Could MORE Ordinance mean fewer jobs?

As of this writing, the City of Milwaukee Common Council has yet to hold its full Council meeting on March 25. This will be a hugely important session to many for two reasons – one legislative and one symbolic. Actually, both are symbolic in some ways.

First, assuming it passes the Finance & Personnel Committee (which is likely), the Council will take up the emotionally contentious MORE ordinance. Actually, It was originally dubbed MORE – “Milwaukee Opportunities for Restoring Employment” – but now it has a different name: CPO, “Community Participation Ordinance.” Whatever the latest name happens to be, this legislation is the latest incarnation of “Community Benefits,” which was passed for Milwaukee County’s portion of the Park East (still a desert) but was denied for the City’s portion. (Joe Zilber’s “The Brewery,” Gorman affordable housing, etc.)

In terms of grassroots activism, there aren’t many who can compete with the MORE/CPO backers. Good Jobs Livable Neighborhoods and MICAH are two big proponents. And alders Hamilton, Wade, Coggs and Kovac are spearheading the Council effort. The Mayor, perhaps trying to atone for his take on paid sick leave, has even vowed to sign it. But, as always, there is one sticking point: prevailing wage.

Most of the central city and left-leaning aldermen (and alderwomen) are in support of large development projects receiving City financial assistance (at least $1 million) being required to pay a prevailing wage to all workers. Sounds good, right? But as with most of life, it’s a little more complicated than that.

Alone on an island, Pres. Willie Hines – a former roofer and economic specialist for the Milwaukee Urban League – is opposing his central city colleagues, because he’s afraid a “100-percent prevailing wage mandate,” as he calls it, will actually hurt minority developers and push jobs out into the suburbs. He may have a point.

Melissa Goins, Kalan Haywood, Carla Cross and other smaller, minority developers – as well as the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce and Milwaukee Urban League – have also been vocal in their opposition to the prevailing wage mandate. They say that they already pay a “family-sustaining wage,” and that the prevailing wage would give all business to the (mostly white) unions. Smaller and minority companies usually compete on price. They may pay slightly lower wages, but they have skilled workers just like the unions.

Naturally, the business community – and large developers – are also against the 100-percent prevailing wage mandate. (Currently these projects pay mostly a prevailing wage anyway. And public works projects are 100 percent prevailing wage.) They say that it’s tough enough to for them to create jobs in this economy, and if the measure passes it will give them even more reason to build out in the suburbs. Idle threat or profound wisdom?

No matter whose side you’re on, there will surely be plenty of fireworks at the Council meeting on March 25. It will be the place to be for activists, construction firms, unions, minority-owned developers and average Joes/Janes. Be there or be square. The kick-off is 9 a.m.

Another reason to save the date is to see UWM Chancellor Carlos Santiago speak as part of President Hines’ “Presidential Speaker Series.” Previous speakers have included elected officials like U.S. Senator Russ Feingold and business leaders like Summerfest’s Don Smiley. There will be extra drama for Santiago’s speech, though, because some aldermen – especially Bauman and Kovac – have been quite vocal in calling for UWM to build the proposed engineering campus downtown instead of Wauwatosa’s County Grounds.

Mayor Barrett has been characteristically silent on whether or not UWM should have its engineering school in Milwaukee or Tosa, but the aldermen have been pushing the issue for about a year. Before Alderman D’Amato left office, he drafted a resolution – which passed with strong support – making the official position of the City of Milwaukee to oppose UWM expansion outside Milwaukee. When Santiago speaks to Hines, Bauman, Kovac, et. al, it will be interesting to watch the expressions on listeners’ faces. Hopefully, Santiago will take questions. Or rotten tomatoes.

Lastly, there was this interesting Barrett quote, speaking about disparities in street quality, posted on a recent Journal Sentinel “All Politics” blog: “I want all my children to be treated equally – I don’t want to see disparities among the aldermen.” Was he calling the aldermen his children? Was he simply making an innocent analogy? Inside City Hall, most aldermen seemed to just shrug off the quote, but it did raise a few eyebrows.