The Albemarle County School Board has submitted their annual budget to the Board of Supervisors, requesting $99.9M in funding. As a part of that discussion, the board agreed that no employee of the school system should make less than $8/hour, as 53 employees currently do. School staff will look into raising the pay of all of those individuals to come in line with the City of Charlottesville and UVa’s living wage standards. Kate Andrews has the story in today’s Progress.
11 thoughts on “County School Board Considers Living Wage”
A simple, progressive act. Somebody someewhere in the school system brought this up one day, and now it has gotten close to being a reality.
If you include the benefits package no one makes less thena $8 an hour. That however is another story.
You know, that’s a good point about the benefits package. Ought we to praise one employer, who, for example, pays $8.00 hourly wage as a minimum, but provides no benefits, while we criticize another who pays $7.50, but includes full medical insurance without cost to employees? As an employer, I know that benefit is worth more than $.50 an hour.
Have Living Wage advocates considered this? I bring it up, for enlightenment, not criticism.
An important thing to consider, sure, but does the situation exist often? Are there many employers who pay less than a “living wage” but provide benefits?
And if there are, they certainly would have the option to cut back on those benefits if they couldn’t afford them.
I think the living wage camp understands the “something’s gotta give” concept, but the beef of the issue comes from the fact that those who don’t make $8/hour just need more cash to pay the rent before they can think too hard about health insurance.
Does it exist? you mean beside the University, Albemarle County, and some small companies I know. The answer is at the margins yes but there is no simple way to check. They not protesting outside Bodo’s, Yet!
They not protesting outside Bodo’s, Yet!
I suspect that this is, at least in part, because a lot of people that work at Bodo’s (I’m guessing here based on the employees that I’ve gotten to know over the years) are students that work there for some extra cash, or to help pay tuition. They don’t have children, a spouse, and often don’t have expenses that the rest of us have, because their parents are covering them.
Obviously, that’s not true of everybody, but there is something to be said regarding the necessity of a living wage at some jobs over others. I don’t think that Chaps, for example, needs to pay a living wage now or anytime soon; it’s almost entirely staffed by 14- to 17-year-olds that work there for 5-15 hours a week for pocket money.
Industries that rely on skilled labor, employ a significant percentage of their employees full-time, etc….those make more attractive and appropriate targets when it comes to pushing the living wage. It’s a need-based thing, so let’s start with those who need it!
When hiring someone why should I give one moment of thought to their family situation. I can’t ask about large portions of their personal lives so why should the family matter. Or put another way should I only hire single people because
I can’t pay $8 an hour.
It is not need based at all. I should hire qualified people to do a job not make their family my dependents. I have my own family to take care of. They could always start a business like me. But given the paperwork hassle and goverment do-gooder interference it’s a wonder why some people both at all.
You basically endorse slave wages for college students. Why stop there? It is now and has always been a JOB-based thing. Unless you would like to become a socialist country.
$8/hour is the living wage in our area for a family of four, if memory serves. $8/hour ceases to be a quasi-magic number when applied to a 17-year-old dependent. A living wage for them is probably a lot closer to $0/hour. If we as a society are going to pressure businesses to pay a living wage, I believe that it’s far more important to start with corporations that employ a high percentage of having-a-family-aged people rather than corporations that provide kids’ first jobs.
wow, did you even read the last post! Why shouldn’t I only hire single college students? If someone with a family applies should I throw out their application. Please answer the post not repeat why $8 is a good idea.
Remember I shouldn’t have to consider someone’s private life when I hire them.
Why shouldn’t I only hire single college students? If someone with a family applies should I throw out their application.
Because that would be illegal. :) No, actually, the same thing could be said of, say, insurance benefits. If your company provides benefits, why would you ever hire somebody with, say, health problems? If you extended benefits to family members, then why would you hire people with large families? Yet, somehow, employers continue to offer health insurance.
I’m sorry, but I’m sick, and my head hurts a lot, and I’m certainly not able to think clearly (yeah, yeah, I know, I’m leaving myself open there :) — hence my last reply having little to do with your original query. You know that I’m not one to give up on a good discussion, but I’m hoping that somebody else will pick up where I’m leaving off with this. Unless I somehow feel better tomorrow, in which case I’ll dive back in. :)
Dear Waldo please get some rest, you have a big day ahead of you on Saturday.
1.It won’t be illegal to just hire single college students. If you didn’t ask for that information.
2. The whole need questions needs to be addressed.
3. If some has health problems it becomes, in most cases, a pre-existing condition.
Comments are closed.