NYC Living Wage Bill Heads to Court

quinn.jpeg
City Council Speaker Christine Quinn is looking forward to the court showdown against Bloomberg.
'Living' sounds much better than 'minimum.'

When Council Speaker Christine Quinn announced the introduction of a 'living' wage bill, Mayor Bloomberg compared the gesture to Soviet statism in April, arguing that "the last time we really had a big managed economy was the USSR, and that didn't work out well." 

Unfortunately for him, the rest of the City Council didn't see eye-to-eye on his shrieks of socialism: in June, the City Council overrode Mayor Bloomberg's veto on a bill that would establish what has been called a 'living' wage, which would pay any worker in a firm that receives city subsidies at least $10 an hour with benefits or $11.50 without benefits. The margin against the Hozziner was indeed vast: the veto was thrown out in a 46-5 vote.

But the bill that resulted was much more watered down than the original idea: in it, firms had to receive over $1 million in subsidies and make over $5 million all together in revenue every year to qualify. Now, the 'big managed economy' that Bloomberg warned against only affects about 400 to 500 people.

Regardless, the Mayor's office is still taking the legislation to court.

The lawyers for the City filed a suit with the Manhattan Supreme Court yesterday on the basis that the 'living' wage bill infringed upon national and state laws of minimum wage. Also, they argued that the bill interferes with Bloomberg's executive privilege to negotiate economic deals. According to the Mayor, the bill threatens businesses, especially industrial firms, real estate developers and a whole slew of contractors.

The City Council is fighting fire with fire, assuring it will meet the Mayor in court over the bill. As of now, the bill is deemed to take effect in late September. In a statement, Christine Quinn vented her frustration over the Mayor's decision to sue the legislative branch of Gotham - a move that hasn't happened in years:

"It is disappointing that the mayor has chosen to challenge these laws rather than enforce them. The Council stands by this legislation, and we look forward to proving our case in court."

While the powers-that-be strive to bring legal matters into the situation, the workers on minimum wage are still living in this expensive city on $7.25 an hour. And Lord knows how much Bloomberg makes in a single day on the job. Anyway, it looks as if we've got ourselves a court showdown on our hands come fall.

[jsurico15@gmail.com/@JSuricz]


Advertisement

My Voice Nation Help
7 comments
frank124c
frank124c topcommenter

You would think the rich Bloomberg would be in favor of working people earning a decent salary so that they could spend their money on goods and services in NYC and the city would then be able to get sales taxes. Also by giving more money to workers who would then spend it the result would be that the stores would put on more workers who would then have money to spend and further improve the economy. Keynesian economics does work.

frank124c
frank124c topcommenter

Why do the rich people not want to allow poor people to earn a decent living?

Joe_Blow
Joe_Blow

<I>And Lord knows how much Bloomberg makes in a single day on the job.</I>

 

Isn't he forgoing the salary he's entitled to as mayor?

smallchange
smallchange

 @frank124c No, he only wants to dictate what they can buy with whatever little money they make.

Stevart
Stevart

 @frank124c NO, WRONG, what happens is that goods and services' prices rise proportionally as there is MORE money to be spent.  It's called INFLATION which is what this will lead to.  It's a recipe for economic disaster to the max.  And the analogy to the Soviet Union is perfect as the only way to regulate this type of run-a-way inflation would simply be to have people receive NO wage and just have the government "give" them the goods and services that they need.  You want to wait in line for hours for the exact pair of cardboard shoes as the next prole?  At least then you'll be EQUAL.   AHHHHHHHHH!

boyhell.flower
boyhell.flower

 @Stevart WRONG. We are not talking a large enough difference in increase of revenue spending to come anywhere close to causing inflation in NYC. But it will give more disposable income for people to stimulate the economy.  What is it with you foaming at the mouth anti communist kool aid drinkers.  Giveaways for the top .5% is all fine.  But helping the middle class is always like pulling teeth.  Just who in the hell is dictating this compensatory value system system anyway?  To those who need to take it all.  I've got an idea?  Let's stimulate the economy by lowering the minimum wage to $3 per hour.  Why not?  it's capitalism?  Whatever the market will bear right?  Ugggh.  ANYTHING FOR THE DOLLA.

Stevart
Stevart

 @boyhell.flower They are not give a ways to the top .5%, they've earned it and will if allowed will invest it to create jobs and wages (for the middle class) based on reality, not delusional thinking.  Where you tax the rich you destroy the economy, even Nanny Bloomberg understands that.  Why don't you move to California or states that have implemented "living wage" and see the destruction that and high taxes causes.  Re kool aid, perhaps you're pointing the wrong end of the stick, boyhell flower. 

Now Trending

New York Concert Tickets

From the Vault

 

Loading...