Latest in a series of posts on wage equality 
Finding reluctance to moving to a vote from the other members of the Human Relations Committee as well as the meeting guest Councilperson because of concerns about the enforcement element, Chair Callahan restates concisely his position on the proposed wage equity ordinance and moving it forward.
It’s clarity and succinctness makes it a good reference point for the active discussion that follows leading up to a motion to postpone voting for what was ultimately agreed on as about six weeks from now.
“This is a good ordinance. It’s the same ordinance that all the cities, all the major cities are doing. I believe that 27 states that are now looking in to it. And I kind of find it hard to believe in the City of Bethlehem that it’s good for all these other places, but it’s not good for us. If there’s some other amendment that you’d like to add, you know, throw it out there. I mean we had discussion about a month ago, and I think that the meeting was scheduled about 3 weeks ago. So we knew this meeting was coming, we knew what the topic was. The ordinance was sent to us many weeks ago. And instead of stalling it or trying to table it, I think it’s that important of an ordinance for the women of the City of Bethlehem. I want to move it forward with a positive vote, and if you don’t want it, I understand it, then send it to full Council with a negative recommendation and let full Council listen to it.”
To be continued . . .
Realistic, meaningful implementation (& enforcement) is always an issue. Look at Bethlehem’s marijuana ordinance, which LUPD uses when appropriate, but has been basically ignored by the City’s own police department.
Legislation that is not coupled with meaningful implementation is generally ineffective and tends to be discriminatory in that some people are better able to have it enforced the others.
If there is only a fine, and it requires the aggrieved individual to pay for and initiate the prosecution, something seems missing.