The City of Bloomington, unlike Teflon Normal; who’s spending habits may catch up to them one of these days; hasn’t had the luxury of a Teflon coating; everything seems to stick to Bloomington. We’ll revisit the (sigh) Coliseum financial losses tomorrow, but let’s look at the Living Wage issue for now.
On the ballot as a non-binding referendum, Bloomington’s Living Wage passed by a shockingly large margin; 65% to 35%; 20,263 yes, 11,003 No.
The wording of the Living Wage referendum on the ballot is in question by the Pantagraph as well as some Aldermen. (A little late to question it now I think.) If it passes, it would pay a wage of $9.81 an hour; higher than the federal minimum wage of $6.55, going up to $7.25 in 2009; and higher than Illinois’ minimum wage of $7.75 going up to $8.00 an hour in 2009. If passed, this would give every part-time high schooler $9.81/hour. Getting the message out about this wage, which didn’t happen before the vote, will be important for Council members wanting to retain their seats; as nearly 70% of EVERY Ward, voted for the Living Wage. Unbelievable.
As another comparison, California’s minimum wage is $8.00; and New York is $7.15/hour.
On WJBC’s Forum today, David Stanczak offered a good take on the Living Wage issue.
Searching for duplicity and irrationality in the push for the City of Bloomington to pay its workers and subcontractors a “living” wage is like going to a dog pound looking for fleas.
There is, to begin with, the matter of putting the measure on the ballot. The proponents would have done ACORN proud. Although the petitions to put the measure on the ballot contained well more than the number of signatures legally required, an examination of those signatures resulted in a significant portion of them being ruled invalid; the measure barely had enough valid signatures. Second, there is an inherent inconsistency between the proclaimed need for the measure and who the measure will actually benefit.
The CIOP, who pushed the Living Wage on the ballot; thinks they have Mayor Stockton’s vote. . . we’ll see.
Then on March 31, 2005, over 120 CIOP leaders from Bloomington-Normal met with Mayor elect Steve Stockton on the issue. He responded unequivocally in support for Living Wage and further committed to meet with CIOP within 30 days and place Living Wage as a early policy of his administration. Roughly a week afterwards two incumbent City Council supporters of Living Wage were defeated in their re-election bids. CIOP leaders plan to continue to meet with Mayor Stockton regarding Living Wage. Also, leaders anticipate meeting with the two newly elected members of the City Council regarding their position on the issue.
Alderman Judy Stearns had this to say about the living wage in 2007:
Judy Stearns, 306 E. Locust St., said she supports a living wage but if she were elected she would need to know more about the city’s contract with the Coliseum management firm, Central Illinois Arena Management, before she casts her vote.
How the votes might break down? Who knows? With 70% of your constituents voting FOR the Living Wage, can you vote against it and retain your seat?