Now
Fair
34°
High
51°
Low
29°
Full Forecast

Jobs

Cars

Homes

Rentals

Alerts

Subscribe
Home > News > Local
Bookmark Us   •   Make Us Your Homepage

3 nonprofits come out against living wage exemption

Comments 22 comment(s)  
E-mail Story E-mail Story
Print Story Print Story
Share  Share
Text Size: 
Tools Sponsor

By the Lincoln Journal Star

Saturday, Nov 17, 2007 - 12:56:16 am CST

A group of nonprofit leaders has  banded together to oppose changes the City Council will consider making to the city’s living wage ordinance on Monday.

The ordinance requires companies with at least 10 employees and city contracts worth at least $25,000 to pay full-time employees a minimum hourly salary that’s adjusted annually. This year, it’s $9.93 per hour if the employer provides health insurance benefits, $10.92 if it doesn’t.

Councilman Jon Camp introduced legislation that would exempt non-profits from the wage requirement.

Story Photo

On Friday, St. Monica’s, Matt Talbot Kitchen & Outreach and Nebraska Appleseed came out against Camp’s amendment, saying nonprofits should lead by example by paying “non-poverty wages.”

In a press release, Mary Barry-Magsamen, executive director of St. Monica’s, said they serve low-income families every day and believe in the ordinance for their clients and employees.

St. Monica’s provides substance abuse and mental health treatment for women.

Matt Talbot doesn’t get enough city funding to be subject to the living wage ordinance, but voluntarily pays all its employees a living wage, according to Executive Director Susanne Blue. In the statement, Blue said it’s important for nonprofits to support a living wage because their mission is to improve the quality of life for all people.


$1 Sunday Delivery - Subscribe Today!
Local > Back to Top of Story

Post Your Comment

Standards and Rules
All posts to JournalStar.com are subject to our Terms and Standards.
Your posted comment will appear after it has been approved.
Frequently asked questions about story commenting.
(optional)
   
Hide Comments Hide Comments   Newest First Newest First  
Big Raise wrote on November 17, 2007 2:21 am:
" Why not raise the minimum wage to 10 dollars per hour. That way, we can all live work a dozen hours a week and still have a ton of pocket cash. "

 Hank wrote on November 17, 2007 6:52 am:
" If over the past 40 years we had increased the federal minimum wage according to the consumer price index it would be $9.60 today, about equal to this proposed living wage. So, all in all, the living wage is a very reasonable proposal. Isn't it amazing that so many jobs around Lincoln now pay less than the minimum wage from 40 years ago! This is an indication of how our economy has been allowed to evolve to where the U.S. now has the most unequal distribution of income among all developed countries. The living wage is a blunt, but very necessary, tool for restoring some fairness to our sick economic system. Hopefully we will be smart enough to start electing leaders who will address the fundamental sources of the inequalities. "

 Heather wrote on November 17, 2007 7:16 am:
" Why should non-profit workers be expempt from a living wage? So they have to perpetuate the cycle and recieve services from the agencies they work for? Give me a break! Everyone deserves a living wage! "

 peb wrote on November 17, 2007 8:15 am:
" There are many huge nonprofit organizations, like hospitals. Does Camp's legislation include hospitals? Typical Camp stuff. Thank goodness for St. Monica's, Matt Talbot Kitchen and Nebraska Appleseed. "

 Small Wonder wrote on November 17, 2007 8:16 am:
" And people complained about that Camp cartoon. "

 JoBeth wrote on November 17, 2007 8:18 am:
" I wonder if Mr. Camp doesn't have his own agenda here....like not paying a living wage to his employees? Good for the non-profits, we must have a living wage to survive. "

 Chef wrote on November 17, 2007 11:02 am:
" Does anyone know what it's like to live on the pre-tax Living Wage of $10.92 ($22,000 dollars a year). One's choices of health care, gifts for children, daily meals, travel and other lufestyle options is pretty sparse. What was it that Marley's ghost said ??? Happy holidays. "

 Ummm Yeah, Chef wrote on November 18, 2007 12:38 am:
" I do!! I work for the State, and only make $9.84 an hour! Less than 22K a year. It sucks! "

 Get rid of Living Wage wrote on November 18, 2007 12:39 am:
" I would sincerely hope that the residents of Lincoln find a way to abolish this Living Wage nonsense. Economically speaking, it is a devastating idea. Wages are set by the supply of labor meeting the demand value of the service those employees are providing. Artificially increasing wages above this point will force employers (maybe not this year, but look out in the next few years) to fire their employees because they can't afford to pay them this artificially inflated wage. I am all for people emerging out of poverty levels, but not at the cost of all the workers who will be out of a job in the near future because their fellow employees now get $10/hour instead of $8/hour. "

 Doc wrote on November 18, 2007 7:04 am:
" Why $9.93 per hour? Why not $15.00 per hour, or $25.00 per hour, or $50.00 per hour? No, it's not ridiculous. Who says that employers have to pay any given amount. It is up to the employees to be worth a certain amount of money. If an employee is not earning enough money, it is their responsibility to become worth more. Good employees don't want a hand out, they are confident in their abilities and will study and learn how to make themselves more valuable, if not to a present employer, to others that recognize their worth. "

 Eric wrote on November 18, 2007 12:18 pm:
" "Artificially increasing wages above this point will force employers (maybe not this year, but look out in the next few years) to fire their employees because they can't afford to pay them this artificially inflated wage. I am all for people emerging out of poverty levels, but not at the cost of all the workers who will be out of a job in the near future because their fellow employees now get $10/hour instead of $8/hour." Do your homework. Cities that pass living wage ordinances don't have any of the problems you claim. You're just blinded by ideology, like Mr. Camp. "

 Get rid of Living Wage wrote on November 18, 2007 3:38 pm:
" Please read Scott Adams and David Neumarks' articles on the effects of living wage ordinances in American cities. Their work is recognized by the National Bureau of Economic Research, in case you think I am being "ideological." They say that many cities have experienced positive effects for the people whose wages have been raised (obviously), but that there WERE DETRIMENTAL EFFECTS ON EMPLOYMENT, SPECIFICALLY LOWERED EMPLOYMENT! Eric, I suppose it's a question of how you value net benefits...if you think 100 people getting $3 more per hour is worth the 10 people who lose their job because of it, then Lincoln should do it. If not (as I don't), then we should find other, more sustainable and economically beneficial ways of increasing the value of these employees' labor. "

 nemo wrote on November 18, 2007 7:24 pm:
" First of all, Doc, You hit the nail on the head. Second, if you have to pay your employee more money, will you actually take that loss out of your own pocket or will you raise the price of your service/product? I think we know the answer, a "living wage" costs everyone, including the recipients. "

 Ron wrote on November 18, 2007 8:10 pm:
" We need more organizations that think like St. Monica's and Matt Talbot. I agree with many things Mr. Camp does but I do not agree with his legislation to exempt non profits from paying decent wages. Mr. Camp please look at some of the wages city middle and upper management get paid instead of cutting direct services to the taxpayers though city programs or contracted city services. Do city employees really need that much supervision?? If so they probably should not have the jobs they do. "

 Go Ahead wrote on November 18, 2007 8:16 pm:
" These three busybody nonprofits are all free to pay their employees 100 dollars an hour if they wish. Why aren't they doing it? "

 Right Wing Wage wrote on November 18, 2007 10:18 pm:
" The City shouldn't be in the business of exploiting labor by paying substandard wages. It would be an embarrassment if our own City Gov contributed to the cycle of poverty by allowing contracts to pay low wages. People don't get paid what they deserve - - and to insinuate there is some merit in the wages people make is silly, i.e., Steve Pederson getting a buy out of his contract for 2 million dollars and a teacher making 30k. Sure, Pedey was in charge of an athletic dept that is largely about supporting itself, but how can you really compare that to the responsiblities of teachers? Or social service providers for that matter. Any anti living wage rhetoric is class warfare, I don't care which supposedly ideology neutral study you point too. Why do we have poverty? Because the middle class isn't geting paid enough. "

 Thank You "Right Wing Wage" wrote on November 18, 2007 11:39 pm:
" Thank you Right Wing Wage for your excellent post. Employers who do not want to pay the living wage do not need to accept contracts from the city. If they want a contract from the city, then they have to pay the wage. I don't want my city supporting the modern-American' equivalent of the sweatshop owners of the 19th Century. I guarantee those of you talking about the "economic effects" of these changes have no idea what it's like to raise a family on the wages that people in this city live on every day. The income-gap in this country is sickening and those people who benefit from it and actively work against other people improving their lives in simple ways like this are despicable and should be as ashamed of themselves as I'm ashamed that they're Americans. "

 Donate It Then wrote on November 19, 2007 12:06 am:
" Right Wing Wage is free to donate all their spare funds to the poor, but it's a safe bet that they keep that wallet shut. "

 Bandaid Solution wrote on November 19, 2007 2:34 am:
" After working in the non-profit, human service sector for most of my career, I fully understand the importance of liveable wages. However, our economic system is not designed to allow a change to be made in a vacuum. In other words, one change to the system will cause the system to adjust to those changes. Those adjustments may be raising prices of products to offset salaries, businesses going out of business, outsourcing labor, lay-offs creating more work for fewer employees, etc. Unfortunately, when such a change is made at the city level, these adjustments are compounded by the fact that consumers are able to go outside of the city of Lincoln to purchase products, therefore limiting the choices of adjustments businesses may make to remain viable. This being said, if the city is going to invoke an ordinance such as this, non-profits who are often the biggest proponents of such a measure, should not be exempt. To do so is hypocritical to the very argument for liveable wages. "

 Bah Humbug wrote on November 19, 2007 11:49 am:
" We're thinking of cutting living wages at Christmas time. What an Ebenezer thing to do. I hope the ghosts of Christmas past, present and future visit Mr. Camp. "

 Where's CenterPointe? wrote on November 20, 2007 8:14 am:
" Why is CenterPointe not supporting this along with the others?? "

 Living in poverty wrote on June 13, 2008 6:28 pm:
" I have worked for the State Of Nebraska for 5 years and I make $9.93 an hour. Benefits are getting worse and everything is going up in price so why not consider raising wages when everything else rises!! "

Ads by Yahoo!