Nearly three-fourths of the respondents to the Argus-Courier’s online poll April 29, 2010 agree with the City Council’s decision to raise the “living wage” pay rate by about 75 cents per hour for employees at the very bottom of the city’s pay scale.

Here are some of the comments by those who participated in the survey:

——

“A salaried income with a pension, insurance, and other benefits is hugely different from an hourly wage with none of the benefits associated with a salary.”

——

“For those at the bottom rung, a 75-cent raise is not much. I can’t believe that three of our council members voted no to such a small increase!”

——

“Furloughs were a compromise reached between the city and its workers. The living wage is an ordinance Petaluma has adopted. Enact it or suspend it.”

——

“A contract is a contract. The raises are far cheaper than paying for all of the lawsuits that the City Council has already gotten itself into.”

——

“If the better-paid workers have to take a 5 percent pay cut so that a fellow worker can live a decent life, then I thank that worker. We need a more even pay structure across America.”

——

“We will not solve our economic problems by stripping out the spending power of the folks at the bottom of the economic ladder. The living wage law protects the lowest paid workers.”

——

“It’s an increase of only 75 cents per hour for the bottom of the pay scale. It’s better than letting more people fall through the cracks.”

——

“The City Council has never meet a price increase they cannot live without. Where does money come from? It is not free money. How many workers will get a raise? I would bet none, so why bother?”

——

“The city is broke and you’re still giving away money. Balance the budget first, then give pay raises.”

——

“There’s a big difference in making $30,000 vs. $130,000 and I happen to be one of the lucky $130,000 workers. They deserve the increase.”

——

“There’s no excuse for those on the council who didn’t vote for this one!”

——

“The right decision was made and demonstrated comprehensive thinking.”

——

“These are the lowest paid city workers. I think they deserve a living wage.”

——

“Unfortunately, the pain must be shared by all! You can’t cut or freeze regular city workers salaries and then give others a raise no matter how small. The Big Four on our City Council just don’t get it!”

——

“Both are hard choices. I go with the underdog. Raise the minimum wage. Get town employees off food stamps.”

——

“Cost of living will continue to increase, and if the pay scale does not follow, there will be plenty of homeless.”

——

“If health care costs were reduced, we might not need this living wage increase!

——

“Reductions to city workers have not put them anywherenear the living wage level. We cannot ignore those at less than subsistence level.”

——

“What a slap in the face of those employees who took a paycut and the ones that were laid off to help with the city budget. Deplorable, absolutely deplorable!”

——

“Absolutely ridiculous decision (with Torliatt at the lead). Businesses are trying to survive this recession and our Council raises their costs of doing business. The unemployed will remain that way.”

——

“BETTER YET! let’s all go on welfare! Why work? let’s tax the fat cats! work is for the bourgeoisie! we are too intellectual to have to sully ourselves with that!”

——

“Councilmembers Healy, Rabbitt and Harris voted no on this. I guess that they don’t care much about the working class.”

——

“Crazy. Why not set the minimum wage at $30 an hour? $50 an hour sounds better. Companies, jobs and the associated spending and tax revenues will leave town. Raise taxes and fees, and no one will come.”

——

“For Healy, Rabbitt and Harris to oppose this increase is absurd. $6 per day may not make a difference to these three men, but surely will help to improve the lives of the lowest paid employees of our city.”

——

“Healy, Rabbitt and Harris OPPOSED such a modest expense for the well being of city employees! Big surprise. Once again, politics beats common sense and decent regard for those who serve our community.”

——

“I think people should be paid the market rate based on their skills and ability to perform the duties. Local government should maximize the community benefit from tax revenue.

——

“It is not the job of the city to set wages. Free markets determine what a job is worth! Petaluma continues to make more and more anti-business decisions. Wake- up and elect some pro-biz officials!”

——

“Living wages are so low that one still can’t really live with a living wage. It takes two to three living wage earners to get by in Sonoma County. Provo for the Petaluma Council for having courage.”

——

“Once again people running for higher office have made decisions to get votes. Perhaps they should remember that they were elected to serve the city not position themselves for higher office.”

——

“The economy is down, people are losing their jobs and the city is spending more than it has; this makes absolutely no sense. What were they thinking? In survey, please show how council members voted.”

——

“The increase also benefits employees of contractors who perform work formerly done by city employees. $10,000 a year this costs does not make up for the wage reductions and job losses.”

——

“The market determines wages, not the government.”

——

“Those getting $0.75 are so far below other top wage earners it is pathetic. This question clearly assumes the reader is uninformed and is designed to elicit a negative response. Bad question.”

——

We abolished slavery some time ago, and public agencies shouldn’t pay slave wages.

——

What makes a civilized society is our care for the less well off – including our lowest paid city workers. Shame on Healy, Rabbitt and Harris for not understanding this ancient moral imperative.