Proponents of the Living Wage proposal returned to Providence City Council last week, this time with a revised plan that would pay city workers $10.19 per hour, down from the $12.30 in the original proposal. The latest proposal also contains additional compromises, including a reduction in health insurance payments to be made by the employers.
If adopted, the Living Wage would increase the hourly pay of the lowest-paid city employees as well as employees of businesses that have municipal contracts, and those that have received tax breaks or government subsidies.
A Living Wage could directly harm businesses that now employ the very people the proposal aims to benefit.
Seifert Systems Invests in Energy Efficiency to Strengthen Operations
For manufacturers, energy is more than just another operating expense. It plays a critical role…
Learn More
These are difficult times, particularly for small businesses running on the tightest of margins. The enactment of a Living Wage would boost the incomes of some – but it would also eliminate entirely, the incomes of others.
Laurie White, senior vice president of operations at the Greater Providence Chamber of Commerce, said the Chamber "unequivocally opposes the amended version" of the Living Wage proposal.
"It will be a burden on the taxpayers of the city of Providence…," she said. "For a city with myriad fiscal challenges, we don’t think it would be a prudent course of action."
No, a Living Wage would not be prudent.
Remember, while the Providence City Council may have the authority to enact a wage requirement for city employees and employees of city vendors, it does not have the authority to mandate that private businesses employ or retain a set number of workers.
Small businesses have options if they are mandated to pay a Living Wage. They can reduce their payroll by firing workers. They can cease doing business with the city. Or they can pass on the cost of doing business with the city to the taxpayers of Providence.
