Considering local political climate, proponents add a few exemp- tions to make the ordinance palatable enough to pass. Other proposals set thresholds for application to businesses, based on employee numbers or the monetary value of a contract with a city. Supporters would love to apply their wage to all businesses in an urban area but fear conflict with the sovereignty of a state to set minimum wages. Another reason for targeting only contractors who do business with a city is strategic. Opposition is narrower and less vociferous, because many businessmen remain unaffected and expend no effort to fight.
Supporters use the divide and conquer mechanism.
These socialists firmly believe that business will exploit its employees, if government does not prevent such action. One immediate objective of the wage campaign is to drive back a large number of workfare recipients, many of whom already work for a minimum wage, into receipt of generous welfare benefits. Unions squawk that workfare folks threaten better-paying union jobs and view the living wage as a prime means to ascertain that welfare clients, at their minimum wage, do not compete for jobs. Living wage cheerleaders in L.A. stated that their ordinance has affected only 7,000 employees, yet unions worked diligently to pass this law, because they represent a huge number of public employees or employees of businesses with public contracts. Many living wage laws stipulate that wage mandates become superseded by union contracts.