The other problem I have with this law is that collectively we have been misleading with our constituency—and frankly, the press has done a very poor job of exposing these misconceptions and explaining the details of the specific piece of legislation before us.  The laws that this law was to be fashioned after, the laws from San Francisco and Santa Fe are much different laws than the law that we passed. They apply across the board. In addition, they are not vulnerable to a legal attack because the benefits portion of the law is incentive-based and not mandated.

Despite what we have been led to believe, the Santa Fe law, which applies to all businesses employing more than 25 employees, requires a living wage of $10.50 an hour but allows health and day care benefits to be deducted from this living wage. Rather than being a living wage and benefits ordinance, it is in fact a living wage less benefits package. If the Santa Fe employer chooses to provide benefits to their employee, then they get to deduct that cost from the employee’s wages.

San Francisco has a minimum wage law that requires a minimum wage of $8.50. San Francisco also has a living wage ordinance that is very similar to the ordinance we passed several years ago that requires many companies that do business with the city and at the airport to pay their employees a living wage. They have an additional ordinance that was passed in July that provides broad health benefits.  They have, in other words, an assortment of tools that have been passed over time independent of each other and crafted to fit their particular economic climate and realities.

That is very different than what we have before us today.