Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Living Wage Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Labor groups urge Sonoma County to fund living‑wage enforcement and staff to monitor contractors
Summary
The North Bay Labor Council and allied groups told the Board of Supervisors the county's living‑wage ordinance will fail without dedicated enforcement staff; council representatives urged using existing resources now and seeking more funding later.
Get email alerts on the Living Wage Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Representatives of the North Bay Labor Council and allied labor groups urged Sonoma County supervisors Wednesday to fund active enforcement of the county’s living‑wage ordinance, arguing the policy includes contractor wage reductions for health and retirement benefits and a responsible‑bidder provision that requires staff monitoring.
Marty Bennett and Jack Buckhorn, leaders of the North Bay Labor Council, told the board research of other jurisdictions shows successful enforcement generally requires a dedicated staff member to (1) actively audit payroll records, (2) perform outreach to contractors, and (3) coordinate with state and federal agencies to verify compliance. The council cited Santa Cruz County as a model that assigns enforcement to a general services department staffer.
“We know that your budget is difficult this year, so we'd ask that you use existing resources to do that and work with us in the future to find additional money that we could use,” Buckhorn said.
Permit Sonoma and County staff said enforcement mechanisms were discussed during ordinance drafting but not funded in the current budget; instead, compliance is based on self‑reporting. County staff and supervisors asked about complaint pathways and referred complaints to the county fraud/waste/whistleblower hotline; staff said robust enforcement would require a formal, staffed program and that enforcement could be paired with procurement and contract compliance work.
The board did not vote on enforcement changes; supervisors asked staff to explore enforcement options and to detail costs for a staffed enforcement program during budget deliberations.
