The debate is shifting.

Lawrence’s living wage debate is no longer just about whether to require companies that receive city tax breaks to pay a so-called living wage; it now includes discussion of what types of employees should be covered by such regulations.

And city commissioners, who are set to discuss a living wage plan later this month, aren’t sure they like the idea.

“That could be a huge loophole,” City Commissioner Boog Highberger said. “I would want to look at that very closely.”

The new twist surfaced last week, when the Lawrence Chamber of Commerce released a proposal calling for the city to let companies that receive tax breaks to continue setting their own pay rates, but to reward those that pay a living wage with a bonus tax abatement.

At first glance, commissioners said they liked the idea of offering incentives and would consider the chamber’s proposal.

But the chamber’s plan would exempt part-time, seasonal and temporary workers from living wage requirements. In other words, companies could qualify for the bonus tax abatement even if their part-time or temporary workers were paid less than the established living wage.

That could worsen wage issues in the city, City Commissioner David Schauner said.

“I would hate to see an abated company have a work force of 300 temporary workers,” he said. “That would seem to be the opposite of what we’re trying to encourage.”

But chamber officials say there’s good reason to exempt such workers. In a position statement approved by its board of directors, the chamber expressed concern that including temporary workers as part of the regulations would decrease job opportunities in the area. The chamber said if companies that get tax abatements were required to pay the higher wage to temporary workers, many companies would choose to do without and simply make their existing employees pick up the slack.

“Our concern has been that if you are trying to cast a net to catch companies, you have to be concerned about how far that goes,” said Lavern Squier, chamber president and chief executive officer. “Are we going to provide a disincentive for companies to employ people?”

As it has been defined for the Lawrence debate, a living wage policy would require companies that get tax breaks to pay their employees at least 130 percent of the poverty level for a family of three. That’s a rate of $9.53 an hour. Backers say the idea is simple: Workers should be paid enough to live in Lawrence. They also argue that such a requirement would increase average wages in Lawrence over time, and give the city more bang for its tax abatement buck. Opponents say it will hinder economic development and monkey with free-market economics.

Two years ago, the living-wage debate raged as city officials considered a new tax-abatement policy. Then-mayor Jim Henry convened a task force that included members on both sides of a tax-abatement controversy that sprung up about the time of a failed attempt to lure an American Eagle Outfitters warehouse to Lawrence.

That panel didn’t recommend a living-wage requirement for companies that receive tax abatements. It did mandate that companies should meet or exceed the average community pay for similar jobs.

Commissioners unanimously approved the new abatement policy, but they didn’t quite close the door on the living-wage issue.

Then, in the last city election, three candidates — Schauner, Highberger and Mike Rundle — vowed to require companies that get tax breaks to pay a living wage.

The proposal from Kaw Valley Living Wage Alliance, which is set to be considered by the city commission Aug. 19, would not exempt part-time, temporary or seasonal workers, said David Smith, a member of the group’s steering committee.

“We’re trying to close loopholes, and that would seem to be a big loophole,” he said.

Smith said the alliance also was concerned some companies would try to get around a living wage ordinance by reducing the wages of higher-paid employees to compensate for the mandated increase of wages for those workers making less than $9.53 an hour.

That’s why the alliance’s proposal would require companies receiving tax abatements to pay some of their employees more than the $9.53-an-hour minimum. The alliance’s proposal essentially would require companies to pay employees $9.53 an hour or the average wage in Douglas County for their occupation, whichever is higher.

“What we’re saying is that we don’t want to encourage firms to pay a below-average wage,” Smith said.

The chamber’s proposal opposes that requirement as well. Squier said it would further distort the free market system.

“We’re still trying to somewhat let the market conduct itself in reasonable ways,” Squier said. “There should be a correlation between a job done and a wage paid.

“It is one thing to move the bar up, but if you are moving arbitrarily within job classifications, that’s another issue. By doing that you are just complicating the issue.”