September 24, 2003

opinion

THE MINIMUM WAGE in California is $6.75 an hour, about $14,000 a year. Proposition L (the minimum-wage initiative on the November ballot) would require all San Francisco employers to pay their employees a minimum of $8.50 an hour ($17,680 a year).

Advocates for a living wage, of which I am one, wanted to ask voters to consider a higher wage. It's tough to get by in San Francisco on even $8.50 an hour. But we knew that a higher wage would be extremely difficult to pass.

Who could be against raising the minimum wage? Before I answer that question, I'd like to provide a little bit of history. In 1968 the federal minimum wage was $1.60. If that wage had been indexed to inflation over the last 35 years, the minimum wage would be $8.50 today all across the country, not just in San Francisco with its high cost of living.

Allowing people to keep up with inflation. Allowing people to continue to purchase food and pay their rent without public assistance or charity. Who could be against this? Consistently, it is the Republican Party – and the leadership(?) of the San Francisco business community.

I put a ? after leadership because most businesses in San Francisco already pay their employees more than $8.50 an hour. Business owners tell me you can't get people to work for less than that. Last year the San Francisco Board of Supervisors commissioned an economic study that indicated that more than 80 percent of all businesses in San Francisco would not be impacted by a minimum wage of $8.50. Of those that are impacted, most will see increased costs of 1 to 3 percent.

Staff members at the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce frequently describe their organization as being much more liberal than business organizations in other parts of the country. There may be some truth to that statement – but recently the organization showed its true colors by going on record against Prop. L. Did the chamber take a democratic poll of its members? No! It appears that a very vocal minority on the board caused other members to cave in.

I've owned and operated a small business in San Francisco since 1980. I've been a member of the chamber for more than 10 years – one of the few, if not the only, Green Party members in the organization. I have my membership renewal form on my desk. I'm searching for reasons why I should renew.

I believe business owners are in partnership with their employees, whether they know it or not. Who communicates with all of my customers, helps to bring in business, and keeps everything running? My experience is that an employee who is well paid will work more for the benefit of us all, bring in more business, and make more of our customers happy.

But the chamber is saying, in effect, "In order to benefit one very small group, we must keep wages down for more than 50,000 workers in San Francisco."

The decision by the leadership(?) of the chamber to oppose Prop. L gives a black eye to the business community. We are perceived by the public as not caring about our employees. That's bad for the chamber's core constituency: San Francisco businesses.