Nearly two years after the Lawrence City Commission rejected calls to require companies that get tax breaks to pay their employees a “living wage,” the issue is returning to City Hall.

A hearing on the living wage proposal is scheduled for next month, and both sides of the battle are polishing up familiar arguments.

But a new commission will hear those arguments. Three of the five commissioners were elected in April after signing a “promise card” in which they vowed to require a living wage for abated companies.

And they sound ready to make good on the promise.

“I think a living wage says a lot about our commitment to the community, our commitment to the people who live and work and pay taxes here,” Commissioner David Schauner said. “It says something favorable, I hope.”

If the commission seems more intent on requiring a living wage, however, the opposition also has grown. Unlike two years ago, the Kansas Chamber of Commerce and Industry decided last week to weigh in on the issue.

In a news release, state chamber officials said living-wage advocates were working at the behest of “Big Labor.”

“This so-called living-wage campaign by the forces of big labor conveniently ignores the fact that in our market economy, artificially raising employee wages will lead to fewer jobs and won’t really help the people it is intended to help,” said Lew Ebert, the chamber’s CEO.

At stake: A requirement that companies that get tax breaks 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.

¢ Living wage ordinance divides city candidates (2-17-03)¢ Living wage, floodplain concern area businesses (1-16-03)¢ Event backs living wage (9-03-02)¢ Policy approval doesn’t end tax abatement debate (11-14-01)¢ 6News video report: Living wage supporters pack city hall (11-14-01)¢ Living wage advocates press case (11-07-01)¢ Living wage advocates launch petition drive for ordinance (6-11-01)¢ Living wage proponents unveil ordinance plan (4-06-01)¢ Experts weigh in on living wage (9-25-00)¢ Living wage plan’s pros, cons debated (9-25-00)¢ Lawrence coalition vows to work for living wage(8-8-00)

‘Lawrence-centered’

Kaw Valley Living Wage Alliance officials said they have endorsements from two labor unions, but said they also have broader support, including backing from churches and neighborhood groups.

“This is a Lawrence-centered movement,” said Stephanie Harsin, an alliance spokeswoman.

Opponents of a living-wage requirement said they wanted more time to study the issue.

“I think we’re in the earlier stages of the topic,” said Lavern Squier, CEO of the Lawrence Chamber of Commerce.

Two years ago, the living-wage debate occurred as 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.

In November 2001, more than 100 people crowded City Commission chambers to make their case.

“Good jobs are what people want,” said David Burress, representing the Lawrence Association of Neighborhoods in support of the proposal.

Bill Sepic, then the CEO of the Lawrence Chamber of Commerce, opposed the requirement.

“I ask you to shut the door on this,” said Sepic, who warned that living-wage proponents would expand their quest to include other businesses and public-sector employers. “Send a message that the tax-abatement committee did consider this issue and decided to go another direction.”

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

“I’m sure,” then-mayor Mike Rundle said, “this is going to be an ongoing topic of discussion in future commissions and future elections.”

Familiar debate

Rundle was right.

Proponents of a living wage say their request is simple: Workers should get paid enough to survive.

“We don’t want an economy that’s based on a donation of time from the poorest of the poor,” said Carleen Howieson, a member of the living-wage alliance.

“The companies that we’re speaking about, they’re asking a favor from all the wage earners in Lawrence — a tax abatement,” she said. “In return, we think they should pay their workers a living wage.”

Critics say the requirement might keep businesses from seeking a home in Lawrence. Keith Folkmann is director of plant operations for Sauer Danfoss, a company that received a tax abatement from the city. He also served on Henry’s task force.

A living-wage requirement would have discouraged his company’s interest in Lawrence, he suggested.

“I think as a company, we believe the right culture in our company is to have the relationship between the company and the team members that work for the company,” he said.

“For us, (a living-wage requirement) would have sent a message this community doesn’t endorse or doesn’t understand the value of that relationship without a third party,” he said.

Other critics have suggested, privately, that after the American Eagle debacle, economic development officials wouldn’t dare try to lure a company to Lawrence that won’t pay good wages.

“Then it shouldn’t be a problem, should it?” said Commissioner Boog Highberger, a living-wage supporter.

The Lawrence chamber announced earlier this year it would commission a study on the effects of a living-wage requirement. Some city officials said they would like to wait until the chamber study was completed, but Squier said last week the study was on hold. Chamber officials are still pondering what course to take in the debate, he said.

The commission is to take the issue up at its Aug. 19 meeting, 6:35 p.m. in City Hall, Sixth and Massachusetts streets.