We write in response to the report issued by the Chamber of Commerce last June on the potential impact of a Living Wage on member businesses and the City of Charlottesville. We know that the Chamber is internally divided on the Living Wage issue. We recognize and appreciate the member businesses within the Chamber that both support and pay a Living Wage. We feel it is unfortunate that the voice of these Chamber members was not heard in the report, and we hope that internal dialogue on this issue continues

We urge the Chamber to re-evaluate its findings and to take a more critical look at the Living Wage issue. We invite the Chamber to meet with representatives of the Living Wage Campaign to discuss these issues, and hope we can begin a healthy, person-to-person dialogue.

The Chamber initiated its investigation because City Council is considering a Living Wage ordinance that would cover all City employees as well as all those contracted to do work for the City. The report notes that the matter of "local governmental regulation fixing wages" was referred to their "Legislative Action Committee for review and consideration," and that "many Chamber member businesses associated with the tourism and hospitality industry were interviewed."

Although the Chamber equates the Living Wage with "wage-fixing," the Living Wage ordinance at issue in Charlottesville does not fix wages at a concrete sum, it simply acknowledges the existence of an income below which it is locally impossible to support a family, and accordingly establishes a wage floor below which it is indecent for local employees to be expected to work. The Living Wage is nothing more than a more current, more adequate, and more just version of the minimum wage. Does the Chamber also consider the federal minimum wage to be "wage fixing"? Businesses that refuse to pay their workers a Living Wage are paying poverty wages.

It is unclear why the Chamber would have made an extra effort to interview the "tourism and hospitality industry." Though not explicitly stated, this seems to indicate interviews with the owners and/or managers of the Hotel industry in Charlottesville, which has been extensively targeted by the Living Wage campaign. Nevertheless, these are not the types of businesses likely to be affected by a Living Wage ordinance. This twist suggests that the report is more of a propaganda piece than a reliable study.

Concerning the legality of Living Wage ordinances, the report asserts that "wage-fixing regulations--regardless of intent--are well beyond the role of local governments." The Living Wage is not synonymous with wage fixing. More salient, however, is the fact that local governments do have the right to determine their own best value concepts, of which wages (and especially a Living Wage) are viable considerations. Such Living Wage ordinances have already been passed in Virginia, the City of Alexandria being a prime example.

In assessing the need for a Living Wage, the Chamber factors in daily tips for housekeeping employees ranging from $16-27. No hotel employees we have spoken to have claimed receiving significant tips. When questioned about the $16-27 figure, a Red Roof Inn employee angrily called the Chambers' claim, "a damned lie!" Even so, these hotel employees are not the ones who would be affected by a City Living Wage Ordinance.

The report also states that "member hotels move quickly--within several months--to increase compensation to valued employees." But we have spoken with numerous workers employed at Omni, Courtyard by Marriott, and Red Roof Inn, who have worked for a year or longer without receiving wage increases. One woman is still making just $6.50 after a year and a half. This means that either the Chambers' report is inaccurate, or that member hotels do not really value their employees who do the housekeeping work. The Chambers' report implies that these workers are perceived not as the people that they are, but simply as the means by which certain work gets accomplished. This is in contrast to the very heart and soul of the Living Wage concept, which seeks not merely fair monetary compensation for a hard day's work, but also the treatment of all people with dignity, respect, and fairness.

Economically speaking, the Chamber posits four principal methods open to private businesses in dealing with a rise in costs. However, none of those options takes into account the fact that the payment of a Living Wage in many ways reduces costs, especially in the service industry of which the Chamber seems so fond of making examples. Living Wages are an investment with rich returns in employee loyalty and lower turnover, which lead to a reduction in training costs and increased efficiency. In fact, studies on the service industry in Baltimore and Los Angeles, where Living Wage ordinances have been put into effect, have shown that many business have been able to absorb the costs of the living wage without seeing a drop in profits, and some have even seen profit margins increase with a Living Wage. Also, because the Living Wage requirement would be in effect for all bidders on City contracts, it would also be a tool in creating a more level playing field among the different bidders, allowing smaller contractors to compete with the larger ones without having to slash wages in order to undercut the competition.

The Chamber finally asks if the Council has considered the cost to taxpayers in increased contract costs caused by the Living Wage. We would counter that fiduciary responsibility would be better met by passing the Living Wage ordinance in order that all City and Contract workers can earn enough money through their jobs so that they do not require state, local, or federal assistance. The number being proposed by Living Wage proponents, $8.65/hour, is one calculated from and tied to poverty statistics put out by the Department of Health and Human Services for a family of four. Anything below that number leaves a family in poverty and eligible for assistance programs such as welfare, food stamps, etc. In requiring private businesses to pay a Living Wage, the government would reduce the tax burden by reducing the number of people in need of federal, state, and local assistance.

In conclusion, the report of the Chamber is both biased and poorly researched. It fails to examine the real and complete impacts of a Living Wage, and instead chooses to accentuate factors with hardly any relevance to the passage of a Living Wage Ordinance by the City. The entire report seems more of a public relations piece than a substantive report.

Groups such as Citizens Against Global Exploitation, the Labor Action Group, and the Virginia Organizing Project will continue to work for a Living Wage for all workers here in Charlottesville and across the country. We are fundamentally committed to this end as citizens and as Americans because it is, quite simply, the just and decent thing to do.

Sincerely,

Citizens Against Global Exploitation (C.A.G.E.)
Labor Action Group (L.A.G.)
Virginia Organizing Project (V.O.P.)