Few Found Obeying ‘Living Wage’ Law

Los Angeles’ year-old “living wage” law remains “an experiment waiting to be tried,” with most city departments failing to comply and one openly defying it, say two new studies of the ordinance’s impact.

Both the Los Angeles Living Wage Coalition, formed to push for the law, and UCLA professor Richard Sander, hired by the city to evaluate it, found that the overall level of compliance by city contractors is low mainly because the city has failed to aggressively enforce the law.

Of the 700 to 800 contracts that should be covered by the ordinance, Sander said, only about 40 to 50 contractors have submitted evidence that they are in fact paying a living wage. That leaves hundreds of low-wage workers without the raises and benefits due them under the law.

The huge and troubled Department of Water and Power is the worst offender, failing to implement the living wage law, according to the coalition. But that department is by no means alone in its disregard for the law, the reviews by the coalition and UCLA found.

“I think there have been a couple cases where departments have taken a hostile attitude toward it, but much more common is benign neglect,” Sander said.

The lax enforcement of the ordinance, in fact, made it tough for Sander to evaluate its effectiveness, he said.

“It’s been difficult to do it mainly because so little implementation has occurred,” Sander said.

Aides to Mayor Richard Riordan, however, have a sharply contrasting view of the law’s first year--although the mayor’s antipathy to the ordinance is no secret.

“It’s certainly having the negative effect we thought it would,” said Deputy Mayor Kelly Martin. “We’ve seen companies choose not to do business with Los Angeles because of it. We had to put more money in our budget because of it. Those are the effects we were concerned about.”

But Martin said that she has seen no evidence the law is not being followed and that the mayor’s personal opposition to the ordinance has not prevented city departments from implementing it.

“I’ve directed each of the general managers [of the city’s proprietary departments] to take a look at the law and insert it into those contracts where it is applicable,” Martin said.

But in the case of the DWP, whose commissioners still have not acted on the ordinance, Martin said the mayor would not ask them to “put forward a law he does not believe in.”

DWP General Manager S. David Freeman said he is adding the living wage provision to all DWP contracts without a vote of his commissioners. “Let’s get real here. The mayor as a matter of policy doesn’t support living wage, so his commissioners are not publicly voting for it. But we obey the laws of the city,” Freeman said.

“We may be a little tardy, but they can probably count on the fingers of one hand the number of DWP employees who aren’t making a living wage,” he said.

The City Council’s Personnel Committee will review the first year of the ordinance at a meeting today and is expected to hear from authors of the UCLA review and the coalition’s study. The panel also is expected to consider options to amend the law.

Although Councilwoman Jackie Goldberg, who championed the ordinance, said she had not yet seen actual numbers, she believes that the law is being applied with mixed results, depending on the department.

“There are some departments that routinely . . . insist it be part of the contracts,” Goldberg said. “That is not typical yet. We have not penetrated the institution as a whole.”

Riordan vetoed the law, but was overridden by the council. The ordinance calls for municipal contractors to pay at least $7.25 an hour, with such benefits as health insurance, or to pay $8.50 an hour without specified benefits.

In a report card on the ordinance’s first year, the Living Wage Coalition gave some departments passing grades. But the key one--the Bureau of Contract Administration, which is charged with ensuring full compliance by departments and employers--received a dismal C-. (The DWP received an F.)

“The idea of a report card might sound flip, but the idea was to make the council and the public aware of how the living wage is being implemented and enforced,” said Madeline Janis-Aparicio, director of the coalition. “We should have high expectations for our city officials. . . . They should be proactive in pursuing recalcitrant departments to comply with their responsibilities.”

The challenge to the city, she said, is to more aggressively enforce the law.

“When the word gets out that the city is serious about enforcement, we will see compliance levels jump way up,” Janis-Aparicio said.

At Los Angeles International Airport, where the mayor has been quietly working to allow some airlines to skirt the living wage ordinance, the coalition said those airlines make millions of dollars with their LAX leases, yet pay many of their service workers close to minimum wage.

The city attorney’s office has recommended several modifications that could expand the ordinance to some workers covered by airline leases; that issue will probably be reviewed by the council’s personnel panel.

Overall, critics of the city law say its enforcement needs to be handled differently.

The Bureau of Contract Administration, they say, spends too much time determining whether a contractor is required to meet the ordinance’s requirements.

Sander of UCLA said he believes that the city needs to consider whether the bureau should remain the lead agency in enforcing the law. (Changes such as selecting a new lead agency would need the approval of the council and the mayor.)

“Here we’ve had this huge debate in this city, and then nothing happens,” Sander said. “There are a lot of points of friction that make the whole bureaucracy resistant to implementing this.”

Contract bureau officials did not return telephone calls seeking comment Tuesday.