The Sunday Times Magazine had a front page article about the living wage movement in the US, where it came from, where it's at, and what it's future might be. It was quite long, but was mostly positive and highlighted the work of one of my friends, Jen Kern, the director of
ACORN's Living Wage Resource Center.
People who care about the economic justice end of the progressive political continuum should check the article out (note that this links to a blog not the NYT Magazine; they want to make you subscribe and then they limit access after a week or so).
At the same time a couple of folks raised some questions about the why these campaigns are needed in the first place and what their genuine efficacy is in a progressive electoral context. In other words, what we really need are strong unions to protect wages and that it's unclear whether having living wage/minimum wage initiatives on the ballot (like San Francisco in 2003) boosts the fortunes of progressive office-seekers.
This is what I wrote in response to that.
First, let me start by saying that I agree that the reason there is such a large need for these kinds of campaigns, as public policy, is because of the weakening of organized labor in the US.
One way to win public policies that would obviate these kinds of campaigns would be to have a strong and vibrant labor movement capable of delivering for its members, their families, and their communities.
We don't have that.
So, in the meantime, what do we do?
We do things that will drive public policy in a progressive direction, galvanize political participation among marginalized gourps, support union organizing, and deliver benefits for specific constituencies. The living wage campaigns do all of that through a variety of means, from the language of the ordinances (e.g. allowing unionized firms escape clauses from compliance if they are covered under living wage ordinances on the local level) to the structure of the campaigns (labor, community, and religious organizations teaming up to fight for either the local ordinance or a ballot initiative), to the campaigns themselves (pushing for the concept of living wages publicly and getting people energized to fight for them).
As to the value of having minimum wage initiatives on the ballot (of which there have been 3 in the 90's - Denver, Houston, and Missouri, all of which lost badly - and 4 in the 00's - New Orleans, San Francisco, Florida, Nevada - all of which passed overwhelmingly), dismissing their potential value by pointing out that Florida went for George Bush risks throwing away one of the best tools progressives have to shape the terms of electoral and policy debates in this country.
First, the Ballot Initiative Support Center says that its research shows that you can get an increse in turnout from 2-5% with a wage initiative on the ballot.
Second, that turnout comes disproportionally from African-Americans, Latinos, and white women. It also boosts turnout among low-income people generallly. All of these are core Democratic constituencies and all of them tend to cluster on the progressive end of the political spectrum, at least when it comes to economic policies.
Third, it seems clear that candidates who do not identify themselves with the minimum wage do not benefit from down-ballot voting from people drawn out to support the initiative. In Florida, US Senate candidate Betsy Castor identified herself with the effort, and did better than Kerry, who was almost pathological in his avoidance of the issue, by a percentage point or two.
Fourth, ballot initiatives are only part of an overall electoral strategy. We don't know how much Kerry would have lost Florida without the initiative, but either way progressives had no answer for the systematic party-building and constituency organizing the GOP did with churches and others. Part of winning elections is having the infrastructure to move your people and engage them in the civic life of the country. Democrats don't have this. Some progressive organizations do, but we can't compete with the GOP electoral machine. Not yet. Progressive ballot initiatives help drive turnout among marginalized and progressive constituencies, but remember, we're only talking 2-5%. We need infrastrucutre for the rest.
All that notwithstanding, wage ballots bring real value to the progressive arsenal. They can negate the effect of gay marriage and other social wedges issues that conservatives put forth. Perhaps most importantly, though, they offer a starting point for advancing a progressive platform that clearly articulates progressive values, not a litany of convoluted programs.
Fighting on corruption charges will only get you so far. Fighting as part of a platform advocating strong families, affordable child care, health care for all, improved education, the right to organize, and a living wage says you are fighting for something most Americans can understand and identify with. Minimum wage campaigns are part of the tactics to advance this larger strategy.
Don't agonize! Organize!
Kick ass and take names.