Gotham Gazette

The Place for New York Policy and politics

Topics

NYCC: Whistleblower bills passed


NYCC-053112 lg

Councilman Daniel R. Garodnick talks about whistleblower legislation passed by the Council.
Photo by William Alatriste, courtesy of the City Council. 

Editor's Note: This version has been updated to clarify that the Department of Investigation had opposed an earlier draft of the bill. 

NEW YORK – The City Council wants to encourage employees of contractors doing work on city-funded projects to report corruption and fraud.

Legislation passed by the Council at its stated meeting yesterday would extend protections against retaliation under the current city Whistleblower Law to employees of contractors and subcontractors. Currently, the law only protects city workers.

At a news conference held before the vote on the legislation, City Council Speaker Christine Quinn called whistleblowers “courageous individuals who often end up being the most important source for uncovering fraud and corruption.”

The bill to expand the Whistleblower Law, which would apply to contracts worth over $100,000, was one of three pieces of legislation passed by the Council that would expand protections for workers who report corruption and encourage others to do the same. The bill was authored by Councilman Daniel R. Garodnick, of the 4th District, in Manhattan.

The second bill would require city contractors to post information about whistleblower protections and instructions on how to report misconduct or fraud. The third would renew the city’s False Claims Act, which offers whistleblowers proceeds of funds recouped from successful corruption prosecutions if they report information about potential fraud. All three bills would need to be signed into law by the mayor.

Citizens Union, which publishes the Gotham Gazette, lobbied for the legislation.

The city’s Department of Investigation, which investigates allegations of city-government misconduct including complaints brought by employees of private contractors, opposed an earlier version of the bill because it would have mandated that DOI investigate every complaint of retaliation by private contractor employees. 

At a hearing on April 16, DOI said such a requirement would likely lead to "an avalanche of mandatory investigations” that it did not have the resources to address.

The final version of the bill allows DOI to investigate the initial claims of fraud, but does not require the agency to investigate allegations of retaliation. Instead, the person alleging retaliation would be able to file a lawsuit. 

The city’s False Claims Act has been used “relatively infrequently since its enactment in 2005,” according to a report by a Council committee that convened April 16. Of 23 civil complaints under the FCA since 2005, the city Law Department decided not to pursue any action in 17 cases. Thirteen of the 17 cases were declined because they involved Medicaid funds, the report said. Under federal law, any recovered funds would go to the state, not the city.

“As the law gets better known … more people will use it,” said Councilwoman Gale Brewer, the chair of the government operations committee, which released the report.

Councilman Garodnick, who attended yesterday's news conference and authored the bill requiring contractors to post notices at job sites about whistleblower protections, said if passed it would go a long way toward informing people about the False Claims Act.

NYC Council passes banking bill


 
senate
Photo courtesy the City Council
.

NEW YORK – The New York City Council passed a bill requiring banks receiving billions in municipal funds to detail their lending practices, including mortgages and foreclosures, in struggling neighborhoods.

The bill, passed at yesterday’s stated meeting, highlighted the brewing conflict between powerful members of the City Council and the mayor’s office over the role of the government in the economy.

Mayor Michael Bloomberg said the banking bill was unrealistic. "Nobody would argue, I would think, that the city has the expertise or the resources to try to regulate the banking industry," he said. "It is just ridiculous.”

Some of the country’s largest banks, including JPMorganChase and Bank of America, are currently designated as depository banks by the city. Several other cities have enacted or are considering similar ordinances. The Los Angeles City Council passed its own so-called “responsible banking” act yesterday.

New York City Council Speaker Quinn said the bill was not aimed at creating a local regulatory framework. Instead, it was about making sure banks “act in a transparent way” and report information to the city of New York on what banks are doing to help neighborhoods and small businesses.

Councilman Albert Vann, the main sponsor of the bill, said lawmakers spent the last two years working on it and had consulted with the industry. “It is not an anti-bank bill,” he said. “Our objective in pursuing this legislation was to create a process that better informs New Yorkers about the banking needs of the neighborhoods and how to begin to meet those needs,” he said.

The bill passed by the council, which the mayor has threatened to veto, would create a new eight-member Community Investment Advisory Board that would collect and assess information from banks on their lending practices in local neighborhoods.

Supporters of New York City’s banking bill, including Quinn’s previous employer, the Association for Neighborhood and Housing Development, argue it will help policymakers make better decisions about where the city’s money is deposited and encourage banks to invest in communities.

Currently, the Department of Finance, which has also objected to the bill as too burdensome, oversees the city’s money, in conjunction with the city comptroller and the Banking Commission. The commission approves or denies applications from financial institutions seeking to do business with the city.

The City Council also sparred with the mayor over its decision yesterday to override his veto of a “prevailing wage” bill that would raise the wages earned by some workers employed by companies that receive city subsidies.

“In this day and age, this is not appropriate legislation if we want to get companies to come here and build this city,” he said yesterday. His administration has vowed to sue to stop the law from being enacted.

City Council Speaker Christine Quinn said the prevailing wage legislation was reasonable. "The vast majority of us at the City Council believe that when businesses decide of their own free will to take city subsidies or take a high level of city tenants, it is appropriate for us to put a fair additional wage requirement on them,” she said before the council voted to override the veto.

The Council also passed two resolutions at the stated meeting: one calling on the state Legislature to pass a law increasing the minimum wage from $7.25 to $8.50 an hour; the other appealing to Village Voice Media to reject adult advertisements on its Backpage.com website after allegations that sex-traffickers have been using it.

Quinn Presses Ahead on Living Wage


 
livingwage
Photo by Jane C. Timm

Council Speaker Christine Quinn is determined to keep politics polite — even if that means storming out of a press conference.

At a rally for the Living Wage legislation, Quinn declined to give her prepared remarks and excused herself after hearing a protester call Mayor Michael Bloomberg “Pharaoh Bloomberg” because he plans to veto the bill and has threatened to take it to court.

Turning around to face the crowd, Quinn demanded for an apology and was met with silence. “Democracy gives everyone the right to have differing opinions, and I’m not going to participate in name calling,” she said before leaving City Hall steps amidst boos and puzzled looks.

The Living Wage bill, which raises minimum wages for jobs in projects that are subsidized by the city, marks the Speaker’s latest and strongest stand against the Mayor as she leads up to her expected mayoral candidacy.

Battling for Fair Wages, Political Office

Advocates of a Living Wage have been fighting for the bill for over two years. Quinn’s support, which was only just garnered earlier this month, required a significant round of edits to obtain — particularly ensuring that only owners and not tenants in projects subsidized would not be required to pay higher wage. In the end, Quinn’s office estimates the legislation will only affect an estimated 600 workers a year.

Bloomberg has expressed unwavering opposition to the Living Wage bill and said last week he would veto the bill and take it to court, when he vetoed another fair wages bill that would have boosted minimum wages for employees in buildings where the city subsidizes the project or leases the majority of office space.

Under Quinn, the Council has overridden just 15 mayoral vetoes in the six years since she was elected Speaker. Three of those overrides have come in the last five months and yesterday’s bill, along with the other fair wage bill passed last month, will add another two to the tally.

Just as today’s legislation marks the Council and Quinn’s latest stand against the Mayor as she prepares to run for the office he's held for the last three terms, the Speaker’s outburst seems to reflect Quinn’s efforts to preserve her long-held relationship with the Mayor and his supporters.

Commenting later on her outburst, Quinn said that she felt strongly that government needed to be “civil, not personal. And that doesn’t involve name-calling.”

Quinn and the Mayor’s relationship has often been criticized for being too close, but Quinn said yesterday that much of her success has come from the pair’s “commonality and civility,” on issues like passing each year’s budget. “I’m very proud of my record — the part where we agree and the part where we don’t agree.”

The Impact

Though the day’s headlines will go to Quinn, the bill’s passage is quite personal and important for 29-year-old Kimberly Ortiz and her two children.

The bill would raise the hourly wages for jobs created in city-funded developments to $10 an hour with health benefits or $11.50 an hour without them. Studies show that that is what New Yorkers need to earn to stay out of poverty. The current minimum wage of $7.25 an hour forces many people who work to live in poverty, the bill’s advocates say. The requirement only would apply to future jobs in developments, such as shopping malls, that received a tax break or other subsidy from the city.

Ortiz has worked for the last five years at the Statue of Liberty’s gift shop making just $9.25 an hour. She has struggled for years to support herself and her two children, using food stamps to make ends meet and forgoing visits to the doctor because she can’t afford it.

On the steps of City Hall, Ortiz was cheerful and excited.

“This is the first time in a long time that I’m not angry on these steps,” Ortiz said. “Mayor Bloomberg calls this bill a job killer and all I have to say is that jobs that keep people in poverty should have died a long time ago.”

Bloomberg's Budget Avoids Teachers Cuts


know before you owe
Photo provided by Office of Mayor Michael Bloomberg

The mayor’s $68.7 billion preliminary budget released last week spares teachers and uniformed employees from additional cuts and won’t raise taxes. However, funding for many other programs will shrink to accommodate growing pension and health care obligations.

Programs targeted for the biggest cuts include after-school, child care, libraries and cultural centers, programs which have faced the chopping block many times in the past but have enjoyed protection from council members. The financial plan also proposes closing twenty firehouses across New York City.

The mayor called his plan “a responsible budget that continues to make responsible spending cuts, while protecting the core services and investments.” He added “Cities across the country have struggled to keep their heads above water – laying off teachers, police officers, or firefighters…we’ve avoided those painful steps.” Last year, the mayor considered laying off 4,000 teachers. New York State pays only 39 percent of the city’s education expenses.

Councilman Domenic Recchia, the chairman of the city council’s finance committee, said that the plan was “not as bad as we thought it was going to be” and that it was balanced and fiscally responsible. However, he said, the council will push against cutting $74 million from libraries and $40 million from cultural institutions.

Public Advocate Bill De Blasio also criticized the mayor on cutting child care and after school programs, which he had repeatedly supported in the past. Cutting these programs could wreck many parents’ working schedules, potentially endangering their jobs and putting their children in uncertain situations, he said. The cuts would also affect employment in the day care sector.

“Living within our means must be our top priority. But we cannot stop investing in our future. This is why I am disappointed the Mayor put forth a budget proposal that hurts New York’s children and makes it harder for families to work,” said De Blasio.

Some council members, including De Blasio and Council Speaker Christine Quinn also opposed plans to shutter 20 fire houses, which they deem essential to public safety. A spokesman for the fire department said that the proposal is undergoing review and it’s too early for the department to comment on any specifics.

Last year, many of these programs faced cuts as well but the city council wrangled a concession to keep most of them, adding $300 million to the budget.

The city ran into an approximately $2 billion budget deficit this year, which it balanced through revising calculations for pension liabilities, using some of the previously reserved surplus and the sale of new taxi medallions. In a year, the gap is expected to grow to over $3 billion.

Most of the rising costs come from pension and health care. Citywide, pension costs were equivalent to 66 percent of salaries and wages while in the uniformed workforce, pension costs already exceeded the cost of salaries and wages. By 2013, pension obligations will be 500 percent higher than they were in 2002, at $8 billion.

“Pensions are leveling off but at a high level,” said Doug Turetsky, communications director with the Independent Budget Office. “Which squeezes out other spending we might want to do on other programs and services.”

Turetsky added that health benefits are another major area of cost growth and that even though medical inflation is down, it continues to have a strong effect on the city’s economy.

Even though New York City gained back 65 percent of its jobs to the country’s 36 percent, its rebound is sluggish. Uncertainty in the Euro zone hit the returns on pension investments and the financial sector, which contributes about 10 to 20 percent of the city’s tax revenues didn’t add any jobs. Most of the city’s job growth has been in low-income positions. The residential real estate market remains very slow, which slows construction and drives down property tax revenues.

Commercial real estate is doing much better, with only a 9 percent vacancy rate and office space sales at their decade highest, according to Recchia. The city’s tourism industry is also booming, having attracted a record 50.5 million visitors in 2011. Many hotels are operating at full capacity.

Under the plan, the mayor proposed raising capital expenditures by $700 million over the next five years, to total $39.4 billion. Part of that would go towards the construction of the new NYCTech campus for Cornell University on Roosevelt Island, which is expected to provide 30,000 permanent jobs and create 600 spin-off companies.

The financial plan will go through agency hearings in March, when many programs will fight to lose as little as possible. But the overall sense among council members is that the plan, while not all desirable, is less painful than the budgets of previous years.

“Today’s Preliminary Budget, following on the Governor’s proposed Executive Budget last month, gives us all hope that the worst effects of the economic downturn are finally starting to pass,” said Recchia.

Bloomberg Takes Out a New Budget Playbook


bloomberg
Spencer T. Tucker

Last month, Mayor Michael Bloomberg fueled what Paul Krugman has described as "a recurrent fantasy about a Bloomberg third-party candidacy that will save America" when he presided over the convention of new political group dubbed No Labels.

"No Labels," of course, implies a nonpartisan, non-ideological effort, but, whatever progressive positions Bloomberg holds to on social issues, the mayor's fiscal strategy over the last three years has come from a standard conservative political playbook: reduced services -- especially in education and human services -- criticisms of city unions, expanded privatization and regressive tax policy. In his State of the City speech on Jan. 19, Bloomberg reiterated these positions. He called for smaller government. He took aim at public employee unions, pledged to chip away at seniority privileges and scale back pensions. And he vowed not to raise taxes.

The speech came only days after the City Council, having gotten some items restored, signed off on Bloomberg's latest budget-cutting modification, his ninth in the past three years. A substantial 10th slice is likely with the release next month of the preliminary budget for fiscal year 2012. What these serial budget cuts make clear is that New York, once a laboratory for national liberal policies, is conducting an experiment in urban conservative policy.

The current strategy is very much at odds with that of the first-term Bloomberg administration. The mayor's response in November 2002 to the fiscal crisis following 9/11 and the accompanying recession did resemble a" No Labels" strategy. For instance, its emergency $6 billion budget-cutting plan was split equally between much higher taxes and service reductions. It was nonpartisan and apolitical, based on shared sacrifices from all New Yorkers.

The City's Fiscal Condition

The focus on cuts in education and human services next year looks premature in terms of the city's actual fiscal condition. According to the Independent Budget Office's December Fiscal Outlook, New York City is in surprisingly good shape. It has lost fewer jobs than projected, and increased city revenues, not acknowledged in the city's November plan, will add $525 million to the current fiscal year budget, $790 million in fiscal 2012, and an average of $2 billion in each of the following two years.

That helps create a $1.7 billion surplus this fiscal year and shrinks the city's projected budget deficit for 2012 to $1.1 billion -- a nominal figure at this date in a projected $67.5 billion budget. It also reduces the city's projected deficits for 2013 and 2014.

The Independent Budget Office's forecasts are a reminder that the city, in spite of billions of dollars in budget reductions, is reducing the pace of growth of spending, not actual spending. From 2011 to 2014, city spending (including state and federal funding) will grow from $65.1 billion to $74.6 billion. Admittedly the city still does not know m=how much the state will reduce its funding for schools and general aid. That, the Independent Budget Office, concedes, is a wild card in its predictions.

The IBO projections, indeed, are more optimistic than those of state and city fiscal monitors. The State Financial Control Board December staff report on the November modification makes the bleakest, worst-case projection. It finds the fiscal 2012 deficit could reach $3.9 billion, with markedly higher amounts in later years.

Managing Deficits: Privatization

In his latest effort to reduce the deficit -- whatever its size -- Bloomberg has increasingly underscored another conservative strategy -- privatization. The new deputy mayor for operations, Stephen Goldsmith, the former mayor of Indianapolis, is famous for privatizing city public services. His first public action, a published review of several city agency programs offered a rather blunt critique of current Bloomberg administration practices, but promised a $500 million savings with better management over the next four years.

Since then, the management news has not been so good, and Goldsmith has much to attend to beyond his role in the snow snafu in December.

One goal of privatization is saving money. In some cases -- most notably the CityTime payroll management project, which is more than 10 times over budget -- this goal clearly has not been met.

Yet concerns about contracting practices are nothing new. City Limits magazine, for instance, recently noted that it identified problems with the CityTime contract more than two years ago. It also quoted Lillian Roberts, executive director of the city's largest public employee union, DC37, as saying that the federal indictments in that case are "merely the tip of the iceberg and an outrageous example of the greed and corruption that are the result of an unregulated procurement process."

The city's efforts to upgrade and modernize its 911 emergency response system have been plagued by cost overruns and missed deadlines, with the city removing one contractor and in the midst of trying to get its money back from another. Last month City Comptroller John Liu rejected a $286 million contract for another 911 project.

The Daily News has been investigating the Department of Education's use of consultants and reported in January that, between 2008 and 2010, the department spent some $200 million on consultants. In 2010, more than 100 consultants got over $100,000 each, and close to two dozen received over $200,000.

The Independent Budget Office, which is doing a series of studies of the department, reported in a December blog, "What is Yellow and Rises at the Same Time it Falls," that school transportation contracting costs will exceed $1 billion this school year. In the last five years, it found, costs have risen by $115 million while ridership has fallen. Some reasons for the increase are unclear although non-competitive contracts and fewer contractors may be factors, along with higher gas prices.

City Comptroller John Liu added to the questions surrounding contracting with an announcement in November, entitled, "Trim Fat Around City Contracts Before Resorting to Layoffs and Service Cuts" that cites "$157.4 million in potential savings through audits of city agencies."

Education and Social Services Cuts

While private companies and organizations still get city contracts, some groups are being asked to bear the brunt of the city's budget problems. Over the past eight years, the administration's concept of sacrifice has narrowed considerably. The city comptroller's December report on the city's economy and finances, for instance, notes that the city’s budget cutting -- almost $600 million this year and over $1 billion in 2012 -- is nearly 90 percent service cuts and 10 percent new revenues.

According to the state comptroller's review of the November budget plan recently approved with some modification by the City Council, those cuts "would fall hardest on the city's schools and the neediest citizens." The city comptroller points out that cuts in education total $670 million over the 2011 and 2012 fiscal years and that the number of teachers is scheduled to be reduced by 5,398 in 2012, nearly 4,000 by layoffs and the balance by attrition. Teachers would represent 70 percent of all headcount reductions in city departments in 2012. (In contrast, there will be no reduction in uniformed police officers.)

The Mayor's Management Report gives little information about the impact of nine rounds of cuts on human services. But the four-year plan of the November modification is pretty clear about Bloomberg administration priorities: Over the next four years, children's services would be cut by nearly 6 percent, homeless services by 6.6 percent, and health and mental hygiene by over 7 percent. During this time, housing and libraries would lose 23 percent, cultural affairs 29 percent, and youth and community development 33 percent.

Labor and Deficits

More than anything, else, though, the mayor plans to rely on pension reductions and labor concessions to rein spending. In his State of the City speech last week, he laid out a number of proposals for accomplishing this, including raising the retirement age for future non-uniformed city workers to 65, getting rid of a bonus for uniformed workers and allowing the city to negotiate pensions with the unions, something currently barred by state law. Bloomberg pledged not to approve any salary increases for city workers "unless they are accompanied by reforms in benefit packages that produce the savings we need to continue making investments in our future and protecting vital services."

That reflects what already was in his November plan. After several years of annual 4 percent increases, the mayor drew a line in the sand and said the unions will self-fund any raises, through productivity savings and/or benefit concessions.

Much of the uncertainty about future budget deficits comes from the unresolved negotiations with the city's unions. Contracts for a number of unions -- DC37, the police and firefighter unions, and the Communications Workers of America, which together represent nearly 50 percent of the workforce -- have already expired. According to the state comptroller, raises at the projected inflation rate would cost over $1 billion a year.

Further, the mayor has long delayed any settlement with the teachers and supervisors unions, who have been working without a contract. At stake in any final deal is, according to the city comptroller, nearly $900 million in this fiscal year and $800 million to $900 million in each of the following three years -- none of which is included in the November modification.

The new pressure on city labor echoes a national argument by many governors, including New York's Andrew Cuomo, that public-sector workers are over-compensated, and that taxpayers can no longer afford early retirement ages, rising pension costs and health plans that strike many who work in the private sector as generous. But Michael Powell in a recent New York Times article wrote, "A raft of recent studies found that public salaries, even with benefits included, are equivalent to or lag slightly behind those of private sector workers." (He did not offer figures for New York City alone.)

Read His Lips

Perhaps the most significant indication of the mayor's recent shift to conservative political strategies is his rejection of income tax hikes. During the 2002 fiscal crisis, the mayor raised average property tax rates by 17.5 percent and temporarily increased personal tax rates for higher income people for three years, much as Mayors David Dinkins and Rudolph Giuliani did in the 1990s. Bloomberg also instituted a three-year, temporary sales tax increase.

The average property tax remains the same in 2011 (market valuation increases, however, have raised assessments, thus raising actual tax bills). The regressive city sales tax, recently raised to 4.5 percent, is at a historic high. The higher personal income tax rates on wealthier New Yorkers, however, reverted to lower rates in 2006, although the Independent Budget Office found no evidence that anyone left the city because of the tax increase -- one argument used by the mayor to explain his refusal to re-introduce higher rates.

The mayor has vowed to continue his no tax increase policy. "Let me be clear," he said in his State of the City speech, "we will not raise taxes to balance the budget." Increasing taxes, he said, "would undermine our recovery by driving people and businesses to lower-tax cities and states and deterring investment from overseas."

This decision not to raise taxes on the most affluent New Yorkers takes hundreds of millions of dollars off the budget table. The Independent Budget Office's Budget Options report last February noted that a modest tax rise -- still lower than the 2003-2005 rates -- on high-income New Yorkers would raise almost $500 million in 2011 and $678 million in 2013, approximating the education department cuts in 2011 and 2012. The rates would affect only the 8.4 percent of taxpayers with adjusted gross income over $125,000, who would pay an average of $9,500 more than they currently pay.

But the appeal of tax cuts for high-income taxpayers, as seen in the two-year extension of the Bush federal tax cuts for the nation's wealthiest, seems to outweigh any argument for shared sacrifice. This persists in spite of the fact that that, according to Citizens for Tax Justice, "the combined taxes levied by federal, state, and local governments in the United States are among the lowest in the developed world."

Incidentally, Citizens for Tax Justice reports that the extended personal income and new estate tax cuts in the December compromise will mean an average tax break of $120,726 for the top 1 percent of New York State taxpayers, those with an average income of $2.3 million. They will receive 43 percent of the total tax cut in New York State, while the average benefit for the 20 percent of New Yorkers with the lowest incomes, averaging $11,975 a year, will be $182.

Across the country and in New York City, these actions -- fewer human services, attacks on labor, lower taxes, privatization, growing inequality, less shared sacrifice – are the ingredients on a familiar political label: conservatism. Perhaps we should address -- rather than deny -- political labels, so that we can better understand what is happening.

Glenn Pasanen, who teaches political science at Lehman College, has been in charge of Gotham Gazette's finance topic page since 2001.

Layoffs "New Norm" For Budget Cuts


budget
Photo by Edward Reed

More city budget cuts are up for discussion, but the end of the chopping block is far from near.

In an attempt to close a projected $2 billion budget gap, Mayor Michael Bloomberg proposed another round of cuts last month, cutting hundreds of jobs by attrition and lay-offs. Among the hardest hit will be the Departments of Sanitation, Cultural Affairs and Health and Mental Hygiene.

These sorts of cuts are the "new norm" for the city budget, Citizens Budget Commission’s Senior Research Associate, Maria Doulis explained. “Things are looking really grim for the next year or year and a half.”

Layoffs, Doulis said, have been "a last resort" over the years, particularly in departments that provide core services, but the city has exhausted typical saving strategies like renegotiating contracts, "so now we're going towards real service cuts," she said.

And what’s more, Doulis predicts that before a 2013 budget is adopted this summer, the Mayor will announce another round of budget cuts.

Last year’s midyear budget cuts focused on cutting capital spending, with Mayor Bloomberg asking for a 20 percent cut in spending for construction and maintenance of city-owned buildings and infrastructure, but now, Doulis says the city is running out of ways to find savings and income.

Medallion Mess

The city had hoped to find $1 billion in revenue from the Mayor’s taxi medallion plan that would allow livery cabs to legally pick up street hails in the underserved outer boroughs and northern Manhattan. The Governor, who has expressed concerns about the bill from the start, has said he won’t sign the bill with its current compromising amendments. As of yet, he hasn’t outlined the changes he wants made to the bill. A statement from the Governor’s office on Tuesday said that “outstanding issues are handicap accessibility of livery cabs, the transferability of and market for livery permits, livery and yellow cab pickups at airports, lack of financial incentives to purchase handicap accessible licenses, and concerns regarding the effectiveness of Taxi and Limousine Commission enforcement.”

The statement also announced a Wednesday summit aims to finalize some sort of deal, but no solution has been announced as of press time.

If the bill isn’t resolved in Albany, the city’s expected deficit would increase by a third — bringing it up to $3 billion dollars.

The Governor’s announcement of the planned summit indicated that the unresolved issue was less about the city and the governor’s office, and more about the yellow-taxi industry’s worries that giving livery cabs medallions, which have been picking up street hails illegally for years, would devalue their pricey medallions.

“The issues are not primarily governmental ones among the Governor, the state legislature and the City. There are, however, remaining issues among the various stakeholders, business and advocacy groups whose interests must be reconciled," yesterday’s statement read.

As reported by Capital New York, the Bloomberg administration was not invited to the summit until well after its announcement.

City Council Financial Committee Chair Domenic Recchia said this hitch in the Mayor’s plan puts “some big holes in our whole outlook — we’re one billion dollars short.” Reached the night Cuomo refused to sign the taxi medallion bill, Recchia said he was bringing the budget home to search for more sources of income. “I don’t know where we’re going to find this.”

Council Views

Recchia said that the Council would negotiate with the Mayor and some version of the proposed cuts would be approved by the City Council, though it is unclear whether or not the Council would have a hearing on the matter, which Councilwoman Letitia James has called for repeatedly.

James told Gotham Gazette that she particularly found fault in the cuts to an after-school program that serves children in low-income communities and to the department of Health and Mental Hygiene, calling both cuts “disturbing.”

“The best way to disclose all of these cuts and more is for the Council to hold an oversight hearing,” she said.

In a discussion on a Council bill that would add more oversight on the city’s contract spending during last week’s stated meeting, Councilman Charles Barron criticized the city’s contract spending and his colleagues for not addressing the issue during budget discussions.

"We should not sign off on a budget that has the kind of contracts you’re speaking so eloquently against today," he said, as his colleagues criticized high-prices for outside contractors doing work that critics say city employees could do. Since the Mayor took office, the city contract budget has grown by 70 percent.

Despite the huge gaps, Recchia added that “we have to stop nickel and diming the people of New York City,” referring to the fine and permit hikes the city has begun using to try and draw in revenue. The city also found income sources by raising restaurant fine enforcement, fingerprinting fees, and refinancing some debt.

Future Service Cuts

But those fine hikes and other small changes represent a small portion of the city’s cost cutting measures, Doulis said.

“What they really did to generate savings in 2013 is that they refinanced some debt. That was one of the biggest sources of savings,” she said. “They've been trying to do that and shield the agencies from cuts, but it’s hard to see closing this budget without more cuts in addition to these.”

The refinanced debt will save the city $229 million in the coming year. Future cuts, Doulis said, will likely start eliminating core services more than ever before.

The Mayor’s cuts to the Sanitation Department have come under criticism, particularly in light of last year’s snow-removal disaster, but the Independent Budget Office’s Doug Turketsky notes that the majority of these cuts are cuts of attrition, as the Marine Transfer Stations the department would have staffed won’t be completed by 2013. He also added that there is a significant snow budget that covers winter weather costs.

The Council Overrides Veto in Stiff Rebuke to the Mayor


stand
Photo by William Alatriste
The City Council voted unanimously yesterday to override a mayoral veto in a rare rebuke to Bloomberg.

The City Council voted unanimously yesterday to override a mayoral veto of the Outsourcing Accountability Act today — taking a stand against outsourcing and the mayor, too.

The bill, dubbed a “no-brainer” by Councilmembers, aims to save the city money and keep contracts with city workers. It was passed unanimously in October by the Council , but the Mayor vetoed it last month saying that it keeps the city from getting the best deal for their money.

Keeping The Work In-House

“The bill asks, ‘can the service be provided more cheaply by city workers?’” Council Speaker Christine Quinn said during the stated meeting. “If the answer is yes, why would we possibly contract it out?”

The bill 624-A will require the City to perform cost benefit analyses for some outsourcing contracts, give public notice of planned service contracts to allow for more competition and bidding, and if possible at a cheaper rate, award the contracts to city employees.

The vote continues the Council’s departure from their ordinarily cooperative relationship with the Mayor, which was kicked off last week when Quinn announced that the Council would sue the Bloomberg administration over a policy requiring people to prove their homeless status before receiving shelter.

Quinn, who is leading this move, is a likely mayoral candidate in the upcoming election; Bloomberg has seen as approval ratings slip as his third term drags to a close.

Contracts Under Fire

The city has come under fire this fall for a lack of oversight in city contracts, leading to fraud and hiked prices. The Department of Education was overcharged by at least 6.5 million by an outside firm, the city’s special commissioner of investigation recently found. And who can forget the notorious CityTime, a payroll system which was supposed to prevent fraud, but ended up costing the city $760 million dollars and leading to a federal criminal investigation?

“Unwise” and Unconstitutional?

The Bloomberg administration has argued that private contractors can deliver services more cheaply than city workers, though Quinn is quick to note that the bill increases oversight, it doesn’t stop the city from hiring private companies if indeed the service comes cheaper.

When he vetoed the bill, Bloomberg said that adding such an oversight process creates inefficiency and red tape. “My administration has sought to work with the Council to strike the proper balance between accountability and efficiency in the City’s procurement process,” the Mayor wrote in a statement. “Unfortunately, this bill goes further than past efforts and crosses from the questionable to the clearly unwise and impermissible.”

Bloomberg has also questioned such a bill’s constitutionality, which may bring the whole matter to court, though a mayoral spokesman wouldn’t comment on that yesterday.

New Digs

The vote was among the first legislation passed in the recently renovated Council Chamber, which has been upgraded and preserved as part of a larger $119 million dollar City Hall renovation.

“The roofs are no longer falling in,” Council Speaker Christine Quinn said with a laugh inside the Council Committee chamber, where she recalled plaster had fallen from the ceiling during Committee meetings earlier this spring.

The Council used a temporary gathering space in the Emigrant Savings Bank Building for the past five months.

The Council Chamber itself, amongst other upgrades, has refinished and polished wood paneling and new curtains (which lack the binder clips Quinn said had held them before — “Nothing says dignified government like a binder clip,” she said with a laugh.) The building is also being brought up to code, extending an elevator to the third floor to make it handicap accessible, and installing a sprinkler system. It is the first significant construction of City Hall in more than a half-century; renovations are expected to be complete by 2012, in time for the building’s 200th anniversary.

Going Green

“Speaking of Green…” Quinn quipped, referring to the new green paint in Council offices below the Chamber, the city will be getting ‘greener’ thanks to several pieces of legislation passed in today’s stated meeting — notably, the Council approved the first Energy Neutral school. The school, which will be built on Staten Island in the Rossville/Woodrow section, will have 444 seats and will open in 2015.

Three other code additions will also keep the city from polluting its water, land, and air: the first prohibits water used to rinse concrete off equipment at construction sights from being disposed in the sewer system; the second will increase the use of recycled asphalt, and the third requires additional filters in heating and air conditioning systems in new buildings.

New MTA Chair Faces First Test in Labor Relations


participatory budgeting
Transit Worker Union members get their message out in past years.

The contract negotiations between the Metropolitan Transportation Authority and Transport Workers Union Local 100 TWU, which began last monthseem poised to widen the rift in the already strained relationship between the agency and the union representing some 34,000 bus and subway workers.

Certainly the talks – along with the agency's budget crunch – represent two huge and interrelated challenges for newly named MTA executive director Joseph Lhota. Lhota's efforts to cope with the agency's budget crunch rely to a great extent on how much he can or cannot get from the union. The authority wants workers, whose contract expires Jan. 15, to agree to a three-year pay cut and reportedly also is seeking to cut employees health care costs. For now—at least publicly – the union has rejected both ideas.

Much has changed since the union struck, shutting down the transit system for three days right before Christmas in 2005. The agency's financial system has gotten worse and two new people will face each other across the negotiating table.

Pay and Benefits

As they began their negotiations in November, the union and the transportation authority confronted two familiar issues: health care benefits and wages.

Health care will be a key issue during contract negotiations, according to Jim Gannon, head of communications for the TWU. The union plans to oppose any proposed increase in out-of-pocket healthcare payments and or the termination of members' healthcare plans.

The fight over healthcare is not new. In September, the TWU filed a grievance with an arbitrator over the MTA cutting healthcare for members, a move the union says violated its previous contract. The TWU alleged that the MTA has saved $40 million by finding new healthcare providers that require workers to pay more for the plan, while reducing coverage.

"There are issues with prescriptions, issues with hospital stays. There is an across the board effort by the MTA to nickel and dime transit workers to death," said Samuelsen.

The issues with healthcare come as the two sides ended a bitter battle over wage hikes. During the last contract negotiations, the transit authority refused to pay wage increases as a way to save $300 million in operating costs. The issue went to an arbitration panel, which awarded the workers a hike of about 11.5 percent over the three years of the contract. The MTA at the time didn't include any wage increases in its budget It then went to court to try to block the increase, but the judge found for the workers and the pay raise went through.

At the time, the MTA said flatly that it could not afford the pay hikes, which it said could cost the cash-strapped agency $200 million a year by this year. In a statement issued after a court upheld the raise, the agency said, " “The ruling will have severe financial impacts on the M.T.A. budget, coming on the heels of a state budget cut and reduction in payroll tax proceeds.”

This time around the MTA has said it will agree to pay hikes only if the union makes concession to offset the additional cost. "They can have an increase in their wages as long as we get work rule changes or other contributions to reduce the cost in the budget to zero," Robert Foran, the authority's chief financial officer, told Crain's.

Samuelsen, though has dismissed the idea of the proposed three-year wage freeze -- even though other public employee union have agreed to forego wage hikes. "NYC Transit workers are not agreeing to the wage freezes that other unions have. Neither transit workers, nor any other public sector workers caused the economic downturn," Samuelsen said in an online letters to workers. "NY state needs to look toward the investment bankers and Wall Street swindlers who caused this crisis to balance the budget, rather than to the hard working families of the Transport Workers Union."

The TWU also criticized the MTA for once again not calculating pay raises in its 2012 preliminary budget. The financial plan released by the agency in July calls for a wage freeze and for fare and toll hikes in 2015.

A New Beginning?

Lhota's appointment marks the end of a bitter relationship between the union and his predecessor, Jay Walder. According to Gannon, Walder's decision to try to dictate day-to-day operations strained the relationship between rank and file workers and leadership.

"The relationship with the MTA was terrible when Walder was there. His attitude was my way or no way. He had an agenda that we viewed as an anti-worker, anti-union agenda and an anti passenger agenda," said Gannon. "His whole thing was technology and the capital program. ... He didn't believe that the system needed people and he went after the station agents and the cleaners."

Throughout his tenure, Walder and the TWU fought over healthcare contributions and pay raises as well as the layoffs of rank-and [file transit workers. According to Gannon, 927 TWU members were laid off during Walder's tenure, the majority of them were cleaners or station agents.

When Walder announced his resignation after two years, Samuelsen released a letter criticizing his leadership. "Transit workers won't miss Jay Walder and quite frankly will be glad to see him go," it said.

Almost as soon as Gov, Andrew Cuomo named Lhota to the post, John Samuelsen, president of TWU Local 100 sent a message out to Lhota, imploring him not to worsen the bitter labor relationship between the MTA and the union. In the message, Samuelsen harked back to 1999 contract negotiations where the Giuliani administration got a court order preventing union members from suggesting labor actions and saying the word "strike." Lhota served as a deputy mayor in the Giuliani administration.

"If Lhota wants to continue the policies of where Giuliani left off in 1999, then he's likely to have a problem with organized labor. If Lhota is looking to have a working relationship knowing that we are going to disagree on many issues, then that would be our choice, our preference,” said John Samuelsen of TWU Local 100.

Same Game, Different Players

Samuelsen, though, also has expressed optimism that labor-management relations will be better under Lhota than they were under Walder. Even before he took office in mid November, Lhota and Samuelsen met several times, according to Transportation Nation. And on his first day at the MTA, Lhota signed a letter with Samuelsen urging prosecutors to crack down on passengers who attack transit workers.

The letters reportedly was Lhota's idea. “For the workers to see that Lhota actually seems to care about them, that will go a long way,” Gannon told a reporter.

Lhota bolstered that impression when contract talks began Nov. 15 and he told the assembled union members that authority's employees were its "most valuable resource." The workers reportedly roared in response.

And at the end of the initial meeting, Samuelsen asked his members "to show respect for the bosses who are walking out of here right now."

As for the union, Gannon pointed out that Samuelsen's relationship with union members is different than that of former TWU Local 100 President Roger Toussaint. While praising Toussaint's leadership, Gannon says that Samuelsen is more in touch with the daily needs of the workers.

"John is far more of a blue-collar grass roots guy than Roger was. His contact with members is on a daily basis, he has tremendous one-on-one relationships with the members. He's more keenly interested in what the members needs are on a daily basis, their working conditions,” said Gannon.

To the relief of transit rider, Gannon said the TWU does not intend to initiate any action similar to the two-day strike in December of 2005. In the years since then, he said, the union has tried to improve its public image. "The TWU has been initiating publicity events to get its message out and to advocate for rider quality issues," he said. "I think we lost some ground after the strike in 2005, and ' tough building it back up, the confidence and the credibility, and strike is the last thing on [Samuelsen's] mind.”

Along with the contract talks, Gannon said, the TWU is focused on its online petition to urge the MTA to develop a rat eradication program, its early support for the Occupy Wall Street protests, and its advocacy for the continuation of the state's millionaires tax.

“The whole outreach through free media, the outreach through communities and supportive activities through other events and to show people that the transit workers are not the enemies. Were not money hungry greedy union thugs,” said Gannon.

New Program Lets Taxpayers Do More than Gripe About City Spending


participatory budgeting
Residents of Councilmember Jumaane Williams' district in Flatbush met in October to review ideas about how he should spend his discretionary funding.

From the Occupy protestors to millions expressing disgust with debt ceiling debacle, many American are angry about how the government spends money,. something most of them have little control over outside the polling booth. Now, four New York City Council members are trying to change this and give residents a direct say in where the funding goes, at least on a local level.

"I walk down my street every day, wishing I could do something about the conditions," said Ali Abdul Rahman, a resident of Brooklyn’s 39th district, who is getting the opportunity to do some budget . "Well, now there is."

Under the plan, resident volunteers take ideas from residents of their community and work with their council member to come up with a budget plan for capital projects. This will affect only the pot of money -- often castigated as pork -- that members get to allocate to their communities as they see fit. It will not apply to expense items, just money for new building or equipment or improvements to facilities. And so far only four of 51 council member are participating: Brad Lander of District 39, Jumaane Williams of District 45 in Brooklyn, Eric Ulrich of District 32 and Melissa Mark-Viverito of District 8.

Most districts will allocate about a million dollars to the project though the exact amount of available discretionary will be determined by the council speaker, in the spring. Districts can usually count on several million each, some of which is already allocated to ongoing projects.

The participatory plan faces the challenge of involving the community and educating people about how budgeting works. However, proponents of the program say that participatory budgeting enhances democracy on a local level, improves the relationship between elected officials and their constituents, educates the public about local government processes and can boost the popularity of elected officials.

Born in Brazil

Participatory budgeting originally started in the Brazilian town of Porto Allegre 20 years ago. It then spread through much of Latin America, Europe and elsewhere, according to Josh Lerner of the Participatory Budgeting Project, a nonprofit organization, which tries to advance the practice in new areas. He said that the program exists in over 1,000 cities worldwide, in one form or another.

New York is only the second place in the United States to try participatory budgeting after Chicago's 49th Ward represented by Alderman Joe Moore. The program was very popular there, according to Betsy Vandercook, Moore's chief of staff.

It already is gaining ground among New Yorkers. "This is definitely the most popular thing we've done," said Alex Moore, Lander’s chief of staff.

Listening to the Public

The process involves many steps -- and many meetings. first, the elected officials reach out to their constituents and invite them to large town hall meetings that anybody from the district can attend. There, residents get together into groups and brainstorm ideas on how to improve the district and take care of the most glaring flaws.

Suggestions range from practical ones like fixing sidewalks and improving trash collection to outlandish ones like buying a gondola for the Gowanus Canal or winterizing a playground by putting it under a science fiction style retractable, transparent dome.

Around 100 community members then volunteer to be delegates and do the research needed to assemble these suggestions into feasible proposals. These delegates work together to weed out the totally unworkable plans, while grouping the workable ideas into categories, with the help of the council member's staff. The delegates then split into groups based on their area of interest, such as public health, safety and sanitation.

The delegates in each subgroup will then meet between five and ten times before March 2012. They also will need to spend some of their free time researching the city's many rules and regulations to understand what each project requires. Because they have a finite budget, delegates are encouraged to look for ways to get the most out for the least amount of money.

By spring, the committees will have selected their favorite ideas and, together with the council member, fleshed them out enough to go on a ballot. The elected officials will then gather their constituents' ideas and hold a district-wide vote where the public chooses which projects will get priority. This will allow the discretionary budget to be spent according to the will of the residents.

Everyone in the district 18 years of age or older can vote, regardless of whether he or she is a registered voter or a citizen living in the district. (People can serve as delegates when they are 16 or 17.)

"I had no knowledge [of the process] before, this is why I got involved, I see flaws and they don’t get fixed," said Rahman. "But I started to understand bureaucracy and why it takes so long."

A Lesson in Government

As they work through the process, residents come to appreciate just how difficult it is to make a working budget. At a 39th district environmental delegates' meeting, the group discussed ways to improve trash pickup and recycling, keeping in mind what the Department of Sanitation is and is not authorized to do, and adhere to the rules on what discretionary spending and capital money can and can't buy. This is hardly a trivial task for people with limited bureaucratic experience, many of whom have full-time jobs.

Participatory budgeting also requires extra effort on the part of council staff as they supervise the delegates and try to make sure all members of the community have the opportunity to participate. In Chicago, Vandercook said that the first year saw a disproportionate number of college-educated and white participants. The alderman’s staff has since improved its outreach, using word of mouth, online social networking and other tactics, so that people from a wider range of economic and ethnic groups have gotten involved.

In New York, the diversity of the participants may depend on the individual community. "The thing about our district is that it's extremely gerrymandered and diverse," said Trina Hickey from District 39. "So we get a good mix of people."

"A big part is community development," added Lerner. “Groups which ordinarily never work together, now do."

Proponents also say that participatory budgeting brings people closer to their elected officials. After three years of the program, Alderman Joe Moore has become "hugely" popular among participating residents, according to Vandercook, and his election victory margin rose significantly. Lerner said that in Brazil, mayors who instituted participatory budgeting were about 10 percent more likely to get re-elected than those who did not.

Alex Moore said that because the program is brand new, the council members expect to make mistakes. Each district will make adjustments so that the process better fits its needs. But overall, many participating residents are excited about the project and the transparency it can bring.

"We're not used to looking at other countries for ideas about democracy," said Lerner. "We think we know best, what can we possibly learn from Brazil? We should pay closer attention."

Showdown Looms over Living Wage Bill


living wage
Photo by RWDSU
Supporters of a living wage march in the Labor Day parade

Linda Archer, 58, spent years working double shifts as a nurse's assistant at St. Luke's-Roosevelt Hospital while she was a single mother.

But since the recession hit, finding a job has not been easy. Archer moved into her mother's one-bedroom apartment to make ends meet, and after looking for a year for clerical work and doing temporary jobs, she finally found a permanent position as an hourly employee at McDonald's, where she earns $7.45 an hour.

"That's all I could find, I can't find anything else. It was the bottom -- rock bottom," she said.

Archer has an associate's degree from Elizabeth Seton College, now a part of Iona College*. She wants to go back to school but can't afford it -- there aren't scholarships for older people, she said, so she would have to take out student loans.

It is people like Archer -- and thousands of other New Yorkers with similar stories -- that some City Council members and activists say would benefit from the Fair Wages for New Yorkers bill, now awaiting City Council action. A hearing on it will be held Tuesday, Nov. 22.

As Occupy Wall Street captures headlines and supporters, many paint the Living Wage bill as a legislative step toward helping the "99 percent." The bill falls short of some protesters' demands for a $20 dollar minimum wage, but supporters say it is a crucial -- and realistic -- step to help working New Yorkers rise above the poverty line.

What a 'Living Wage" Would Do

Most commonly called the Living Wage bill, the legislation would raise the hourly wages for jobs created in city-funded developments to $10 an hour with health benefits or $11.50 an hour without them. Studies show that that is what New Yorkers need to earn to stay out of poverty. The current minimum wage of $7.25 an hour, they say, forces many people who work to live in poverty.

Archer says she generally works about 30 hours a week -- she can-t find a full-time position -- and make $223 a week before taxes. That's just $10,728 a year. Under the living wage bill, if Archer found a job working the same number of hours in a development that is subsidized by the city and therefore covered under the bill, she would make an extra $92 a week for a total of $15,120 per year before taxes.

The requirement only would apply to future jobs in developments, such as shopping malls, that received a tax break or other subsidy from the city. Supporters say city tax dollars should go toward creating good jobs, not ones that keep people in poverty. Critics say the bill would kill jobs before they are even created.

The bill's current incarnation -- after a round of business-interest supported amendments -- now affects developments for the first 10 years after they receive any subsidies, and excludes manufacturing firms, companies with less than $5 million in annual revenue and those that receive less than $1 million in city subsidies.

Most say they can't predict how many jobs such a bill would affect -- estimates range from a few thousand jobs to many, many more.

The Lobbying Frenzy

The bill promises to be the focus of much debate at City Hall.

The Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union (RWDSU) has led the union lobbying efforts on behalf of the bill. Over the past year, the union has pushed the "argument that this is a pragmatic, common sense bill that will help working people, our local economy, and businesses in the city, Dan Morris, a spokesman for the union said. He said the union has arranged for civil rights leaders like Rev. Al Sharpton, other clergy, and constituents to lobby City Council leaders. A massive protest is planned for Monday, the day before the council hearing, at the Riverside Church.

The Manhattan Chamber of Commerce is leading the opposing lobbying efforts, bringing small business owners to meet with council members to discuss the effects of such a bill. The Real Estate Board of New York sent a letter to City Hall last week, charging that the bill would limit affordable housing and hurt efforts to expand and create businesses in underserved neighborhoods. The letter, organizers say, is the first part of a more aggressive campaign to fight the living wage bill.

Both sides have cited wildly conflicting studies on the effects of the bill in New York City. Amid all the arguments, though, the fate of the measure rests largely on the shoulder of one person: City Council Speaker Christine Quinn.

Quinn's Quandary

As the bill awaits action, people on both sides are waiting to see what Quinn will do.

"If she supports it, it'll pass, and I believe it'll even override the mayor's veto," said Councilmember Oliver Koppell, who is the bill's lead sponsor. "If she doesn't, it won't."

Mayor Michael Bloomberg, as Koppell noted, is expected to veto the bill if it passes; he has long opposed living wage legislation and recently compared it to communism. The bill currently has 30 out of 51 City Council members signed on as co-sponsors. Nothing in City Council, though, comes to a vote without Quinn's backing.

For Quinn, a likely mayoral candidate in 2012, the vote is a tricky one. To kill the bill by not calling it to a vote, as she did last year with a bill requiring that workers in the city get some paid sick days, would lose her supporters on the left; to support it would cost her votes from business owners. A former housing activist, Quinn has widely been seen as generally siding with Bloomberg in an effort to get his support and that of the business community. But she has occasionally strayed from that supporting measures to rein in city contracts, for example, or lashing out at the city's plan to tighten eligibility for homeless shelters.

So far Quinn is not tipping her hand. Pressed repeatedly on the issue at a press conference earlier this fall, she refused to comment on the specific legislation or the general concept of a living wage.

Bad for Business?

While supporters of the living wage say they have tried to address some of business' concerns and perhaps win Quinn's support -- business owners still vehemently oppose the bill.

"It's as bad as bad can possibly be," said Robert Schwartz, 70, who owns three shoe stores in Manhattan and Queens with 49 employees overall and salaries that range from minimum wage to $100,000 a year. Only four or five people make less than the living wage in Schwartz's stores -- Eneslow, The Foot Comfort Center -- but he said that this bill will still hurt his bottom line and his ability to expand.

"Nobody else has the level of taxes and cost of doing business we have here. There are fees to put signs up, you've got to pay to take care of the disabled," he said. "If there's going to be one more layer of costs we're going to have to add on, the chance that we're going to open up new stores is virtually non-existent."

Dueling Studies

CUNY professor and labor scholar Stephanie Luce has spent 16 years studying the living wage. She has written books and papers, and conducted in-depth studies on the effects of similar legislation as enacted in cities all over the country. "We've yet to find an employer who stood up and said 'yes, this hurt my job,'" she said. "If it was there, we would have been able to find it.

In some cities studied, like New Orleans and Los Angeles, the wage increases amounted to an average of less than 1 percent of each firm's overall operating costs. Santa Monica reported a 1.5 percent hike in operating expenses, which Luce said was one of the highest hikes in the cities she studied.

None of the thousands of employers surveyed in affected cities said the law affected their plans to expand, Luce said. "I have heard firms make this claim more generally, during a campaign, but found none that said [this] after the ordinance was in place," she said.

In her studies, Luce compared cities with living wage ordinances to those without and said she found little differences in job creation and business sustainability in the two groups of cities.

"There's lot of examples of firms who say they can't make it, but once they're mandated to, they do it and they can survive, she said.

Additionally, some firms reported transitioning part-time jobs into full-time jobs so they could to pay the lower living wage and give benefits to fewer people. This, the report found, led to higher worker morale and more productive employees.

Business owners like Schwartz say other cities' experiences are irrelevant -- New York is different and more expensive.

The Bloomberg administration sides with them. The Economic Development Corp. commissioned a $1 million study by David Neumark, that found enormous potential losses for New York businesses if the living wage were implemented.

Neumark has a long history of opposing the living wage, and Luce and other academics have criticized the methodology, data used, and findings. Supporters of the living wage complain of bias.

Raising Pay

Businesses, though, back his findings. Nancy Ploeger, the president of the Manhattan Chamber of Commerce, worries about the effects on blossoming entrepreneurs looking to start franchises. "No one is going to open a Subway if they have to pay $11.50 an hour, she said.

Mike Veneziano, the vice president of finance for Doherty Enterprises, a company that owns 50 Panera and Applebee's restaurants in New York, agreed. Doherty has a dozen new restaurants in the works, but he is worried about the legislation's possible effect on where to put those restaurants and their viability.

"We're really worried about it, and we're worried it's going to deter us from opening future locations and worried it will hurt existing businesses," said Cathy Coughlin, Doherty's vice president of human resources said. She said that most employees make more than minimum wage, but to start entry-level employees off at $10 or $11.50 an hour would mean the company would have to raise wages for long-term employees, too. "Restaurant operating profits are really minimal, so to shave away even more costs in this economy is a big concern to us," Veneziano said.

Luce said she accounted for what she calls a "ripple effect," where employers have to hike pay for employees earning more than the living wage to maintain wage scales internally. In Santa Monica, which was one of the hardest hit cities she studied, both the living wage hike and the ripple effect hikes accounted for 1.8 percent of average firms' overall operating costs.

Inside that average, however, restaurants felt the ordinance particularly strongly. They saw operating costs rise by an average of 10.2 percent.

Archer, meanwhile, is hopeful about her future despite the recession. "My son is grown up, so I can branch out. Now it's time for me," she said.

Before she can do that, she wants to find her own place. I live at home with Mom, we all know how that is, she said. As for school, she said she'd like to do a law degree, but first she needs to complete a bachelor's degree: I want to start small, even if I just get the pre-law. Just to get back there it's a start."

In the meantime, she hopes the speaker will vote for the bill: "We're looking to Christine Quinn to be that deciding vote. She can say, 'this is needed.'"



Print Friendly and PDF

Editor's Choice


Gotham Gazette: New York Voters Approve $4.2 Billion Environmental Bond Act
New York Voters Approve $4.2 Billion Environmental Bond Act
Gotham Gazette: 
New York City Voters Approve Racial Justice Ballot Measures
New York City Voters Approve Racial Justice Ballot Measures
Gotham Gazette: 
Housing Development in New York City Slows to a Crawl as Officials Debate Tax Incentives
Housing Development in New York City Slows to a Crawl as Officials Debate Tax Incentives
Gotham Gazette: 
City Council Examines Low Voter Turnout, Moving Local Elections to Even Years City Council Examines Low Voter Turnout, Moving Local Elections to Even Years