MONTPELIER — The City Council is considering crafting responsible employer and livable wage ordinances to make residing in the Capital City more affordable.
Discussion of the proposed ordinances came at a meeting of City Council last week. Councilor Conor Casey proposed enacting a Responsible Employer Ordinance that would require the city of Montpelier to follow “good employer” requirements when spending taxpayer money on contracted services that would include “responsible wages,” worker’s compensation and the proper classification of workers as employees instead of independent contractors, among other employment protections.
The council also reviewed a report on a Livable Wage Ordinance by Michael Sherman, of the Social and Economic Justice Advisory Committee, after the council identified implementing a living wage requirement in Montpelier in its 2018-2019 strategic plan.
Casey noted that the city is going through a recent building boom with the near-completion of Taylor Street Transit Center and shared-use recreation path, and a $16.5 million upgrade for the Waste Water Treatment Facility. The city is also proposing to build a $10.5 million parking garage.
Casey said that construction workers were a “largely invisible” workforce that deserved recognition, employee protections and livable wages.
“I think this is a group that has been sort of been abandoned by the federal government,” Casey said, and referenced the federal Davis-Bacon Act that seeks to ensure minimum wages to be paid to various classes of laborers and mechanics employed under the contract, but added, “It isn’t what is once was.”
“We can actually see people who are risking their lives, working on construction sites, with a wage that would be less than what we want as minimum wage, maybe $12 an hour,” Casey said, adding that the state had opposed appropriate wage structures for construction workers.
“This is an issue I’ve always felt strongly about,” Casey said, noting he has spent his professional career representing “frontline workers.” Casey currently works as an organizer for the Vermont-National Education Association, representing more than 12,000 teachers in the state.
“Even though they might not Montpelier residents, (construction workers) deserve to be treated with the same standards that we treat our own workers,” Casey said, noting that the Montpelier has three collective bargaining units for city workers.
“I believe anybody who receives a dime of taxpayer money deserves to be treated with the respect and make sure they can put food on the table, just like our own municipal workers here,” Casey added.
Several construction workers attended the meeting and noted that they have helped to build the city but can’t afford to live in it.
Casey called for a Responsible Employer Ordinance that would be “codified” and “cemented,” so that city staff were obligated to meet minimum requirements when awarding contracts for city projects.
Casey said that he would like to invite representatives of contractors working for the city “to have a voice” in the development of a Responsible Employer Ordinance. Casey said he also wanted to invite “frontline workers,” adding that there were examples in the state of wage theft, mis-classification, gender or race discrimination for construction workers.
“I don’t think there’s any reason we might not be provocative and set the standard for other municipalities, to really look at this in depth,” Casey said, adding that language in his proposed ordinance was based on an example from Portland, Maine.
The council also received a number of questions and issues in writing raised by former Assistant City Manager Sue Allen that the council would need to consider, and a recommendation to seek legal counsel from an attorney experience in labor attorney.
The council agreed to set the first public hearing on a proposed ordinance for its Oct. 9 meeting.
On a Livable Wage Ordinance, Sherman said he had researched living wage measures, including in Burlington, which has had a living wage ordinance in place since 2001 that had not significantly added to costs or discouraged bidders for construction contracts. Sherman said also looked at a similar ordinance in Norwalk, Connecticut, that had no negative impact in contract bidding.
Sherman said there still questions to be answered about what is included or excluded, and what exemptions might apply, particularly for small construction firms.
Sherman’s report to the council called for an ordinance that would require private businesses that benefit from public money to pay “above-market wages and benefits to their workers” that were different from a minimum wage and “do not perpetuate poverty.”
“Implicit in this argument in simultaneous pursuit of an economic and social policy (and, as some authors characterize it, a moral) goal,” Sherman said in his report. “As economist Robert Pollin and his colleagues state it, ‘The living wage movement is... not just about raising the minimum wage; it is about addressing the broad issues of income distribution and economic justice in the United States.’”
Sherman noted that there are already 140 cities and counties that have implemented livable wage ordinances, many of which are in California, but only five in New England.
While critics argue a livable wage ordinance would discourage businesses hiring full-time workers or expanding a workforce, supporters said it would increase workforce morale, improve retention rates and job performance, and reduce absenteeism and job loss, Sherman’s report stated.
Sherman noted that if a Living Wage Ordinance were approved, the city would have to cover the cost of staff time to monitor and enforce it.
The council took no action on the report until it has a chance to study the findings further.
stephen.mills @timesargus.com
