Milwaukee: Business-UNfriendly

Does Milwaukee have a death wish?

It seems so.

Attracting and keeping businesses in the city is crucial to its survival.

So why put up roadblocks and put in place ordinances that do anything but entice developers?

It's completely counterproductive.

Patrick McIlheran, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, writes:

The council Tuesday toyed with a rule that would order pretty much any big development to pay union-level construction wages. Members threw it back to a committee for more baking, but the ordinance will return. It drew a big crowd of spectators eager to guarantee that.

This has got to signal something to developers. That signal would be, "Run away."

Specifically, the ordinance would demand contractors pay "prevailing wages" when building anything that gets more than $1 million in taxpayer help. That's usually tax incremental financing, where the city borrows money to help out but pays it back entirely on the increased taxes that a new building pays. It's a subsidy only in the most stretched sense of the word, but the ordinance's backers, mainly unions, inner city pastors and Mayor Tom Barrett, see it as leverage: Most big projects in Milwaukee need help to be viable.

Nothing wrong with union wages if you can earn them. That is the snag, though.

The whole point of the ordinance would be to raise what developers have to pay the tradesmen putting up a building. Union boss Lyle Balistreri told council members Monday that letting them pay less just leads to workers competing on price.

But if labor costs more, the building costs more, about 8% to 14%, according to developers. Barrett's staff says it's got studies saying this won't increase costs, but studies that aren't from union shills find that such provisions routinely raise costs.

...If Milwaukee really does decide that all construction will be union-priced construction, by itself this won't kill development. But the rule isn't by itself. City voters also have commanded all businesses to offer employees nine more paid days off to tend to the illness of any child, grandma or friend who is "the equivalent" of family. Businesses have complained vociferously. Many have threatened to leave, while restaurants and union construction contractors have complained that the rule, not yet implemented due to a legal challenge, will ruin perfectly workable arrangements they've made with employees. All this has been to no avail.

This sick leave outrage is part of a continuum. From high taxes to a weird fee on going out of business to a general feeling that they're seen as the class enemy, businesses aren't finding our city a welcoming place. Why, then, would leaders want to give entrepreneurs one more reason to leave?

Because unions are asking for it, or so it seems.

Tom Barrett and other city leaders have to do all they can to encourage business in Milwaukee, not add to the already hostile, business-unfriendly environment.

Appeasing the unions isn't necessarily the best thing for the city.

This is about choices: To do what encourages growth or not to do what encourages it.

City leaders and, in the case of the sick leave ordinance, Milwaukee voters are choosing the latter by punishing entrepreneurs.

That's not good for business and that means it's not good for the city.