Texas cities: Don’t let policy zealots hijack your independence

Recently, I heard from a conservative source who was alarmed by an article in Politico Magazine by Paul Roberts about America’s increasingly assertive leftists.

The article focused on Seattle, where progressives are pursuing a varisocialism.” ety of measures intended to support workers in the lower income quartiles, in part because they would like to see all of us on the path to serfdom someday. From the left’s perspective, Roberts explained, Seattle is an ideal place for pioneering experiments in what one of its councilwomen refers to as “municipal It isn’t the only city dabbling in such things these days.

That makes sense, given that Democrats still have influence in most major American cities, even if they’re in red states such as Texas. And cities, like states, can serve as laboratories of democracy.

When state or national groups stage fights at the city level, they’re advocating for a one-size-fits-all approach informed by ideology rather than a community’s actual needs. This year’s fight for paid sick leave in Texas shows what I mean.

In February, Austin adopted an ordinance requiring most of the city’s employers to provide paid sick leave. San Antonio soon may do the same. Earlier this month, the city clerk’s office reported advocates successfully petitioned for at least a debate on the proposal. That means San Antonio voters will decide whether to adopt a paid sick leave ordinance in November unless City Council adopts one in the meantime.

Many conservatives are opposed to this kind of thing. Several Republican lawmakers have said they want to ban such ordinances via legislation during next year’s session, which begins in January. The Texas Public Policy Foundation

sued the Austin to block its ordinance from taking effect in the meantime.

State Attorney General Ken Paxton has warned San Antonio leaders against following Austin’s lead. In a letter to Mayor Ron Nirenberg and City Council, Paxton asserted that Texas law pre-empts such ordinances because they “increase wages for the workweek beyond those permitted by the Texas Minimum Wage Act.”

I only can assume the Texas bar exam consists entirely of multiple choice questions. Paxton’s reasoning on the subject is not persuasive, even by his standards.

The minimum wage is a floor, not a ceiling; the attorney general’s letter acknowledges that. To be more specific, it’s a floor on the market rate of an hour of labor. In Texas, that floor is set by the federal government, the laws of which are grudgingly recognized in the Texas Minimum Wage Act.

What Paxton may not realize is that paid sick leave is a benefit, the value of which often is derived from a formula that takes into account how long a worker has been employed by a company in addition to his or her usual hourly rate. State law doesn’t prevent employers from offering this benefit or preempt local ordinances requiring them to do so.

So city leaders in San Antonio should feel free to ignore the attorney general’s unsolicited opinion on this matter and instead consider whether such an ordinance would be good for San Antonio.

It doesn’t seem like a bad idea, necessarily. Working Texans for Paid Sick Time, the coalition that petitioned the city to take up the question, notes on its website that approximately 40 percent of Texas workers lack paid sick leave.

The statewide issue, however, won’t be resolved by a citywide ordinance, even if the city is the second-largest in Texas. And while San Antonio leaders don’t seem to be against paid sick leave per se, they have prioritized other issues. So the petition’s success presents them with a bit of a dilemma because a city often sends a message by adopting or rejecting a highprofile ordinance.

Austin, for example, is the capital of the state, and not exactly a center of industry. Even now, after decades of explosive growth, the state of Texas and the University of Texas are among the city’s largest employers. That growth can be explained by Austin’s low cost of living compared to coastal cities such as San Francisco, but it also has walkable neighborhoods, coffee shops and light rail.

As a result, Austin now is teeming with highly skilled, highly paid yuppies who can easily bear the minor cost increases that could be passed along to them as a result of a paid sick leave ordinance. And the message Austin City Council sent, in adopting its ordinance, was that employers in the service and retail sectors shouldn’t forget about the workers who have made it possible for them to capitalize on the growth of the city.

San Antonio would be sending a different message if it follows suit. The ordinances may be the same, but San Antonio and Austin aren’t. That’s why Austin has a long tradition of leftist grandstanding, whereas San Antonio’s leaders have espoused more centrist, probusiness policies in their ongoing efforts to encourage economic growth.

The differences between these two cities explain why the left should proceed with caution before pursuing its agenda via local governments.

A city with Austin's economic base probably can afford to dabble in municipal socialism. But policies like the paid sick leave ordinance could leave employers in a city like San Antonio reluctant to expand their payrolls. In that case, workers would pay the price.