Living Wages for Thee…
The workers who clean Baltimore's Camden Yards baseball stadium are planning a hunger strike to protest their $7 per hour wages. The stadium is the largest employer of the city's homeless day laborers. The kicker, though, is that the Maryland legislature recently passed a "living wage" bill, setting the minimum at $11.30 per hour. But while the bill covers any business with state contracts in the Baltimore area, the state government is exempt, and Camden is owned by the state of Maryland.
Such double standards aren't new to the living wage debate. The labor activist group ACORN is largely credited with jump-starting the national living wage movement. But ACORN itself has a notoriously shabby record when it comes to paying its own workers. In fact, not only did the group once sue the state of California to exempt itself from the very living wage it helped the state to pass, ACORN actually used free market critiques of the minimum wage in its brief (ACORN argued that if it had to pay existing workers more, it wouldn't be able to hire more workers).
As for Maryland, this would be the same state that attempted to pass legislation directed solely at Wal-Mart because of the allegedly low wages and benefits Wal-Mart pays its workers. Average starting wage at Wal-Mart: Just under $10 per hour. Average Camden clean-up worker pay: $7 per hour.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
It will be interesting to see which way the H&R commenters go on this one. On one side, you have the government. On the other side, you have poor laborers attempting to improve their wages by doing something akin to organizing.
Just the latest example of the rules for thee, not for me mode of thought that's so endemic to governmental policymaking.
A hunger strike is not exactly "organizing".
Does that strike include abstinence from 16 oz. malt liquors?
Not difficult to see how H&R commenters will go. Minimum wage is bad for market reasons that we have all hashed over before. Government is generally bad for all the reasons we have hashed over before. This is just another example of hypocrisy. Nothing new.
It will be interesting to see which way the H&R commenters go on this one. On one side, you have the government. On the other side, you have poor laborers attempting to improve their wages by doing something akin to organizing.
I have nothing against those poor stinking drunk hobos. As a matter of fact, I'd probably give them some money if they'd go march down the street and burn down the Ravens' (spit) stadium.
Not difficult to see how H&R commenters will go. Minimum wage is bad for market reasons that we have all hashed over before. Government is generally bad for all the reasons we have hashed over before. This is just another example of hypocrisy. Nothing new.
But also, workers organizing/striking to get more money is bad (think: unions), at least from the corporatist point of view which is really what Reason's brand of libertarianism often amounts to.
I don't think organizing is necessarily anti-libertarian, as long as the government doesn't take an interest in the outcome.
Besides, why do I have to choose?
I am opposed to "living wage" laws on principle. I am opposed to the hypocracy of government exempting itself from laws it passes. I am clearly pulling for the cleanup guys at Camden Yards, as I might guess are most of the libertarian regulars here.
Come on, Mike. Don't you want to play Dan T's daily False Dichotomy game?
You have to choose....
Nice mischaracterization there, Dan T.
Unions are fine. Government-protected unions are not. If the stadium crews can successfully organize without government intervention, more power to 'em. Baltimore has plenty of street people, however, so I wouldn't count on it.
BTW, does anyone expect anything remotely libertarian from the land of Spiro Agnew and William Donald Schaefer? Venezuela will turn libertarian before Maryland does.
If only the trolls would go on strike.
The hypocrisy is disgusting, but I was under the impression that day labor is wholly distinct from having a job you go to everyday.
My veiw is the state should not be building and careing for a place of buisness for a private company.
INSTEAD OF STRIKING, TAINT WHITHERING IS A COCKSURE WAY OF GETTING WHAT YOU WANT.
Gotta love how ACORN wants to exempt itself from living wage legislation.
I fully support the right of day laborers in their attempt to get higher wages.
I also support the right of any employer, state or otherwise, not to meet the demands of their employees.
Michael Pack gets the win.
Its just like education issues. 99.99% percent of all education related issues that come up can be solved by privatization. Prayer? Its a private school, they can do what they want. Teaching Evolution/Creationism? Its a private school, they can do what they want. Expelling a kid for pointing his finger and saying bang? Its a private ... you get my point.
Ditto here. The issue isnt an issue if the state didnt own the freaking stadium.
Unions are fine. Government-protected unions are not.
But unions generally only work with government protection - otherwise you have the free rider problem, for example. It's kind of hard to see why the government would not have a legitimate interest in balancing the rights of the workers with those of the business owners.
Its just like education issues. 99.99% percent of all education related issues that come up can be solved by privatization. Prayer? Its a private school, they can do what they want. Teaching Evolution/Creationism? Its a private school, they can do what they want. Expelling a kid for pointing his finger and saying bang? Its a private ... you get my point.
It's unclear how simply saying "they can do what they want" solves many of the problems you illustrate. And privitization of schools causes one big problem: only people with money can afford them.
I'm a libertarian, but support minimum wages, as long as we are going to allow semi-open immigration, which I'm also for. As a felon who is basically disallowed by government to have a job that isn't minimum wage (drug conviction), then I would be pretty fucked without min wage. If the government would stop the eternal ass fucking of drug felons and let us work at something other than bottom of the barrel jobs, where I wouldn't have to compete with foreign unskilled labor, then I may change my mind. Until then, a reasonable minimum wage is the only way I can stay legal. Without it...and even with it half the time, the only way I can keep from starving is by selling the illegal plant matter for which I was convicted. Of course, my situation may not describe every near min wage worker, but there's a fucking lot of us.
And privitization of schools causes one big problem: only people with money can afford them.
Vouchers?
Vouchers are a form of welfare, which libertarians really should not be in favor of. You've still got one person's taxes paying for another person's education, with the added problem of the inflation of private school tuitions due to the artificial demand.
It's unclear how simply saying "they can do what they want" solves many of the problems you illustrate.
Because if it isnt my kids school, it isnt my problem. And if my kids school doesnt meet my criteria, I can take them elsewhere. Its the ultimate Dan T solution, if you dont like the laws (rules of the school), move (enroll at different one). Unlike for governments, for schools, I agree with you.
Disclosure: Those are hypothetical kids, I dont have any of my own. However, I plan to home school anyway if I ever do have any, subject to approval of my non-existent wife.
2nd Disclosure: The last time I attended a private school was kindergarten. 1st grade thru grad school were all government schools.
I guess what is disgusting about this is that the State of Maryland saw fit to give 100s of millions of dollars to that worthless, lazy stinking welfare queen Art Modell and is partner in crime Peter Angelos yet can't come up with a few extra bucks for the people who clean the stadium.
Dancing away my hunger pangs. Moving my feet so my stomach won't hurt. I'm kind of like Jesus, but not in the sacrilegious way.
And privitization of schools causes one big problem: only people with money can afford them.
Patrick Henry used that argument against privatization of the church. Boy did that turn out a mess for the poor. Every single one of them unwashed heathens banging pathetically on the doors of the few churches run by the rich.
That's probably also why Reason never has features about private schools in the poorest areas of the world.
Because if it isnt my kids school, it isnt my problem.
I suppose this is where we differ. I tend to feel that it's in my best interest that people not directly descendant from me also have access to education. If for no other reason than I don't want any of them stealing my car when they're older.
"I guess what is disgusting about this is that the State of Maryland saw fit to give 100s of millions of dollars..."
Let me guess -- they justified it by saying it would create jobs, right?
What do I win?
You've still got one person's taxes paying for another person's education, with the added problem of the inflation of private school tuitions due to the artificial demand.
Agreed. This is precisely the kind of half-way regulation that libertarian pragmatists think will eventually get government out of the school business, but will more likely get us a school system that we're as happy with as our half-governmental oil industry and our half-governmental healthcare industry. They have almost all the disadvantages of a government run system, yet all the blame is conveniently placed at the feet of the free market.
So, you get a crappy system and increased spurious criticism of capitalism.
I agree with Dan T. That's why I always say, "The safest place to park your car is across the street from a public school."
"I guess what is disgusting about this is that the State of Maryland saw fit to give 100s of millions of dollars..."
Let me guess -- they justified it by saying it would create jobs, right?
What do I win?"
A lousy $7 an hour job that doesn't meet minimum wage requirments picking up trash at a stadium. You to can go pick up trash in order to get some of your tax money back that the State of Maryland stole from you to give to Art Modell. All you have to do is come and pick up Art's trash.
Auto theft rates were zero before the existence of public schools.
Lurker Kurt is obviously one of those uncaring free minds/free markets types. He thinks that adults should be free to make their own decisions, free to associate, etc. To the stockade with him!
The kicker, though, is that the Maryland legislature recently passed a "living wage" bill, setting the minimum at $11.30 per hour. But while the bill covers any business with state contracts in the Baltimore area, the state government is exempt, and Camden is owned by the state of Maryland.
Maryland's living wage law only applies to businesses that sign contracts with the state that are worth at least $100,000 and has several exemptions. The fact that employees directly hired by the state are not covered by this law doesn't have much to do with anything - Maryland is just spelling out the conditions under which it is willing to do business with certain contractors. Which you'd expect. Mr. Balko is stretching things a little by implying that Marylands' government is passing an employment law and then exempting itself from that law.
Sorta reminds me of the Swedish tax commercial filmed in Estonia, because the cost of producing it in Sweden was too high, because of the taxes?
Shameless hypocrisy? At least the blonds have big boobies...
Please send a copy of the above to your drug warrior of choice.
It's kind of hard to see why the government would not have a legitimate interest in balancing the rights of the workers with those of the business owners.
It's kind of hard to see why the government should have any legitimate interest in balancing the rights of the workers with those of the business owners.
I've given up any hope of swaying you in any way. Because when it comes down to it we are arguing about fundamental philosophical views here.
But be clear, just because you can't see a world without government sticking its nose in just about every aspect of private life, doesn't mean everyone feels that way. And your point of view represents a life of government tyranny to those of us that don't agree with you.
Nothing, too damned easy.
But unions generally only work with government protection - otherwise you have the free rider problem, for example.
That's because they generally have a vested interest in counter-productive make-work policies which adversely affect other peoples' ability to get jobs by raising wages above the market rate (as opposed to raising them through increasing productivity).
And privitization of schools causes one big problem: only people with money can afford them.
*Annoying buzzer sound*
That's incorrect, Dan T.. Private schools typically spend only a fraction of what is spent in public schools and typically generate superior results.
For example, in India, the government spends an average of 1000 rupees/month on public schools. Meanwhile, schools for the poor typically spend 200-250 rupees/month and generate superior results.
Did Dan t. really post something this stupid or was in an imposter?
Meanwhile, schools for the poor[...]
Private schools for the poor, that is.
I've given up any hope of swaying you in any way. Because when it comes down to it we are arguing about fundamental philosophical views here.
But be clear, just because you can't see a world without government sticking its nose in just about every aspect of private life, doesn't mean everyone feels that way. And your point of view represents a life of government tyranny to those of us that don't agree with you.
I agree that we have a pretty fundamental difference in views here, but I think you get carried away when my opinion that government should protect unions suddenly becomes "tyranny" and "government sticking its nose in just about every aspect of private life". There's nothing "private" about the marketplace and I would think that the government ensuring a balance between the powerful and the powerless would enhance freedom and prevent tyranny. Certainly earning a fair wage and being compensated for overtime and injuries doesn't seem like tyranny to those who work for a living.
That's incorrect, Dan T.. Private schools typically spend only a fraction of what is spent in public schools and typically generate superior results.
Sure - they can pick and choose who they admit. Public schools have to deal with problems that private schools can simply dismiss away.
Mr. Balko is stretching things a little by implying that Marylands' government is passing an employment law and then exempting itself from that law.
Did Dan t. really post something this stupid or was in an imposter?
Are you saying that it's stupid because Mr. Balko wasn't implying that? Because the part about the employment law is fact. Maryland is not a contractor for Maryland.
but I think you get carried away when my opinion that government should protect unions suddenly becomes "tyranny" and "government sticking its nose in just about every aspect of private life".
You have never made a post on any subject that did not come down in favor of the state taking a hand in fixing the problem to some level or other.
So I believe that "government sticking its nose in just about every aspect of private life" is a reasonably accurate (and notably hostile) summary of your political philosophy.
A living wage is bad. But this involves PETER F-ing ANGELOS, the abestos pimp and worst owner in the history of Major league Baseball ( well maybe Selig is, but more for his other role than ownership one).
ANY criticism of Peter Angelos is nice. I'll look the other way on this one.
We've been all over this at TothePeople for weeks....
here
and here
Sure - they can pick and choose who they admit. Public schools have to deal with problems that private schools can simply dismiss away.
Having been screamed at and sent into tears by a public school teacher who didn't care about "my problems" with math, I find that absurd.
I really see no comparision to public scools.This is like the state building a factory for Ford then paying for the janitors.Pro sports teams and the players are welfare queens.
Vouchers are a form of welfare, which libertarians really should not be in favor of. You've still got one person's taxes paying for another person's education, with the added problem of the inflation of private school tuitions due to the artificial demand.
Dan T., sometimes, like this, you can say thoughtful things and add to the discussion. Please keep it up.
Sure - they can pick and choose who they admit. Public schools have to deal with problems that private schools can simply dismiss away.
Further on that point:
The relative uselessness of the public school system for training manual labor is demonstrated by the fascinating work of MIND, a private educational service now operated by the Corn Products Refining Com pany of Greenwich, Connecticut. MIND deliberately chose high-school dropouts who were unskilled for manual jobs, and in a few short weeks, using intensive training and teaching machines, was able to teach these dropouts basic skills and typing, and place them in corporate jobs. Ten years of public schooling had taught these youngsters less than a few weeks of private, job-oriented training! Allowing youngsters to drop out from enforced dependency into becoming independent and self-sup porting could only have immeasurable benefits for the youngsters them selves and for the rest of society.
From Murray Rothbard's For A New Liberty.
Sorry for the lengthy threadjack.
...worst owner in the history of Major league Baseball
I think the Tribune Company is also in the running.
It depends. If you are the type that says "I don't want my kids to be forced to practice someone elses religion", then it solves the problem nicely. You choose to send your kids to a secular school, other people send their kids to a religious school.
If you are the authoritarian type of person, you will say "I want every child to be forced to recieve an education according to my values". It doesn't solve the problem for you, because your problem is how to force everyone to live how you want them to live.
You are an authoritarian, so it is highly disturbing to you that some people might want to choose a different lifestyle or education program than yourself.
You mean like only people with money can afford churches?
But your irrational view comes from your belief that the government is benevolent and omnipotent.
1) You are assuming that a government operated educational system means that people who are not your decendants will receive an education. Many institutions that are called "public schools" don't provide any real education. Either the government is incapable of providing education to everyone, or has an interest in seeing many kids not get an education. Either way, under the current system, people who can't afford a private education, or afford to live in an expensive neighborhood, don't recieve an education.
2) You are assuming that government is the only possible way to fund free education for those who can't afford it. There are any number of economic models for providing education to every child, that don't involve forcing parents to pay to send their kids to government indoctrination centers.
Public schools have to deal with problems that private schools can simply dismiss away.
If I owned a privated school, I would look at the problem children as an opportunity.
"Look parents! I took these 'problem children'
the state considered 'uneducatable' and they are now reading and writing at their appropriate age level!!"
I believe, around 10 years ago, the Catholic Church offered to take the bottom 10% of NYC students into their system if they got the per pupil funds.
Strangely enough, the educrats in NYC declined the Catholic Church's offer.
Of course he was implying that Maryland passed a law and exempted itself. They did. If you can't see that, there's no hope for your intellectual developement.
If you are the authoritarian type of person, you will say "I want every child to be forced to recieve an education according to my values". It doesn't solve the problem for you, because your problem is how to force everyone to live how you want them to live.
One of the main reasons some of the first advocates of public schools were Calvinist puritans, and the first american public schools were set up in massachussetts by the same.
They rightly perceived public schools as what they are: vehicles for indoctrination/training for mass obedience by the state.
A quote from Martin Luther:
Dear rulers. I maintain that the civil authorities are under obligation to compel the people to send their children to school. If the government can compel such citizens as are fit for military service to bear spear and rifle, to mount ramparts, and perform other martial duties in time of war, how much more has it a right to the people to send their children to school, because in this case we are warring with the devil, whose object it is secretly to exhaust our cities and principalities.
Dan T.,
General comment:
A lot of the misgivings that you have about libertarians have been addressed in detail by libertarian intellectuals over the years. H&R commenters, as great a bunch as we are, are not the intellectuals of the movement. I recommend that you read some of the biggies:
Mises,
Hayek,
Rothbard,
Friedman,
etc.,
and those who have built on their work.
I'm not saying you don't ever have good questions - often they are, and they're dismissed offhandedly by people who cannnot answer them - but answers are available, if you really want them.
Problem is, public schools ain't public.If I tried to enroll in an algebra class, 'cause I never figured it out, back, oh, so many years ago, I wouldn't be allowed. I'd be barred 'cause my presence would be disruptive. One is allowed to pay for the school but one is not allowed to attend. The public library, on the other hand, is public, within certain guidelines. Public schools, as we know them, use force to insure that they have "customers", the library and Wal-mart don't have to, apparently.
I'm not saying you don't ever have good questions - often they are, and they're dismissed offhandedly by people who cannnot answer them - but answers are available, if you really want them.
Thanks. I will check some of those out.
Of course he was implying that Maryland passed a law and exempted itself. They did. If you can't see that, there's no hope for your intellectual developement.
As an analogy, let's say that I decided that I would not hire any contractor to work on my house who drinks beer on the job. Yet, sometimes I drink beer myself while working on home improvement projects.
I don't think this means that I "exempted myself" from a policy regarding who I want to do business with. Or if it does, it is a rather meaningless distinction.
But unions generally only work with government protection - otherwise you have the free rider problem, for example.
By "free rider problem", Dan T., do you mean "people who don't like labor unions, and who feel they can do better negotiating directly with their employer, choosing not to join the labor union"? How's that a "problem"? Because if you phrase it accurately, you can see why, even with all the government compulsion, the unionized private labor force is down to 7% and dropping.
Dan T,we'er talking about a goverment making a law telling others how to behave and not following the same.What you do at home and how you hire your help doesn't matter.
The Free Rider problem basically states that an individual will realize that he can get the benefits of the collective bargaining without having to join the union and thus pay the dues. Obviously, once enough people realize this you won't have a union at all because nobody will want to be the sucker who pays while others reap the benefits.
It has nothing to do with the kind of skilled jobs where people can successfully negotiate directly. Those jobs don't lend well to unions in the first place.
Dan T,we'er talking about a goverment making a law telling others how to behave and not following the same.What you do at home and how you hire your help doesn't matter.
I'm in agreement that for the most part the government shouldn't be involved in individual, private decisions and actions.
However, in an employment/contract situation you've expanded the context away from a private matter into once where multiple people are involved. And the government does have a legitimate (IMO) interest in making sure those relationships are conducted in such a manner that both sides are treated fairly.
If the law is so unfair the goverment does not abide by it then it is not just.This looks like a case of punishing certain buisness's to gain vote's.I say the law is an ass.
The Free Rider problem basically states that an individual will realize that he can get the benefits of the collective bargaining without having to join the union and thus pay the dues. Obviously, once enough people realize this you won't have a union at all because nobody will want to be the sucker who pays while others reap the benefits.
Unions merely internalize the free rider problem. The union forces the employer to treat all employees the same regardless of individual performance. Under-performing individuals reap the same benefits as over-achievers. Once this becomes obvious, everyone devolves to the lowest common denominator (no one wants to be the sucker that works harder than the worst performer on the crew).
Why do unions need to collect dues?
Not necessarily - there's nothing inherant about a collective bargaining agreement that states that all employees must be treated the same.
The NFL, for example, is a unionized business and top players get paid a whole lot more than lesser ones.
Dan, pick a nominal case and not an exceptional one.
The Free Rider problem basically states that an individual will realize that he can get the benefits of the collective bargaining without having to join the union and thus pay the dues. Obviously, once enough people realize this you won't have a union at all because nobody will want to be the sucker who pays while others reap the benefits.
Dan T., you're assuming that the hardest working, most productive people will "benefit" from being paid the same as everyone else, and being criticized for being hard working and making everyone else look bad, just because over half of the workers in their place of employment voted to unionize. Such people view being forced into a union and paying dues as a huge imposition that makes them worse off. One of the many reasons that public schools suck is that there is no financial incentive for a teacher to strive to do better than their unionized counterparts. Competition usually causes improvements, and compulsory unionization dramatically cuts down on competition between workers.
Dan, pick a nominal case and not an exceptional one.
Is it normal for all people in a union shop to be paid the same? I confess that I do not know. But I would think that being part of a union does not necessarily preclude performance-based incentives for individual employees if they're negotiated into the CBA.
The union forces the employer to treat all employees the same regardless of individual performance.
Where did I say "pay"?
But I would think that being part of a union does not necessarily preclude performance-based incentives for individual employees if they're negotiated into the CBA.
Base pay is typically a function of seniority, not peformance. And the CBA most commonly defines the percentage increase in pay that everyone will get for the duration of the contract. Individual performance evaluation is highly discouraged if not forbidden outright.
The CBA also provides severe punishments for any non-union employee caught doing any work covered by the CBA, while making it extremely difficult to terminate someone even for acts of willful misconduct let alone poor performance.
Since you are from NC, we will forgive you for not having extensive contact with strong union environments.
carrick, it seems to me that your complaints about unions are that with one in place, a company can't get its employees to work as hard as what they'd like and can't pay them as little as what they'd like. So yes, I do understand why businesses would not like such an arrangment.
Minimum wage is bad for market reasons that we have all hashed over before.
The libertarian argument should include the subtlety that the typical minimum wage is set so close to market wages that economic studies show inconclusive results about whether minimum wage laws cause unemployment. However, if "living wages", which are like minimum wages on Wheaties, ever become widespread, the unemployment effects should be very obvious.
a company can't get its employees to work as hard as what they'd like
Is that always a bad thing? An employer does need a certain level of hard work from its employees to make the company successful.
and can't pay them as little as what they'd like
Actually, carrick was also arguing for the ability to pay chosen employees as much as the employer would like.
So yes, I do understand why businesses would not like such an arrangment.
And consumers . . .
And shareholders . . .
And non-union labor . . .
But unions generally only work with government protection - otherwise you have the free rider problem, for example.
So, we rule out the idea that unions are motivated by the altruistic goal of making working conditions better for everyone. Otherwise, why would they care if there are free riders?
"""Because the part about the employment law is fact. Maryland is not a contractor for Maryland."""
Maybe this is wrong on my part but doesn't the living wage law apply to all employers in the state of Maryland and isn't Maryland an employer? If your an employee and your entitled to X amount of pay in the state of Maryland by law, how would those that work for Maryland not be an employee within Maryland's jurisiction?
carrick, it seems to me that your complaints about unions are that with one in place, a company can't get its employees to work as hard as what they'd like and can't pay them as little as what they'd like. So yes, I do understand why businesses would not like such an arrangment.
Dan T., if a union was in place, but workers were allowed to opt out, why would a worker choose to opt out unless they felt they were better off outside the union? In effect, compulsory inclusion of everyone once a union is formed is a way for the marginal employees to profit at the expense of the better employees.
So, compulsory unionization harms businesses, consumers, shareholders, non-union workers, and quite possibly the majority of the unionized workers. Gee, I can't understand why the private sector union work force is at 7% and dropping ...
Dan T,
I was a member of a union. The union was totally oblivious to any of our concerns and pretty much universally loathed by all the workers, and took a chunk of our paycheck for wages that weren't any different from non-union workers.
The only time we ever even saw a union official was when they arrived to make sure we were registered to vote and that we would vote for the Democrat they told us to vote for.
Union members hate unions - most join because membership is required by the government and they have no choice. That is why only 7% of American workers are members of unions, and why union membership is dimishing.
Modern unions exist as a way for the government to force workers to involuntarily fund the Democratic party.
I do recall a similar bit of hypocricy from the AFT. Back around the time of the UPS strike the AFL/CIO types were up in arms about 'temporary' workers being retained in permanent slots, so that companies wouldn't have to provide benefits.
At the time my brother (another H&R poster) was working for the AFT. He was a temp worker. His position was permanent, but they just used temp workers to fill the role, because it was cheaper.
Maybe this is wrong on my part but doesn't the living wage law apply to all employers in the state of Maryland and isn't Maryland an employer? If your an employee and your entitled to X amount of pay in the state of Maryland by law, how would those that work for Maryland not be an employee within Maryland's jurisiction?
No, in this case the living wage law only applies to businesses that contract with the state. It does not mean that literally every job in the state of Maryland pays $11.30 an hour.
That was my intital complaint with Mr. Balko's blog entry, as it implied otherwise.
What is this living wage garbage? How about working 2 jobs instead of paying someone $11 per hour to push a broom.
Some college educated employees, such as engineering technicians or field scientists start at between $13 and $15 per hour.
What is wrong with this picture?
Why don't they give the homeless bums a job pitching for the Orioles?
ACORN isn't the only leftist operation that wants laws that it won't follow itself. Back in the late 1970s, the Campaign for Economic Democracy (Hayden and Fonda's operation) was demanding a raise in the minimum wage--but they weren't paying their workers a minimum wage. Why? They were a non-profit, and thus exempt from California law for that reason.
If the left really wanted to do something to alleviate the misery of the poor, they would be shutting off the spigot that supplies vast quantities of poorly educated illegal aliens. But that wouldn't do anything for their campaign against capitalism.
Dan T - Your "free rider" problem is a crock. If a union can get a company to freely agree to hire only members of the union, they can enforce dues. The real reason that unions fail without government favoritism is that a company can simply fire the union workers and hire nonunion workers.
Just shows what progressives' are best at: bitching at/about everyone else's selfish behavior while exempting their own. i.e. kennedy and the wind farms off 'HIS' precious coast, the bitching about lack of funds and proper treatment for veterns at V.A. hospitals and then locking up $4 billion worth of V.A. land so they can't use it to help veterans, setting up depatments which can investigate anyone except alderman who passed the law, etc etc etc ad naseum.
But hypocrisy is something they always look for in others so they can bitch in their arrogantly we're the only moral ones mentality.
this is a little inaacurate:
the rules giving a living wage at $9+ per hour are passed by the city of baltimore for contracts for the city. ts other than service hey dont apply to any other contracts other than service contracts between batrlimore city and its own workers
they are totaly separte from the regular minimum wage laws whethter local federal or state
why should the state have to comply with the citys rules for service conrracts involving the citys emplyees? what on earth does that have to do with the state....
it was NOT a bill in the MD legislature passed by MD
it does NOT apply to 'all service contrats"
the city ordiance is here:
http://cityservices.baltimorecity.gov/charterandcodes/Code/Art%2005%20-%20Finance.pdf
MD has other applicable laws of course...but its just not like what your saying
"All you have to do is come and pick up Art's trash."
The big trash was the trash arguments he used to get millions from poor suckers like you. That trash will hang around for decades and the stink will only increase.