Some registered candidates for city council seats polled recently about the ordinance say they know little or nothing about it and plan to study it further before weighing in. Others know exactly where they stand. “I fought against the living wage and I certainly wouldn’t want to bring it over to the new city,” said Paula Boland, council candidate for the Third District. She said she’s concerned that, if secession fails, the city will tax Valley residents to cover increases passed on by contractors to cover the higher wages. “Every bid the city receives from now on will demand all the companies they deal with pay the living wage,” said Boland. “Well, who do you think is going to pick up those costs? The city. And I see only one way for the city to recoup those losses: raise our taxes.” Small businesses bear the brunt of the ordinance now, according to Boland, and one example is Billingsley’s Restaurant, which leases its building at the Van Nuys Airport and Golf Course from the city of Los Angeles. Owner Drew Billingsley was told that if he wanted to renew his lease in July of this year he’d have to increase wages for all of his 22 employees. He figures the additional expense will amount to $100,000 per year, conservatively, and would force him to either raise his prices or shut his 33-year-old business down. “This restaurant only grosses about $900,000 right now,” said Billingsley. The issue has not only convinced Billingsley to support secession, his dilemma has caught the attention of about 1,000 customers who have signed petitions seeking emergency exemption from the ordinance. And, said Billingsley, many of those supporters are starting to wonder more and more if there are merits to a breakup. “Believe me, they don’t want to see this place go,” he said. “Many of my customers are seniors who’ve been coming here for years, and these workers are their friends.” And, according to Billingsley, he’s not the only tenant on the property affected by and angered over the ordinance. He said several aviators at the airport have formed an airport-based contingency to campaign for secession, although none polled on the issue would confirm that. However, in the airport’s cases, there are caveats for tenants to consider. It’s still not clear whether the airport and surrounding property would go to the new Valley city or remain part of Los Angeles. The Federal Aviation Administration would have to make that determination after Nov. 5. “It’s just way too soon to say,” said Oscar Mendoza, council candidate for the Second District. “I don’t know enough about it at this point to really say where I am. I know we have to think about workers, but we also need to find a way to bring businesses back into the city.” Richard Leyner, candidate for the 13th District council seat, however, said he already knows enough to take a position. “Would I be in favor of supporting it? Probably not,” Leyner said. “It is my opinion that the living wage ordinance is not beneficial to the city. They are excessive and I’m opposed to them.” Political strategist Richard Lichtenstein, president of Marathon Communications, said opposition to a living wage ordinance may not ultimately help Richman or other candidates. In fact, he said opponents of a breakup would benefit the most by incorporating the issue into their campaign because of their close ties with city worker unions, including the Service Employees International Local 347, one of the loudest opponents of a breakup. “I don’t think it plays out one iota for secessionists,” said Lichtenstein. “While I do think that there are probably a fair number of San Fernando Valley residents who are less sympathetic toward the unions, the fact of the matter is many union members live and vote in the San Fernando Valley. So I don’t think it would gain much traction for proponents.” Although SEIU members make more than the living wage, Lichtenstein predicted its members would lobby workers in other unions who typically make minimum wage, such as restaurant and hotel workers and janitors. “The unions are going to communicate union to union, that’s just how they work,” he said. “And they will get their message to the hotel and restaurant employees who live in the San Fernando Valley, saying we need to hang on to everything we’ve worked for. So, if you think of the numbers of workers involved, you can see how effective it would be.” Julie Butcher, general manager of the Local 347, conceded the living wage issue would be an important part of her campaign simply because “it’s the right thing to do.” “After that 120 days, the living wage goes away with all the other ordinances unless there’s affirmative action on the part of the new government,” Butcher said. “We believe it’s really popular with folks, even more so at a time when rich people are looking like they don’t care about what happens to people, and that includes workers at Billingsley’s.” Butcher said she has little faith a new Valley government would adopt the living wage, although representatives from Valley VOTE recently said they would support the city’s current rent control ordinance. Butcher said Gene LaPietra, president of Hollywood VOTE, recently told her he would demand every candidate for new Hollywood city council and mayoral seats sign a pledge to support the living wage and rent control ordinances, as well as the expansion of union jobs, if she agreed to support their cause. Butcher said she refused. “I don’t believe anything he says either,” Butcher said.
