I never thought that trying to extend the city's "living wage" law to a dozen hotels near Los Angeles International Airport was a good idea.
Please don't misunderstand. Directing businesses to pay their employees at least $10.64 an hour is a smart and principled way to help the working poor. Those who insist that such a policy would trigger a huge loss of jobs are flat-out wrong.
The problem with targeting a handful of hotels -- and this was true even before a Superior Court judge last week barred the city from enforcing the ordinance -- is the narrowness of the approach.
Proponents of the measure say these hotels derive a substantial portion of their income from travelers using the city-owned airport, so they should be made to comply with the living wage law, just as municipal contractors have since 1997.
Yet this always seemed unfair. What about their competitors down the road? Why should they get off the hook?
The same logic applies to the workers. The housekeepers and bellhops along Century Boulevard deserve a living wage -- but so do the tens of thousands of other Angelenos making less than $10.64 an hour. (The state minimum wage is $7.50.)
In the wake of the judge's ruling, some are suggesting that the issue be put to a public vote. I hope that happens. But it would be a mistake to limit a referendum to these 12 establishments.
It's time, instead, to have a real, honest debate about implementing a citywide living wage.
I can already hear the screaming: "It's up to the marketplace to decide what people get paid." "Imposing a living wage across the city will make L.A. even more inhospitable to business."
But creating a vibrant business environment and ensuring that workers are paid a decent amount are not mutually exclusive.
In many ways, the free market is magical. It's far from perfect, though, especially for those struggling to make ends meet.
For decades, our nation's leaders were sensitive to this. It was widely accepted by Democrats and Republicans alike that a robust minimum wage was, in the words of one president, "a matter of justice." (By the way, it wasn't Franklin Roosevelt, Lyndon Johnson or Bill Clinton who said that. It was Richard Nixon.)
Just how robust? One mordant remark I get a lot is, "If having a living wage is so brilliant, why stop at $10.64? Why not mandate $50 or $100 an hour?"
