Labor and Industrial Relations Prohibitions on Local Government Wage and Employment Benefit Mandates: Change Provisions Relating to the Prohibition of Local Government Wage and Employment Benefit Mandates; Provide That No Local Government Entity May Through Its Purchasing or Contracting Procedures Seek to Control or Affect the Wages or Employment Benefits Provided by Its Vendors, Contractors, Service Providers, or Other Parties Doing Business With the Local Government Entity; Provide for Related Matters; Repeal Conflicting Laws; and for Other Purposes

• Jurisdiction: Georgia,United States
• Publication year: 2010
• Citation: Vol. 22 No. 1

Georgia State University Law Review

Volume 22 , „

Article 9

Issue 1 Fall 2005

9-1-2005

LABOR AND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS Prohibitions on Local Government Wage and Employment Benefit Mandates: Change Provisions Relating to the Prohibition of Local Government Wage and Employment Benefit Mandates; Provide That No Local Government Entity May Through Its Purchasingor Contracting Procedures Seek to Control or Affect the Wages or Employment Benefits Provided by its Vendors, Contractors, Service Providers, or Other Parties Doing Business with the Local Government Entity; Provide for Related Matters; Repeal Conflicting Laws; and for Other Purposes

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalarchlve.gsu.edu/gsulr Part of the Law Commons

Recommended Citation

Muse, Keith (2005) "LABOR AND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS Prohibitions on Local Government Wage and Employment Benefit Mandates: Change Provisions Relating to the Prohibition of Local Government Wage and Employment Benefit Mandates; Provide That No Local Government Entity May Through Its Purchasing or Contracting Procedures Seek to Control or Affect the Wages or Employment Benefits Provided by its Vendors, Contractors, Service Providers, or Other Parties Doing Business with the Local Government Entity; Provide for Related Matters; Repeal Conflicting Laws; and for Other Purposes," Georgia State University Law Review: Vol. 22: Iss. 1, Article 9.

Available at: http://digitalarchive.gsu.edu/gsulr/vol22/iss1/9

This Peach Sheet is brought to you for free and open access by the College of Law Publications at Digital Archive @ GSU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Georgia State University Law Review by an authorized administrator of Digital Archive @ GSU. For more information, please contact digitalarchive@gsu.edu.

LABOR AND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

Prohibitions on Local Government Wage and Employment Benefit Mandates: Change Provisions Relating to the Prohibition of Local

Government Wage and Employment Benefit Mandates; Provide That No Local Government Entity May Through Its Purchasing or

Contracting Procedures Seek to Control or Affect the Wages or Employment Benefits Provided by Us Vendors, Contractors, Service Providers, or Other Parties Doing Business with the Local Government Entity; Provide for Related Matters; Repeal Conflicting Laws; and for Other Purposes

Code Section: Bill Number: Act Number: Georgia Laws: Summary:

Effective Date:

O.C.G.A. § 34-4-3.1 (amended)

HB 59

69

2005 Ga. Laws 450

This Act prevents Georgia municipalities from enforcing or passing ordinances that give preferences to contractors, bidders, and others who voluntarily pay their employees certain wages and benefits and seek business with the municipality. July 1, 2005

History

Representative Earl Ehrhart of the 36th district introduced HB 59 because he wanted to clarify the language in Code section 34-4-3.1, which was enacted in 2004.¹ The language provided that a municipality could not require contractors and others to pay higher wages and partner benefits to their employees in order to do business

1. See Audio Recording of House Proceedings, Feb. 22, 2005 (remarks by Rep. Earl Ehrhart), http://www.georgia.gov/00/article/0.2086,4802_6107103_33078458,00.html [hereinafter House Audio]; 2004 Ga. Laws 377, § 2, at 378 (formerly found at O.C.G.A. § 34-4-3.1 (2004)).

177

Produced by The Berkeley Electronic Press, 2005 ^ _{tt t} t,

^{J J} Hei'nOnline -- 22 Ga. St. U. L. Rev. 177 2005-2006

178 GEORGIA STATE UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW [Vol. 22:177

with that municipality.² Representative Ehrhart specifically addressed the City of Atlanta's passage of a local ordinance that made higher wage payments and partner benefits voluntary.³ Representative Ehrhart introduced HB 59 to prevent Atlanta and other municipalities from imposing requirements that were voluntary in name only.⁴ In late 2004, the City of Atlanta enacted a living wage ordinance that gave preference to bidders on city contracts if they paid their employees $10.50 per hour with insurance or $12 per hour without insurance.⁵ In response to Representative Ehrhart's introduction of the bill, which would prevent municipalities from giving preferences to bidders for paying the living wage, the Atlanta City Council passed a resolution saying the bill was "inconsistent with principles of local control and home rule."⁶

Representative Ehrhart stated that with the passage of the bill, Georgians "can compete on an equal playing field for doing work With government agencies in their area."⁷ Drafters designed the bill to keep jobs in Atlanta even if the wage rates are not as high as opponents would prefer.⁸ In 2004, Representative Ehrhart stated that AirTran Airlines had chosen to open their new satellite reservations office in Carrollton, Georgia instead of Atlanta due to the living wage ordinance.⁹ According to Representative Ehrhart, this is just one example of Atlanta's loss of as many as 100 jobs due to the living wage ordinance.¹⁰

The City of Atlanta lobbied against the passage of the bill for two reasons.¹¹ First, the City said the bill would...