To meet the basic human needs of all Californians, Democrats will:

• Support a living wage, especially in areas where the increasingly high cost of living and rising inflation renders it impossible to afford the basic necessities of life even through working a full-time job, to lift the working poor out of poverty and achieve self-sufficiency;

http://www.blogforamerica.com/view/24689

Payroll service SurePayroll’s survey finds that most small business owners will not be affected by an increase in the national minimum wage.

Chicago, IL (PRWEB) February 21, 2007 — Small business owners are not losing much sleep about an increase in the national minimum wage, according to a recent survey by national payroll service provider SurePayroll.

According to the SurePayroll survey, the majority of small businesses (51 percent) don’t even know what the minimum wage is in their state.

 
Of the small business owners surveyed by SurePayroll, only 3 percent pay the national minimum wage to some of their employees. Only 6 percent of the respondents pay a state-mandated minimum wage to some of their employees. The remaining respondents (91 percent) are not affected by minimum wage laws because they pay all of their employees more than the minimum wage. 

http://www.prweb.com/releases/2007/2/prweb506201.htm

By Eric Schlosser, The Nation. Posted March 24, 2008.

 
Ventura County Star – June 16, 2005
By Peter Dreier

President Bush and the Republicans in Congress keep resisting raising the minimum wage. But cities around the country are not sitting still.

In the last decade, more than 120 cities and counties have enacted living wage laws,
….{snip}….
At least 13 other cities, including Albuquerque, N.M., Memphis, Tenn., Phoenix, Richmond, Va., and Syracuse, N.Y. , are considering living wage proposals.

While the federal minimum wage stagnates at $5.15 an hour, these living wage laws give workers a real boost. The Bozeman, Mont., law, for example, calls for $8.50 an hour with health benefits, or $9.50 without them. Cincinnati’s scale is $8.70 an hour with benefits, or $10.20 without. And San Jose requires firms to pay workers $10.10 an hour with benefits or $11.35 an hour without them.

These laws came about because of grass-roots campaigns by churches, unions and community groups. And every time, business leaders warned that the living wage would cost jobs. They said it would hurt those who need the jobs the most, and it would create a hostile business climate.

But that has not happened.

In Los Angeles, back in 1996, for instance, the Chamber of Commerce warned of dire consequences, predicting a loss of 3,000 low-wage jobs. But the living wage law passed anyway the next year, and now the results are in.

A just-published report by the Los Angeles Alliance for a New Economy, a nonprofit policy research group, found that the law — which mandates $10.03 per hour and two paid annual vacation days — significantly increased pay for about 10,000 jobs, while firms lost an estimated total of all of 112 jobs.

….{snip}….
During the past century, whenever reformers have proposed policies to improve economic conditions — to raise wages, regulate business to be more socially responsible or increase corporate taxes — most business leaders argue that doing so will destroy the “business climate,” the incentive to invest. History reveals that they were crying wolf.

….{snip}….
– Peter Dreier is professor of politics and director of the Urban & Environmental Policy program at Occidental College.

http://urlet.com/legislative.transaction

California high court won’t hear appeal of LA wage ordinance

Thursday, April 10, 2008

The California Supreme Court has declined to hear an appeal aimed at overturning a city ordinance requiring hotels near Los Angeles International Airport to pay workers a so-called living wage.

The court announced Thursday that it won’t consider the appeal by a group of hotel owners, effectively clearing the way for the ordinance to take effect within 30 days.

The ordinance requires 13 hotels to pay employees $9.39 an hour with health insurance, or $10.64 an hour without the benefits.

 More:

http://urlet.com/broke.depends

http://eurekafaircompensationact.googlepages.com/kgoenews.mp3

Don Lajoie, Windsor Star
Published: Monday, March 31, 2008

WINDSOR – The local doughnut and coffee server stood outside her Windsor shop Monday, smiling like someone who had just rolled up a lucky rim.

“We have it posted in the staff room,” the young single mom said, referring to news Ontario had  raised the  minimum wage from $8.00 to $8.75.

“Now I can afford a decent apartment.”

The Tim Hortons employee, who did not wish to be named, started by earning the basic $8 an hour rate but recently had seen her salary increased to $8.10.
She said making ends meet has been a daily struggle under the old pay scale, requiring thrift and tight budgeting.

“It’s difficult when you’re a single parent,” she said. “We were just barely getting by. I really had to budget my spending a little more. Mind you, it was better than welfare.”

She acknowledged the extra $24 or so a week does not compare to winning the lottery, but believes it will give her “a bit of freedom” to finally begin to plan for the future. Perhaps she could start saving a little. Tight as things were, she was never forced to pick up extras from the food bank, she said.

“But now we can get ahead instead of living month-to-month.”

Marion Overholt, a lawyer for Legal Assistance Windsor, said the organization had been part of the campaign to raise the province’s minimum wage after years of stagnation.

“We have been calling for the minimum wage to go to $10.00,” she said. “So we’re encouraged by this 75-cent, incremental increase until it reaches $10.00 an hour.”

….{snip}….

She said arguments that minimum wage increases put small businesses and entrepreneurs in jeopardy are disingenuous because many of those companies paying minimum wage are multinational corporations, such as fast food outlets and big box retailers.

“We’re not talking mom and pop operations here but huge conglomerates,” she said. “They’re certainly not going to go into the red.”

….{snip}….

http://urlet.com/boolean.vegas

In many American communities, families working in low-wage jobs make insufficient income to live locally given the local cost of living. Recently, in a number of high-cost communities, community organizers and citizens have successfully argued that the prevailing wage offered by the public sector and key businesses should reflect a wage rate required to meet minimum standards of living. Therefore we have developed a living wage calculator to estimate the cost of living in your community or region. The Calculator lists typical expenses, the living wage and typical wages in the location you have selected.

http://urlet.com/five.blank

——————————————————————————–
From NewsDesk <NewsDesk@UMCOM.ORG>
Date Tue, 18 Mar 2008 16:15:54 -0500
Faith leaders call for living wage, honor King

Mar. 18, 2008

NOTE: Photographs available at http://umns.umc.org.

By the Rev. Rebekah Jordan*

MEMPHIS, Tenn. (UMNS)–Forty years after the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. came to Memphis to support striking sanitation workers making poverty wages, faith leaders say King would be shocked to see millions of Americans continuing to be paid poverty wages.

About 150 leaders from across the United States gathered March 13 in Memphis for an interfaith celebration to continue King’s work for living wages.

The event was held at historic Centenary United Methodist Church, where the Rev. James Lawson was pastor in 1968 and organized major religious support for striking sanitation workers living with poverty wages, racial discrimination and dangerous working conditions.

In large part because of faith and community support, workers won a union contract after being on strike for 65 days, a few days after King was assassinated on April 4, 1968.

“We got tired,” sanitation striker Taylor Rogers told the gathering. “And so we stood up and said ‘I am a man.’ Without Dr. King and the ministers who helped us, we never would have won that strike.”

The interfaith worship service was cosponsored by the Let Justice Roll Living Wage Campaign and the Mid-South Interfaith Network for Economic Justice. The event kicked off a 24-hour fast for Memphis workers who do not earn a living wage, and pressed the Memphis City Council to expand its living wage ordinance to include more workers.

Speakers also urged national leaders to make the minimum wage a living wage, so that all workers can earn enough to meet their families’ basic needs.

Faith groups represented at the event included Baptist, United Methodist, Christian Methodist Episcopal, African Methodist Episcopal, Episcopalian, United Church of Christ, Presbyterian U.S.A., Disciples of Christ, Reform Jewish, Conservative Jewish, Roman Catholic, Quaker and Unitarian churches.

Losing ground

The Rev. Jennifer Kottler, director of Let Justice Roll, preached on the parable of the rich man and Lazarus. “All God’s children have worth, Jesus would say. All work is valued. All work is important. All work is worthy of fair compensation,” said Kottler.

Kottler said the minimum wage, when adjusted for inflation, has actually lost significant ground during the last 40 years.

In 1968, sanitation workers were making just above the federal minimum wage of $1.60, which is worth $9.70 today when adjusted for inflation. Today’s minimum wage is $5.85 after Congress voted to increase it by 70 cents an hour last summer.

“Workers should not have to choose between paying the rent and buying food for their children,” Kottler said. “A job should keep you out of poverty, not keep you in it.”

Memphians at the worship service celebrated their city council’s passage of a living wage ordinance in 2006 which requires most workers performing work for the city to be paid $10-$12 an hour. But in undertaking a 24-hour period of fasting, prayer and action, they vowed to press the council to include workers at the city’s public utility in the ordinance.

Speakers included Simon Greer, president of the Jewish Funds for Justice; Adam Taylor, director of policy and organizing for Sojourners; and Joyce Miller, assistant general secretary for justice and human rights at the American Friends Service Committee.

Taylor hailed the action of Congress last year to raise the minimum wage for the first time in 10 years. “It was a bleak year on Capitol Hill for those who care about the poor, but this was one bright spot,” he said.

He went on to urge worshippers to breathe life into the “dry bones” of the United States by continuing King’s work in pressing Congress to make the minimum wage a living wage.

The service closed with the congregation repeating the words of King to the sanitation workers in 1968: “Now is the time to make an adequate income a reality for all of God’s children. … Now is the time for justice to roll down like water, and righteousness like a mighty stream. Now is the time.”

*Jordan is a United Methodist deacon and director of the Mid-South Interfaith Network for Economic Justice.

News media contact: Marta Aldrich, Nashville, Tenn., (615) 742-5470 or newsdesk@umcom.org.

http://www.wfn.org/2008/03/msg00115.html

Our Current Minimum Wage Versus a Living Wage?

Varying by local rulings and costs of living, our minimum federal wage scale nowhere approaches the living wage estimates which run around $10.00 an hour for a family of four. The latest federal standards:

New Federal Minimum Wage:

$5.85 – July 24th, 2007
$6.55 – July 24th, 2008
$7.25 – July 24th, 2009

http://www.laborlawcenter.com/state-Minimum-Wage-rates.asp?gclid=CMKj58ydo5ICFQG5PAodWwLiQA

This disparity is sometimes closed somewhat by special programs such as food stamps and subsidized housing, but few of us these days don’t know of people that are struggling desperately to maintain both food and energy obligations as well as such other essentials as basic medical care for their families. We have become a radically divided society with massive wealth at the top and hunger among millions (particularly children) at the bottom. Only America of the more than 20 most prosperous nations sentences its poorer citizens to premature deaths.

http://www.bloggernews.net/114685

http://eurekareporter.com/article/080320-living-wage

http://urlet.com/sleeplessness.engine

On the other hand, his “Eureka Fair Compensation Act” is worrying for a couple of reasons. For instance, passing laws via the ballot box is a volatile and dangerous way of governance. That’s what our elected representatives are supposed to do — and if we don’t agree with what they do, we get somebody else in there.

Then there is the law of unintended consequences. It is not hard to imagine that raising the minimum wage in one community and not others in the region could result in the immigration of low-income workers to Eureka…..

http://urlet.com/shoulder.sees

And join the discusson:

“So which legislators are even considering a raise in the minimum wage? Oh, that’s right, NONE. The ballot initiative process is the legal means for citizens to do what their legislators refuse to do. It’s democratic and obviously needed. “

http://urlet.com/frame.computed

http://urlet.com/humble.infoseek

http://urlet.com/humble.infoseek

“I have always felt the people of Los Angeles would support the workers,” Councilwoman Janice Hahn said. “I wish now we had put the matters before voters rather than try to work out a compromise.”

The council voted in late 2006 to impose a living wage on Century Corridor hotels near LAX, citing civic investments in the airport that benefit the hotels.

The hotels qualified a referendum to take the issue to voters, which the City Council voided when it dropped its original measure and came up with a new proposal.

That proposal, however, was rejected by the hotels and has been subject to court battles. It is now pending in the state Supreme Court.

http://urlet.com/sure.considers

http://humboldtlib.blogspot.com/2008/03/living-wage-for-eureka.html

a person

San Lorenzo, CA 

Who, exactly, is this Holmes? This is a populist, fascist method of making the “poor” your subjects. I would say that if the parents are working multiple part-time jobs to stay afloat, then they should not have had children. Do they have cell phones? Landlines, cable/sattelite, a nice car? Those can all be cut and that money saved. 

Anonymous
Arcata, CA  ‘

Did Mr. Greenson ask what William Holmes does for a living? If he did, he would have learned that Holmes lives on public assistance, has never held a job here, and probably isn’t the city’s go-to guy for economic planning. 

http://urlet.com/outlined.landmark

• Location: bayside

http://humboldt.craigslist.org/pol/609090190.html

Forget Washington, all GOOD politics is local
States, cities go for Living Wage, Clean Elections, and medical pot

Edited by Jim Hightower and Phillip Frazer

What an embarrassment our national government is. Mired in the sickening muck of corrupt corporate money and right-wing ideology, our so-called leaders continue todivert our public treasury and our nation’s unlimited potential for good into war, into the pockets of the superrich, into the self-serving whims of greedheaded corporate executives, into a rising police state, into the careless desecration of nature…into waste.

Then why am I laughing, why am I almost giddy with optimism about where we’re heading? You might say, That’s an easy question, Hightower–you’re either stupid or insane. Indeed, I know a few leaders of progressive groups based in Washington who have been drained of all optimism.

Wrong. Led by ACORN, the innovative community-organizing group, a broad coalition of wage-increase advocates has shifted the battlefield to the cities, counties, and states, putting forth a concept called the Living Wage. The idea is that corporations getting contracts, subsidies, or other benefits from local governments should not get away with poverty pay. Pushing local ordinances or ballot measures, the Living Wage coalitions propose pay scales that raise the minimum above the region’s poverty level, with most proposals requiring some health-care benefits and many indexing the pay levels to inflation.

Well, you might think, that’s a nice proposition, but people are way too conservative to go for it. Wrong. In fact, when put before voters, Living Wage initiatives typically win by more than two thirds of the vote.

A telling case is Florida. In 2004, a modest initiative was on the ballot proposing to raise the state’s minimum wage by a buck, to $6.15 an hour. John Kerry’s presidential campaign studiously avoided supporting this measure, fearing that voters in this red state were so conservative that being associated with a wage hike would hurt his chances. So much for his political genius–72% of Floridians approved the pay increase! Kerry, on the other hand, got only 47% of the vote.

For these Living Wage battles, coalitions have been forged among workers, poor people, women, churchgoers, small-business owners, neighborhood groups, civilrights advocates–and even some conservative business leaders who either see it as a moral issue or understand that higher pay means more spending and a stronger local economy. That’s a pretty stout coalition! While it has received little national media coverage, these combined efforts are achieving stunning successes all across the country. More than 130 cities, counties, and states have already enacted some form of the Living Wage.

These victories are not just coming in the liberal outposts of, say, New York City and San Francisco, but also in such places as Dayton, OH ($9.30 per hour, with benefits); Palm Beach, FL ($9.73, with benefits); Louisville, KY ($10.20, indexed to inflation); Pima County, AZ ($8.35, with benefits, indexed); Bozeman, MT ($9.73, with benefits); Rochester NY ($9.43, with benefits, indexed); Covallis, OR ($9.00, indexed); the Richmond, VA, school district ($8.77, with benefits); and the Central Arkansas Library System ($9.00, with benefits, indexed).

….{snip}….
The power is ours
On big issue after big issue– such as dramatically cutting the greenhouse gases that cause global warming, declaring energy independence with a crash program of renewable energy and conservation, bringing the troops home from Bush’s war of lies in Iraq, and giving Americans relief from the price gouging of drug companies– Washington has become the enemy. But rather than wring our hands about that, we can roll up our sleeves and join hands with the grassroots groups that are taking action on these problems and making progress. Congress and presidential candidates are too corrupted or too cowardly to lead our country back to its democratic ideals. We have to lead ourselves–and there is opportunity for you to be part of the renewal right where you live.

http://urlet.com/parlays.mask

update march 2011 both of these sites have sadly disappeared I will try to find some new resources on this important topic.

ACORN’s Living Wage Resource Center

Welcome to ACORN’s Living Wage Resource Center website. What you will find here is a brief history of the national living wage movement, background materials such as ordinance summaries and comparisons, drafting tips, research summaries, talking points, and links to other living wage-related sites. (Please also visit www.raisewages.org for the latest on minimum wage ballot initiatives across the country).

Visitors to the web site should keep in mind that there is no magic formula for a successful living wage campaign. Every campaign is different — dependent on the campaign leaders and their constituencies, local politics and power dynamics, the campaign coalition’s interests and scope, resources, experience, timelines, local and regional economies, etc.

http://www.livingwagecampaign.org/

BUILD put together a coalition of churches and labor unions and lobbied the city to pass a “living wage” law that would increase wages above the national minimum. The law would apply to employees who worked for private firms that had contracts with the city. It would affect 1,500 workers, hired by private bus companies, security companies and janitorial firms. The ordinance would force wages up from $4.25 to $8.80 an hour over three years.

At some risk to herself, Bell organized other custodians to join the living wage campaign. When the company discovered Bell’s activities, it fired her. Undeterred, Bell stayed active with BUILD and helped gather petition signatures and organize demonstrations. BUILD recruited academics who produced studies showing that it made no sense for the city government to save money in the short term by underpaying workers, who then had to resort to a variety of government-supported homeless shelters and soup kitchens to supplement their low wages. Working with BUILD, Bell and others put so much pressure on the city, they convinced then-Mayor Kurt Schmoke to support them. Because of this grassroots organizing effort, Baltimore passed the nation’s first living-wage ordinance. Economists estimate that the law puts millions of dollars into the pockets of Baltimore’s working poor each year, and has had a ripple effect pushing up wages in other low-paid jobs in the city. There are now similar laws in about 200 cities across the country.

http://www.nj.com/njvoices/index.ssf/2008/03/the_wiregreat_drama_bad_messag.html

CHAPTER 123: MINIMUM WAGE

§ 123.01. Title.

§ 123.02. Authority, Findings and Declarations.

§ 123.03. Definitions.

§ 123.04. Minimum Wage.

§ 123.05. Notice, Posting and Payroll Records.

§ 123.06. Retaliation Prohibited.

§ 123.07. Implementation and Enforcement.

§ 123.08. Waiver Through Collective Bargaining.

§ 123.09. Relationship to Other Requirements.

§ 123.10. Application of Minimum Wage to Welfare-to-Work Programs.

§ 123.11. Effective Date.

§ 123.12. Severability.

§ 123.13. Amendment by the City Council.

§ 123.14. Civil Actions.

§ 123.15. Remedies Cumulative.

§ 123.16. Administrative Penalties and Citations.

§ 123.17. Violations.

§ 123.18. Administrative Citation; Notice of Violation.

§ 123.19. Administrative Citation and Notice of Violation; Service.

§ 123.20. Administrative Citation; Contents.

§ 123.21. Administrative Appeal.

§ 123.22. Regulations.

§ 123.23. Judicial Review.

§ 123.24. Other Remedies Not Affected.

§ 123.25. Outreach.

§ 123.26. Reports.

§ 123.27. Inconsistent Legislation.

§ 123.01. TITLE.

This Chapter shall be known as the “Minimum Wage Ordinance,” as enacted by the ballot initiative entitled “Eureka Fair Compensation Act” and as possibly amended by the Eureka City Council pursuant to the provisions of Section 123.13 of this Chapter.

§ 123.02. AUTHORITY, FINDINGS AND DECLARATIONS.

The people of Eureka find and declare the following:

(a) The people of the State of California are protected in their inalienable rights by the provisions of the Constitutions of the United States and the State of California.

(b) The people of the City of Eureka reserve to themselves the right to set and review wage standards, labor practices and economic development in the City of Eureka and to provide for policies which protect the livelihood and living standards of working women and men in the City of Eureka.

(c) This Chapter is adopted pursuant to the powers vested in the City of Eureka (“the City”) under the laws and Constitution of the State of California and the City Charter including, but not limited to, the police powers vested in the City pursuant to Article XI, Section 7 of the California Constitution and Section 1205(b) of the California Labor Law.

(d) The people of the State of California reserve to themselves the right to enact municipal ordinances by direct affirmative vote in a regular election under, and within Division 9, Chapter 3 of the Elections Code.

§ 123.03. DEFINITIONS.

As used in this Chapter, the following capitalized terms shall have the following meanings:

“Department” shall mean the Community Development Department or such other City department or agency as the City shall by resolution designate.

“Director” shall mean the Community Development Director of the City of Eureka.

“City” shall mean the City of Eureka.

“Employee” shall mean any person who:

(a) In a particular week performs at least two (2) hours of work for an Employer within the geographic boundaries of the City; and

(b) Qualifies as an employee entitled to payment of a minimum wage from any employer under the California minimum wage law, as provided under Section 1197 of the California Labor Code and wage orders published by the California Industrial Welfare Commission, or is a participant in a Welfare-to-Work Program.

“Employer” shall mean any person, as defined in Section 18 of the California Labor Code, including corporate officers or executives, who directly or indirectly or through an agent or any other person, including through the services of a temporary services or staffing agency or similar entity, employs or exercises control over the wages, hours or working conditions of any Employee.

“Minimum Wage” shall have the meaning set forth in Section 123.04 of this Chapter.

“Small Business” shall mean an Employer for which fewer than ten (10) persons perform work for compensation during a given week. In determining the number of persons performing work for an Employer during a given week, all persons performing work for compensation on a full-time, part-time, or temporary basis shall be counted, including persons made available to work through the services of a temporary services or staffing agency or similar entity.

“Nonprofit Corporation” shall mean a nonprofit corporation, duly organized, validly existing and in good standing under the laws of the jurisdiction of its incorporation and (if a foreign corporation) in good standing under the laws of the State of California, which corporation has established and maintains valid nonprofit status under Section 501(c)(3) of the United States Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and all rules and regulations promulgated under such Section.

“Welfare-to-Work Program” shall mean the CalWORKS Program, Adult Assistance Program (CAAP) which includes the Personal Assisted Employment Services (PAES) Program, and General Assistance Program, and any successor programs that are substantially similar to them.

§ 123.04. MINIMUM WAGE.

(a) Employers shall pay Employees no less than the Minimum Wage for each hour worked within the geographic boundaries of the City.

(b) Beginning on the effective date of this Chapter, the Minimum Wage shall be an hourly rate of $10.00. To prevent inflation from eroding its value, beginning on January 1, 2010 and each year thereafter, the Minimum Wage shall increase by the amount necessary to correspond to the level of California state minimum wage plus $2.00.

(c) The Minimum Wage for Employers that are Small Businesses or Nonprofit Corporations shall phase in over a two year period in order to afford such Employers time to adjust. For such Employers, the effective date of this Chapter shall be January 1, 2011. For the first half of the transition period beginning January 1, 2009 and ending December 31, 2009, the Minimum Wage for Employees of such Employers shall be an hourly rate of $9.00. For the second half of the transition period beginning January 1, 2010 and ending December 31, 2010, the Minimum Wage for Employees of such Employers shall be an hourly rate of $9.50. Beginning January 1, 2011, the Minimum Wage for Employees of such Employers shall be the regular Minimum Wage established pursuant to Section 4(b) of this Chapter.

§ 123.05. NOTICE, POSTING AND PAYROLL RECORDS.

(a) By December 1 of each year, the Department shall publish and make available to Employers a bulletin announcing the adjusted Minimum Wage rate for the upcoming year, which shall take effect on January 1. In conjunction with this bulletin, the Department shall by December 1 of each year publish and make available to Employers, in all languages spoken by more than five percent of the Eureka work force, a notice suitable for posting by Employers in the workplace informing Employees of the current Minimum Wage rate and of their rights under this Chapter.

(b) Every Employer shall post in a conspicuous place at any workplace or job site where any Employee works the notice published each year by the Department informing Employees of the current Minimum Wage rate and of their rights under this Chapter. Every Employer shall post such notices in English, Spanish and any other language spoken by at least five percent of the Employees at the workplace or job site. Every Employer shall also provide each Employee at the time of hire the Employer’s name, address and telephone number in writing.

(c) Employers shall retain payroll records pertaining to Employees for a period of four years, and shall allow the Department access to such records, with appropriate notice and at a mutually agreeable time, to monitor compliance with the requirements of this Chapter. Where an Employer does not maintain or retain adequate records documenting wages paid or does not allow the Department reasonable access to such records, it shall be presumed that the Employer paid no more than the applicable federal or state minimum wage, absent clear and convincing evidence otherwise.

§ 123.06. RETALIATION PROHIBITED.

It shall be unlawful for an Employer or any other party to discriminate in any manner or take adverse action against any person in retaliation for exercising rights protected under this Chapter. Rights protected under this Chapter include, but are not limited to: the right to file a complaint or inform any person about any party’s alleged noncompliance with this Chapter; and the right to inform any person of his or her potential rights under this Chapter and to assist him or her in asserting such rights. Protections of this Chapter shall apply to any person who mistakenly, but in good faith, alleges noncompliance with this Chapter. Taking adverse action against a person within ninety (90) days of the person’s exercise of rights protected under this Chapter shall raise a rebuttable presumption of having done so in retaliation for the exercise of such rights.

§ 123.07. IMPLEMENTATION AND ENFORCEMENT.

(a) Implementation. The Department shall be authorized to coordinate implementation and enforcement of this Chapter and may promulgate appropriate guidelines or rules for such purposes. Any guidelines or rules promulgated by the Department shall have the force and effect of law and may be relied on by Employers, Employees and other parties to determine their rights and responsibilities under this Chapter. Any guidelines or rules may establish procedures for ensuring fair, efficient and cost-effective implementation of this Chapter, including supplementary procedures for helping to inform Employees of their rights under this Chapter, for monitoring Employer compliance with this Chapter, and for providing administrative hearings to determine whether an Employer or other person has violated the requirements of this Chapter.

(b) Administrative Enforcement. The Department is authorized to take appropriate steps to enforce this Chapter. The Department may investigate any possible violations of this Chapter by an Employer or other person. Where the Department has reason to believe that a violation has occurred, it may order any appropriate temporary or interim relief to mitigate the violation or maintain the status quo pending completion of a full investigation or hearing. Where the Department, after a hearing that affords a suspected violator due process, determines that a violation has occurred, it may order any appropriate relief including, but not limited to, reinstatement, the payment of any back wages unlawfully withheld, and the payment of an additional sum as an administrative penalty in the amount of $50 to each Employee or person whose rights under this Chapter were violated for each day or portion thereof that the violation occurred or continued. A violation for unlawfully withholding wages shall be deemed to continue from the date immediately following the date that the wages were due and payable as provided in Part 1 (commencing with Section 200) of Division 2 of the California Labor Code, to the date immediately preceding the date the wages are paid in full. Where prompt compliance is not forthcoming, the Department may take any appropriate enforcement action to secure compliance, including initiating a civil action pursuant to Section 7(c) of this Chapter and/or, except where prohibited by state or federal law, requesting that City agencies or departments revoke or suspend any registration certificates, permits or licenses held or requested by the Employer or person until such time as the violation is remedied. In order to compensate the City for the costs of investigating and remedying the violation, the Department may also order the violating Employer or person to pay to the City a sum of not more than $50 for each day or portion thereof and for each Employee or person as to whom the violation occurred or continued. Such funds shall be allocated to the Department and shall be used to offset the costs of implementing and enforcing this Chapter. The amounts of all sums and payments authorized or required under this Chapter shall be updated annually for inflation, beginning January 1, 2010, using the inflation rate corresponding to the average Consumer Price Index for urban wage earners and clerical workers in California. An Employee or other person may report to the Department in writing any suspected violation of this Chapter. The Department shall encourage reporting pursuant to this subsection by keeping confidential, to the maximum extent permitted by applicable laws, the name and other identifying information of the Employee or person reporting the violation. Provided, however, that with the authorization of such person, the Department may disclose his or her name and identifying information as necessary to enforce this Chapter or for other appropriate purposes.

(c) Civil Enforcement. The Department, the City Attorney, any person aggrieved by a violation of this Chapter, any entity a member of which is aggrieved by a violation of this Chapter, or any other person or entity acting on behalf of the public as provided for under applicable state law, may bring a civil action in a court of competent jurisdiction against the Employer or other person violating this Chapter and, upon prevailing, shall be entitled to such legal or equitable relief as may be appropriate to remedy the violation including, without limitation, the payment of any back wages unlawfully withheld, the payment of an additional sum as liquidated damages in the amount of $50 to each Employee or person whose rights under this Chapter were violated for each day or portion thereof that the violation occurred or continued, reinstatement in employment and/or injunctive relief, and shall be awarded reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. Provided, however, that any person or entity enforcing this Chapter on behalf of the public as provided for under applicable state law shall, upon prevailing, be entitled only to equitable, injunctive or restitutionary relief, and reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.

(d) Interest. In any administrative or civil action brought for the nonpayment of wages under this section, the Department or court, as the case may be, shall award interest on all due and unpaid wages at the rate of interest specified in subdivision (b) of Section 3289 of the California Civil Code, which shall accrue from the date that the wages were due and payable as provided in Part 1 (commencing with Section 200) of Division 2 of the California Labor Code, to the date the wages are paid in full.

§ 123.08. WAIVER THROUGH COLLECTIVE BARGAINING.

All or any portion of the applicable requirements of this Chapter shall not apply to Employees covered by a bona fide collective bargaining agreement to the extent that such requirements are expressly waived in the collective bargaining agreement in clear and unambiguous terms.

§ 123.09. RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER REQUIREMENTS.

This Chapter provides for payment of a minimum wage and shall not be construed to preempt or otherwise limit or affect the applicability of any other law, regulation, requirement, policy or standard that provides for payment of higher or supplemental wages or benefits, or that extends other protections including, but not limited to, the Eureka Fair Compensation Act.

§ 123.10. APPLICATION OF MINIMUM WAGE TO WELFARE-TO-WORK PROGRAMS.

The Minimum Wage established pursuant to Section 4(b) of this Chapter shall apply to Welfare-to-Work Programs under which persons must perform work in exchange for receipt of benefits. Participants in Welfare-to-Work Programs shall not, during a given benefits period, be required to work more than a number of hours equal to the value of all cash benefits received during that period, divided by the Minimum Wage. Where state or federal law would preclude the City from reducing the number of work hours required under a given Welfare-to-Work Program, the City may comply with this Section by increasing the cash benefits awarded so that their value is no less than the product of the Minimum Wage multiplied by the number of work hours required.

§ 123.11. EFFECTIVE DATE.

This Chapter shall become effective on January 1, 2009. This Chapter is intended to have prospective effect only.

§ 123.12. SEVERABILITY.

If any part or provision of this Chapter, or the application of this Chapter to any person or circumstance, is held invalid, the remainder of this Chapter, including the application of such part or provisions to other persons or circumstances, shall not be affected by such a holding and shall continue in full force and effect. To this end, the provisions of this Chapter are severable.

§ 123.13. AMENDMENT BY THE CITY COUNCIL.

This Chapter may be amended by the City Council as regards the implementation or enforcement thereof, but not as regards the substantive requirements of the Chapter or its scope of coverage.

§ 123.14. CIVIL ACTIONS.

In addition to the actions provided for in Section 123.07(c), the City Attorney may bring a civil action to enjoin any violation of this Chapter. The City shall be entitled to its attorney’s fees and costs in any action brought pursuant to this section where the City is the prevailing party.

§ 123.15. REMEDIES CUMULATIVE.

The remedies, penalties and procedures provided under this Chapter are cumulative and are not intended to be exclusive of any other available remedies, penalties and procedures.

§ 123.16. ADMINISTRATIVE PENALTIES AND CITATIONS.

(a) Administrative Penalties; Citations. An administrative penalty may be assessed for a violation of the provisions of this Chapter as specified below. The penalty may be assessed by means of an administrative citation issued by the Community Development Director or other competent city officer.

(b) Administrative Penalty Amounts. In addition to all other civil penalties provided for by law, the following violations shall be subject to administrative penalties in the amounts set forth below:

The penalty amounts shall be increased cumulatively by fifty percent (50%) for each subsequent violation of the same provision by the same employer or person within a three (3) year period. The maximum penalty amount that may be imposed by administrative citation in a calendar year for each type of violation listed above shall be $5,000. In addition to the penalty amounts listed above, the Community Development Director may assess enforcement costs to cover the reasonable costs incurred in enforcing the administrative penalty, including reasonable attorneys’ fees. Enforcement costs shall not count toward the $5,000 annual maximum.

§ 123.17. VIOLATIONS.

(a) Separate and Continuing Violations; Penalties Paid Do Not Cure Violations. Each and every day that a violation exists constitutes a separate and distinct offense. Each section violated constitutes a separate violation for any day at issue. If the person or persons responsible for a violation fail to correct the violation within the time period specified on the citation and required under Section 123.18, the Community Development Director may issue subsequent administrative citations for the uncorrected violation(s) without issuing a new notice as otherwise required by Section 123.18(a). Payment of the penalty shall not excuse the failure to correct the violation nor shall it bar any further enforcement action by the City. If penalties and costs are the subject of administrative appeal or judicial review, then the accrual of such penalties and costs shall be stayed until the determination of such appeal or review is final.

(b) Payments to City; Due Date; Late Payment Penalty. All penalties assessed under Section 123.16 shall be payable to the City of Eureka. Administrative penalties and costs assessed by means of an administrative citation shall be due within thirty (30) days from the date of the citation. The failure of any person to pay an administrative penalty and costs within that time shall result in the assessment of an additional late fee. The amount of the late fee shall be ten (10) percent of the total amount of the administrative penalty assessed for each month the penalty and any already accrued late payment penalty remains unpaid.

(c) Collection of Penalties; Special Assessments. The failure of any person to pay a penalty assessed by administrative citation under Section 123.16 within the time specified on the citation constitutes a debt to the City. The City may file a civil action, create and impose liens as set forth below, or pursue any other legal remedy to collect such money.

(d) Liens. The City may create and impose liens against any property owned or operated by a person who fails to pay a penalty assessed by administrative citation. The procedures provided for by the City Council shall govern the imposition and collection of such liens.

§ 123.18. ADMINISTRATIVE CITATION; NOTICE OF VIOLATION.

(a) Notice and Opportunity to Cure. The Community Development Director (“Director”) or his or her designee shall notify any person in violation of the Code provisions identified in Section 123.16(b) of such violation prior to the issuance of an administrative citation. Regardless of the manner of service of the notice under Section 123.19, the Director or his or her designee may post the notice of violation by affixing the notice to a surface in a conspicuous place on property that is (1) the person’s principal place of business in the City, or (2) if the person’s principal place of business is outside the City, the fixed location within the City from or at which the person conducts business in the City, or (3) if the person does not regularly conduct business from a fixed location in the City, one of the following: (i) the location where the person maintains payroll records if the notice of violation is for violation of Section 123.05(c), or (ii) the jobsite or other primary location where the person’s employees perform services in the City at the time the notice is posted. The notice of violation shall specify the action required to correct or otherwise remedy the violation(s). The person or persons responsible for the violation shall be allowed not less than ten (10) days from the date of the notice of violation to establish that no violation occurred or such person or persons are not responsible for the violation, or correct or otherwise remedy the violation; provided, however, that the Director may, in his or her discretion, assign a longer period, not to exceed twenty-one (21) days, within which to correct or otherwise remedy each violation, or establish that no violation occurred or such person or persons are not responsible for the violation. The Director may consider the cost of correction and the time needed to obtain information, documents, data and records for correction in assigning a specific period of time within which to correct or otherwise remedy each violation, or obtain and submit evidence that no violation occurred or such person or persons are not responsible for the violation.

(b) Issuance of Citation. If the person or persons responsible for the violation fail to comply with any portion of a notice of violation within the time provided, the Director may issue an administrative citation to the violator. The administrative citation shall be issued on a form prescribed by the Community Development Department.

§ 123.19. ADMINISTRATIVE CITATION AND NOTICE OF VIOLATION; SERVICE.

Service of a notice of violation and an administrative citation under Section 123.16 may be accomplished as follows:

(a) The Director or his or her designee may obtain the signature of the person responsible for the violation to establish personal service of the citation; or

(b) (1) The Director or his or her designee shall post the citation by affixing the citation to a surface in a conspicuous place on the property described in Section 123.18. Conspicuous posting of the citation is not required when personal service is accomplished or when conspicuous posting poses a hardship, risk to personal health or safety or is excessively expensive; and

(2) The Director or his or her designee shall serve the citation by first class mail as follows:

(i) The administrative citation shall be mailed to the person responsible for the violation by first class mail, postage prepaid, with a declaration of service under penalty of perjury; and

(ii) A declaration of service shall be made by the person mailing the administrative citation showing the date and manner of service by mail and reciting the name and address of the person to whom the citation is issued; and

(iii) Service of the administrative citation by mail in the manner described above shall be effective on the date of mailing.

§ 123.20. ADMINISTRATIVE CITATION; CONTENTS.

The administrative citation under Section 123.16 shall include all the following:

(1) A description of the violation;

(2) The date and location of the violation(s) observed;

(3) A citation to the provisions of law violated;

(4) A description of corrective action required;

(5) A statement explaining that each day of a continuing violation may constitute a new and separate violation;

(6) The amount of administrative penalty imposed for the violation(s);

(7) A statement informing the violator that the fine shall be paid to the City of Eureka within thirty (30) days from the date on the administrative citation, the procedure for payment, and the consequences of failure to pay;

(8) A description of the process for appealing the citation, including the deadline for filing such an appeal; and

(9) The name and signature of the Director.

§ 123.21. ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL.

(a) Period of Limitation for Appeal. Persons receiving an administrative citation may appeal it within fifteen (15) days from the date the citation is served. The appeal must be in writing and must indicate a return address. It must be accompanied by the penalty amount, specifying the basis for the appeal in detail, and must be filed with both the Community Development Director and the City Manager as indicated in the administrative citation.

(b) Hearing Date. As soon as practicable after receiving the written notice of appeal and the penalty amount, the City Manager his or her designee shall promptly select a hearing officer (who shall not be an employed in the Community Development Department) to hear and decide the administrative appeal. The hearing officer shall fix a date, time and place for the hearing on the appeal. Written notice of the time and place for the hearing may be served by first class mail, at the return address indicated on the written appeal. Service of the notice must be made at least ten (10) days prior to the date of the hearing to the person appealing the citation. The hearing shall be held no later than thirty (30) days after service of the notice of hearing, unless that time is extended by mutual agreement of the parties.

(c) Notice. Except as otherwise provided by law, the failure of any person with an interest in property affected by the administrative citation, or other person responsible for a violation, to receive a properly addressed notice of the hearing shall not affect the validity of any proceedings under this Chapter. Service by first class mail, postage prepaid, shall be effective on the date of mailing.

(d) Failure to Appeal. Failure of any person to file an appeal in accordance with the provisions of this section or to appear at the hearing shall constitute a failure to exhaust administrative remedies and a forfeiture of the penalty amount previously remitted.

(e) Submittals for the Hearing. No later than five (5) days prior to the hearing, the person to whom the citation was issued and the Community Development Director shall submit to the hearing officer, with simultaneous service on the opposing party, written information including, but not limited to, the following: the statement of issues to be determined by the hearing officer and a statement of the evidence to be offered and the witnesses to be presented at the hearing.

(f) Conduct of Hearing. The hearing officer appointed by the City Manager or their designee shall conduct all appeal hearings under this Chapter. The Community Development Director shall have the burden of proof in such hearings. The hearing officer may accept evidence on which persons would commonly rely in the conduct of their serious business affairs, including but not limited to the following:

(1) A valid citation shall be prima facie evidence of the violation;

(2) The hearing officer may accept testimony by declaration under penalty of perjury relating to the violation and the appropriate means of correcting the violation;

(3) The person responsible for the violation, or any other interested person, may present testimony or evidence concerning the violation and the means and time frame for correction.

The hearing shall be open to the public and shall be tape-recorded. Any party to the hearing may, at his or her own expense, cause the hearing to be recorded and transcribed by a certified court reporter. The hearing officer may continue the hearing and request additional information from the Community Development Director or the appellant prior to issuing a written decision.

(g) Hearing Officer’s Decision; Findings. The hearing officer shall make findings based on the record of the hearing and issue a decision based on such findings within fifteen (15) days of conclusion of the hearing. The hearing officer’s decision may uphold the issuance of a citation and penalties stated therein, may dismiss a citation, or may uphold the issuance of the citation but reduce, waive or conditionally reduce or waive the penalties stated in a citation or any late fees assessed if mitigating circumstances are shown and the hearing of officer finds specific grounds for reduction or waiver in the evidence presented at the hearing. The hearing officer may impose conditions and deadlines for the correction of violations or the payment of outstanding civil penalties. Copies of the findings and decision shall be served upon the appellant and the Community Development Director by certified mail.

(h) Hearing Officer’s Decision. The decision of the hearing officer is final. If the hearing officer concludes that the violation charged in the citation did not occur or that the person charged in the citation was not the responsible party, the Community Development Department shall refund or cause to be refunded the penalty amount to the person who deposited such amount. The hearing officer’s decision shall be served on the appellant by certified mail.

§ 123.22. REGULATIONS.

The Community Development Director may promulgate and enforce rules and regulations, and issue determinations and interpretations relating to the administrative penalty and citation system pursuant to sections 123.16 through 123.20, inclusive. The City Manager may promulgate and enforce rules and regulations, and issue determinations and interpretations relating to the conduct of administrative appeals under Section 123.21. Any rules and regulations promulgated by the Community Development Director or the City Manager shall be approved as to legal form by the City Attorney, and shall be subject to not less than one noticed public hearing. The rules and regulations shall become effective 30 days after receipt by the Clerk of the City, unless the City Council by resolution disapproves or modifies the regulations. The City Council’s determination to modify or disapprove a rule or regulation submitted by the Community Development Director or the City Manager shall not impair the ability of the Community Development Director or the City Manager to resubmit the same or similar rule or regulation directly to the City Council if the Community Development Director or the City Manager determines it is necessary to effectuate the purposes of this Chapter.

§ 123.23. JUDICIAL REVIEW.

(a) Procedures. After receipt of the decision of the hearing officer under Section 123.21, the appellant may file an appeal with the superior court pursuant to California Government Code Section 53069.4. The appeal shall be submitted within twenty (20) days of the date of mailing of the hearing officer’s decision, with the applicable filing fee. The appeal shall state the reasons the appellant objects to the findings or decision.

(b) Review. The superior court shall conduct a de novo hearing, except that the contents of the Community Development Department’s file (excluding attorney client communications and other privileged or confidential documents and materials that are not discoverable or may be excluded from evidence in judicial proceedings under the Evidence Code, Civil Code, Code of Civil Procedure or other applicable law) shall be received into evidence. A copy of the notice of violation and imposition of penalty shall be entered as prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein.

(c) Filing Fee. The superior court filing fee shall be twenty-five ($25.00). If the court finds in favor of the appellant, the amount of the fee shall be reimbursed to the appellant by the City of Eureka. Any deposit of penalty shall be refunded by the City of Eureka in accordance with the judgment of the court.

§ 123.24. OTHER REMEDIES NOT AFFECTED.

The administrative citation procedures established in this Chapter shall be in addition to any other criminal, civil, or other remedy established by law which may be pursued to address violations of this Chapter. An administrative citation issued pursuant to this Chapter shall not prejudice or adversely affect any other action, civil or criminal, that may be brought to abate a violation or to seek compensation for damages suffered.

§ 123.25. OUTREACH.

The Community Development Department shall establish a community-based outreach program to conduct education and outreach to employees.

§ 123.26. REPORTS.

The Community Development Department shall provide annual reports to the City Council on the implementation of the Minimum Wage Ordinance.

§ 123.27. INCONSISTENT LEGISLATION.

In the event that between March 7, 2008 and the effective date of this measure, legislation is enacted by the Eureka City Council or by the voters that is inconsistent with this Act, said legislation is void and repealed irrespective of the code in which it appears.