Posted on 06/25/2004 4:52:15 AM PDT by JesseHousman
SANTA FE— In a decision that could set a precedent both statewide and nationally, a New Mexico state court judge has upheld Santa Fe's "living wage" law that requires businesses with at least 25 workers to pay workers $8.50 an hour.
District Judge Daniel Sanchez's ruling— after nearly two months of deliberation— was announced Thursday and put the city's controversial minimum-wage law into effect immediately. Businesses opposed to the law are expected to appeal.
Sanchez held in his decision that the living wage measure, which the Santa Fe City Council approved in a 7 to 1 vote in February 2003, passed state and federal constitutional muster and that the requirement of higher wages doesn't represent illegal "takings" by government.
"It's a very important decision," said Santa Fe City Attorney Bruce Thompson, "for Santa Fe and other cities trying to adopt a living wage."
Santa Fe is one of a handful of cities— including San Francisco and Madison, Wis.— with living-wage measures that apply broadly in the private sector. About 100 other cities and counties nationally have their own minimum wage laws that apply only to businesses with city contracts.
In December, Sanchez imposed a temporary injunction prohibiting the law from taking effect until the District Court challenge was decided. The trial portion of the case ended in April.
Thompson said businesses must start paying an $8.50-per-hour minimum wage now. The law also calls for a $9.50-an-hour minimum wage rate in January 2006 and $10.50 an hour in January 2008. The current federal minimum wage is $5.15 an hour.
"Today's ruling confirms that cities have broad powers to protect low-wage workers in their communities," said Paul Sonn, an attorney for New York University's Brennan Center for Justice who worked pro-bono for the city on the case. "I think we'll see more cities following Santa Fe's lead."
Two Santa Fe restaurant owners who sued the city over the wage law said they would conform to its requirements for now.
"I've always adhered to the municipal and state laws. But it's too bad," said San Francisco Street Bar & Grill owner Robbie Day. "... I have 128 workers, and all of their well-beings are compromised by this."
Day joined other local restaurant owners, hotel managers and Santa Fe businesses in a group called New Mexicans for Free Enterprise to challenge the law in court.
Elizabeth Draiscol, owner of the Zia Diner, said, "We certainly don't intend to be in violation of the law. But we are planning to appeal and, quite frankly, we hope we can get an injunction in place."
If measure opponents can go to court and get a "stay" of the ordinance pending appeal, the living-wage requirements could be put on hold again.
T. Glenn Ellington, attorney for the businesses that challenged the ordinance, said further discussion is necessary before a final decision is made on an appeal.
There is also a separate federal court challenge to the living-wage law, filed by the Santa Fe franchise of Coca-Cola, that is still pending.
At a news conference, City Councilor Matthew Ortiz, the ordinance's main sponsor, said he hoped businesses would not continue their court challenge "but instead use that money they spend on the lawsuit to pay their workers."
The ordinance leaves it up to the city manager's office to enforce the measure. Ortiz said city officials are determining exactly how enforcement should work.
"We need to meet as soon as possible to get enforcement mechanisms in place," Ortiz said.
Councilor David Coss, a co-sponsor of the law, called businesses fighting the law "the enemies of workers" during a Thursday morning radio interview. During the news conference, Coss stood by those comments.
"Well, I think throwing up roadblock after roadblock after roadblock is an anti-worker mentality," Coss said.
Businesses and the Santa Fe Chamber of Commerce maintained that the ordinance unconstitutionally interfered with the employer-employee "civil relationship," that it violated equal protection rights by applying only to businesses with at least 25 employees and amounted to an illegal taking of their property.
Sanchez said the businesses "failed to show that the ordinance would have the kind of negative effect on their businesses" that they claimed. He also said the businesses couldn't have had a "reasonable expectation" that the minimum wage wouldn't be raised at some point by federal, state or local government.
...City Councilor Matthew Ortiz, the ordinance's main sponsor, said he hoped businesses would not continue their court challenge "but instead use that money they spend on the lawsuit to pay their workers."
Politicians, like these weasels, need to keep their greasy hands off small businesses and steer away from raising the minimum wage!
This is Kerry's plan after "election": to raise the minimum wage!
Why not raise it to $20, $50, or even to the level that senators make?
This proves, if quoted correctly, these meddling imbeciles aree clueless:
He also said the businesses couldn't have had a "reasonable expectation" that the minimum wage wouldn't be raised at some point by federal, state or local government.
That's right, stupid. They "couldn't have had an expectation that was reasonable that the meddling fed, state or local governments would be so ignorant of economic fact and consequences!
"Businesses opposed to the law are expected to appeal." if there is time before they go OUT of business.
There's a reason we call this place "Fanta Se"
It will be interesting to see it fall apart when the tourist dollars dry up.
Or at least out of Santa Fe, then New Mexico, then the U.S.
The $12.95 Taco dinner just went up to $24.95.
Already having a reputation for exhorbitantly high prices, I fail to see how this helps anyone.
These "living wage" proponents are nothing short of parasites. Too many of them will ultimately kill the host.
Well, it's like the sponsor of the bill stated: Businesses should start paying the increased wages out of the money they would have spent for litigation.
The glass ceiling on growth will now be 24 employees.
That's why you're not a liberal, my FRiend.
Wait til you see a robot passing out the taco salad out the Taco Bell drive up window and then you'll know it's all over.
The two people who claimed that both of those points were invalid were Michael Savage and Bob Brinker from Money Talks. I am *not* a fan of Michael Savage, but this still surprised me. But, Bob Brinker has always stuck me as being fairly conservative. Maybe I'm wrong about that.
Is there a place to get stats on the two points I mentioned above?
Well, how about a minimum house, a minimum car, a minimum dinner, a minimum pair of shoes.
All the city needs now is an ordinance to prevent businesses from laying off workers whose skills aren't worth $8.50 per hour, and another ordinance to prevent them from not hiring any such person in the future. Good luck, guys.
Communities have broad powers to prevent low productivity workers from working in their communities.
I've read reams of information over the years about what happens after the federales jack up the miniumum wage. It leads to layoffs of these low wage earners and contributes to the total numbers of teenagers who are unable to find work. The number of unemployed black teenagers is over 40% and much of that can be traced to the minimum wage being hiked by poltical edict.
Actually most of what is done by low paid workers in in a fast food franchise can be done by low maintenance machines. A McD could probably be handled by one attending employee. Everything else could be done with slots and dollar bill readers and assembly lines and automativc microwaves.Santa Fe's MW law might allow the surviving franchises to pave the way for the whole country, then the world.
If I promise not to sue you, will you send me $1,000? It'll save you the price of a lawyer.
This cuts two ways.
The poor will not get hired, and the ones who are "qualified" to do the work at that rate will now get less than what they could elsewhere.
It deprives the lower wage earner and higher at the same time.
Ahhh, Socialism. Ya gotta love it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.