In arguments against the minimum wage, Captain Jack contends that the
establishment of a minimum wage did not reduce poverty for African Americans
and that it reduces employment opportunities for African Americans, especially
the most marginalized because of a criminal record. Captain Jack is entitled to
his opinion, but not his own facts.
From the time the minimum wage was established by executive order in 1938
until its buying power peaked in 1968, the minimum wage lifted many full time
workers out of poverty. Because of racial discrimination, which was legally
sanctioned until 1964, African Americans were both more likely than whites to
be unemployed and to be employed in the lowest wage jobs. The great society
programs of the 1960s expanded welfare programs begun as part of the New Deal
and added some. Housing was generally affordable to someone with only one full
time minimum wage job in 1968. A single full time minimum wage job could
support more than one person. Homelessness did not exist on a large scale.
The minimum wage of 1968, if adjusted for inflation would be close to $15 per
hour now. Its buying power began to plummet during the Carter administration
from 1977 to 1981. And there is not much left of the New Deal and Great Society
safety nets, which included cash assistance programs.
The "15 NOW" ordinance that was kept off the ballot would have brought the
minimum wage up to $15 over a period of several years for big employers, and
over a longer period of time for small employers. I thought it was too watered
down, though I could support it as being better than nothing.
With a minimum wage higher in Minneapolis than in surrounding communities, it
is likely that Minneapolis would attract more job seekers. If covert, hidden
racial discrimination continues mostly unchecked by the lack of enforcement of
civil rights laws, more marginalized people of color could get pushed out of
the labor market in Minneapolis. Unemployment rates for African Americans,
especially on the Northside are already very high. Even in the good ole days
near the end of the Clinton administration, the jobless rate on the Near
Northside was about 40%.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 all but eliminated overt (open) racial
discrimination in employment, housing and other fields. But the Civil Rights
Act did not address the illegal, yet covert (hidden) discrimination which
persisted. Affirmative Action in hiring programs forced employers covered by
Equal Employment Opportunity laws (e.g., federal contractors) to get members of
protected classes to apply for jobs that they offered. However, only token
hiring of protected classes was necessary to be considered in compliance.
Employers are not required to hire a "fair share" of members of protected
classes. Many employers opted for minimum compliance strategies and many still
do.
In my opinion, the Minneapolis Civil Rights Department should upgrade its
enforcement of Civil Rights laws by taking steps to detect covert
discrimination in employment, targeting employers covered by the Equal
Employment Opportunity Act who are minimally in compliance. Methods used in
employment and housing studies to detect hidden discrimination have been
accepted as evidence by the federal courts. Elaborate and expensive sting
operations are not the only method available. The Civil Rights Department would
handle complaints differently, not only considering a suspected case of
discrimination in isolation, but also in relation to other complaints and
evidence gathered in relation to the alleged discriminator. The department
would keep dossiers on employers and investigate complaints about
discrimination from those who see evidence of discrimination and who wouldn't
have standing to sue for damages to themselves. Employers who are put on notice
that their hiring practices will face increased scrutiny should also be offered
assistance in recognizing and eliminating illegal bias in their hiring process.
Employment and housing should get priority.
The city should also look at tenant screening processes that permit covert,
illegal discrimination and to mandate the use of a process that eliminates the
role of illegal bias and which can be easily monitored. Landlords who collect
applications and application fees from many who meet minimum qualifications to
rent a unit may be pocketing application fees with no intention of doing a
background check and leasing a dwelling unit to some applicants. The first
person to apply for an apartment who meets the minimum qualifications should
get the apartment. If the landlord is allowed to exercise discretion, to hold
out for the best candidate in the city's better neighborhoods, what often
happens is that the right candidate is a white candidate.
-Doug Mann, Folwell neighborhood