To override, or not to override that was the question. In New York anyway.

For those of you following the unfolding drama in New York City, the City Council has voted to override Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s veto of its Prevailing Wage bill.  For those of you who don’t know, the New York City Living Wage Law would require some companies that receive city funding or benefits to pay their workers higher wages. And, of course, those higher wages would use a formula based on the city comptroller’s prevailing wage scale.

Taking a position against this prevailing wage law, Mayor Bloomberg asserted his belief that it is wrong to tell employers how much they must pay, and claimed the law would threaten years of hard-won economic gains in the city. Bloomberg said he understood why unions and labor advocates were pressing for the legislation. “Their job is to increase the salaries and benefits of their members whether by negotiation, arbitration, or legislation… But it’s government’s job to stand up for taxpayers – and for job seekers. And that

[left him] no choice but to veto these bills.”

Proponents of the bill, including those on the City Council, clearly see things differently. They see it as a way to help preserve the middle class and put businesses on the same playing field by normalizing  rates without worrying about being undercut by other business who aren’t paying their workers adequately. New York Daily News summed up the supporters view this morning, “This bill is one step toward addressing income inequality and protecting our middle class. It will require that in certain buildings that benefit from a taxpayer subsidy or where the city pays most of the rent, building service workers such as security officers, doormen and handypersons will be paid the going rate in the private sector, the prevailing wage.”

As has been the case in most disputes over prevailing wage – this issue will likely be resolved by a body that isn’t subject to election(s) – the judiciary branch. How they’ll rule is anyone’s guess.

As for the Mayor’s decision, what do you think – should he have vetoed the law? And what about the city council – are they really acting in the best interests of the city, or just their own electability? Let us know your thoughts!