Page 8 - the Noise April 2017

2017 MINIMUM WAGES IN THE SOUTHWEST (SOUrcE: NcSl.OrG)
The course of ProPosiTion 414 conTinues by PeTer WrighT
After a tumultuous start to a citywide minimum wage raise, near-simultaneously en- acted on top of an additional statewide raise, it seems as though Flagstaff citizens and government officials are decided on a compromise on a truly divisive issue.
On March 7th and March 21st, City Council meetings were held to determine the course of action for possible amendments to Proposition 414. City staff were tasked with finding amendments to Prop. 414 that both address citizen concerns of the possible economic harms raising wages so quickly may cause, while still furthering the intent of the initia- tive. Through legal counsel and deliberation by Flagstaff city staff, an initial draft of these amendments was presented for the first time to the public at the March 7th meeting.
The amendment, Ordinance 2017-08, essentially revises the timeline and amounts of ad- ditional minimum wage raises, adjusting the original $2 set to take effect in July to a 50¢ raise to $10.50 per hour, then to $11 on January 1st, 2018. The minimum wage would then continue to rise annually by $1, and $2 in the year 2021, to a total of $15.
Furthermore, Councilmember Eva Putzova proposed an additional raise in January of 2022 to 15.50, as well as moving the cost of living adjustments contained in Prop. 414 to the year 2023.
The ordinance is very similar in its methodology to a plan proposed by Bridging Flag- staff, a local organization that has the goal of amending proposition 414 to lower the July raises to levels they believe to be more sustainable than the $2 jump.
Both City Council meetings ended in supermajority votes in favor of enacting these amendments to Proposition 414, effectively stopping the $2 jump in July that caused a vast amount of public concern.
Councilmember Charlie Odegaard stated in the March 7th meeting that his vote in favor of further discussion on possible amendments was only to move the issue forward, and that he was still considering the options present. Mr. Odegaard then voted against amending the proposition on March 21st, citing the need to prioritize constitutionality over fairness on the matter.
Although originally opposed to amending Prop. 414, Councilmember Scott Overton voted in favor of amending, in order to create a supermajority and stop the $2 jump in July. “Obviously tonight was a pivotal vote, and as a veteran Councilmember I don’t like the
position I was put in,” Mr. Overton stated.
Messrs. Overton and Odegaard’s concerns lie within the legality of the actions of the City
Council, and the fears that amending a citizens’ initiative will lead to legal actions taken against the Council. These legal actions are centered around the Arizona Voter Protection Act. The legitimacy of legal actions taken upon the Council would be determined based on whether or not the amendments being made to Prop. 414 do actually further the intent of the original initiative, in accordance with the Voter Protection Act.
elevate Flagstaff, an organization made up of business owners, nonprofit organizations and citizens, proposed their own amendment plan to the Council. This plan would have been much more conservative in its approach, raising the wages annually to a total of $12.50 by the year 2022.
elevate Flagstaff spokesperson Rob Wilson expressed disapproval of the City Council’s actions on behalf of the local organization at the March 7th meeting: “we believe you’re gambling again if you do approve the amendment that no one will sue,” he said.
nineteen citizens addressed the Council at the March 7th meeting, many who work with the disabled community, as well as people who are disabled themselves. Matthew Wayne-
newsbriefs
man, a provider of direct care to people with disabilities, expressed his concerns at keeping Proposition 414 as a $2 raise in July rather than a more conservative increase: “if you don’t change Prop. 414, I don’t think I can live here any more.”
Multiple people concerned with the minimum wage’s direct effect on services for the disabled community cited that raising minimum wages would necessitate these service providers to relocate. According to several caregivers, as a result, the city of Flagstaff would have lost a collective annual income of $29 million from these service providers.
Although wage raises will effect how these direct care service providers function, the root issue lies within funding cuts that were made in 2008 during the recession, yet to be restored by the state legislature.
students are also concerned by the minimum wage raises, or the lack thereof, as all on- campus workers for Northern Arizona University were denied even the statewide raise, and remain at around an $8.15 per hour rate.
nAU is using a legal loophole to bypass the Flagstaff and state minimum wage raises, in order to continue paying the lower wage. This loophole can be found in the Arizona Fair Labor and Standards Act, specifically a section which defines employers in such a way that state institutions such as universities are not included in state minimum wage require- ments.
Although both Arizona state University and the University of Arizona soon raised wages parallel to state minimum, nAU was not so quick to follow suit. Many university workers are deeply worried by this fact, as raising wages will inevitably continue to increase everyday expenses and costs of living. with an hourly wage lower than the city of Flagstaff minimum, people in this situation are beginning to experience economic hardships in a shifting local economy.
Jamie McNair, a northern Arizona University graduate student in the criminology pro- gram, discussed in an interview the personal effects the lack of a raise has and will cause to her life:
“I work at Residence Life support services 20 hours per week, and I make $8.15 an hour. working 20 hours per week on $8.15 an hour is not sustainable. My paychecks are not enough to pay for rent, medical costs, or food. If it weren’t for the loan I had taken out and the help from my parents, I would not be able to go to school here. Over the summer, I’ll have to get a different job, and next year, I will take out a larger loan.”
everyone living in Flagstaff will inevitably experience a very tangible change to the city’s economy in the months leading up to and following the raises set to occur in July. Flagstaff residents, business owners, city staff and students, are all seeking an economy in which everyone can provide for themselves and their families. The key to a successful course of action is a reasonable compromise between all Flagstaff citizens, that is both sustainable and livable.
AZ suPreme courT uPholds minimum WAge by cindy cole
The Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry, the Arizona Restaurant Associa- tion and other business groups attempted to block the wage hike, claiming it was uncon- stitutional. Their attorney, Brett Johnson, argued the measure violates Arizona’s Constitu- tion, which requires that any voter initiative that mandates the state to spend money must have an identified funding source. The state and its workers are exempt from the increased wages but Mr. Johnson argued that the higher minimum wage will end up costing the state more for healthcare and social services contracts.
Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich, arguing on behalf of Prop 206 and its back- ers, stated that these costs were indirect and do not require new funding to be implement- ed. The court agreed issuing a brief order on the matter. It was indicated that a lengthier decision would be published at a later date.
During a March 9 hearing, some of the Justices questioned whether any citizen initia- tive would be able to pass the revenue source rule if indirect costs had to be taken into consideration. In a press release, Mr. Brnovich said, “My job is to uphold the rule of law. The constitution is designed to protect our rights. It’s not a tool to be used to undermine the will of the people.”
Prop 206 raised Arizona’s minimum wage to $10 per hour as of January 1. The initiative will continue to increase the minimum wage until it reaches $12 per hour by 2020. After that, increases will be based on inflation. The measure also requires employers to provide paid sick leave to employees.
Tomas Robles, who chaired that campaign for Prop 206, said, “we are very proud and ecstatic that Prop 206 will remain intact, and will continue to benefit the families and work- ers of this great state.”
The president and CeO of the AZ Chamber, Glenn Hamer said, “while we’re disappointed that the result did not go our way, we respect the court’s ruling. Lawmakers and the gov- ernor,” he continued, “can now craft a state budget that considers the law’s impact on state revenues, and employers can calibrate their operations with the understanding that the minimum wage and paid leave law will stand.”
Governor Doug Ducey, who has publicly opposed Prop 206, stated “The supreme Court has spoken. we’re going to follow the law.”
o
n March 14, the Arizona supreme Court unanimously rejected a challenge to the in-
crease in the state’s minimum wage adopted by voter initiative last november with the passage of Proposition 206. The initiative was supported by an impressive 58% of voters.
8 • April 2017 | the NOISE arts & news | www.thenoise.us