Michigan Senate Guts Minimum Wage Hike

[Mega Hertz]

Hot off the press!

Original story:
https://www.freep.com/story/news/politi ... 137325002/

Michigan Senate guts minimum wage hike, paid sick leave
Kathleen Gray, Detroit Free Press Published 12:14 p.m. ET Nov. 28, 2018 | Updated 2:38 p.m. ET Nov. 28, 2018



LANSING — Republicans in the state Senate voted Wednesday to gut two initiatives that would raise the minimum wage to $12 per hour and require employers to provide paid sick time to employees.

The Senate passed the bills on a mostly party-line vote of 26-12 after the Senate Government Operations committee earlier in the day made significant changes to the measures on 3-2 party-line vote.

Under the changes, instead of raising the minimum wage to $12 per hour by 2022, wages would not reach that level until 2030. And tipped workers such as bartenders and wait staff, who also were supposed to see a $12 hour wage more gradually, will see their pay rise to only $4 per hour by 2030.

Paid sick time, which was supposed to accrue at a rate of one hour for every 30 hours worked, or 72 hours per year, was cut to one hour for every 40 hours worked, or 36 hours per year.

The GOP-sponsored bills were done to ensure that “it maintains the spirit and intent of the initiative,” said Sen. Mike Shirkey, R-Clarklake, who sponsored the changes to paid sick leave. “In other states where this has passed, it has led to increased incentives to not hire people and a cacophony of lawsuits between employees and employers.”

But Sen. Curtis Hertel, D-East Lansing, said the changes showed an awful display of political gamesmanship because the bills weren't introduced until after the Nov. 6 election to hide the measures from voters before they cast their ballots.

"The answer is that you don’t like the results of the election and negotiations won’t work out the way you want to in the next session," he said. "I’m willing to negotiate, but I will not support a blatant disregard of our democracy."

The votes unravel laws passed earlier this year to raise the minimum wage from $9.25 to $12 per hour and require employers to provide paid sick time for workers.



Progressive groups successfully had gathered enough signatures to get the two issues on the Nov. 6 general election ballot. But the Legislature swooped in and approved the two citizen-led initiatives in September, in an effort that was more about keeping the issues off the Nov. 6 ballot and giving the Legislature the power to amend the two laws with a simple majority. If the proposals had gone to the ballot and been passed by voters, it would take a ¾ majority to amend the laws.

Two days after the election results were tallied, the changes to the two bills were introduced, They are expected to be voted on in the House next week.

The Republicans in the Legislature want to make the changes before Jan. 1, when Gov.-elect Gretchen Whitmer is sworn in and before the GOP majorities in both the Senate and House shrink.

The business community rallied to change the two bills as a way to keep their costs down, said Charles Owen of the National Federation of Independent Businesses.


“This would make it very difficult for us to be competitive,” he said of the paid sick leave law. “The Michigan proposal is worded so sloppily that an employee could disappear for three days, come back and then it would be up to the employer to prove that they weren’t sick.”

The minimum wage increase would be “Armageddon for the restaurant industry,” said Robert O’Meara, vice president of the Michigan Restaurant Association. “In Michigan, the restaurant and hospitality industry employs 595,000 people and they rely on the tips they receive every day.”

But Democrats and the people who gathered the signatures to get the issues on the ballot decried the legislative action as a slap at democracy.

“I’m a mom and we have a lot of conversations with my kids about fairness. What I know for sure is not fair is that we all get sick, but only some of us can take time off to heal or take care of someone,” said Danielle Atkinson, the founding director of the advocacy group Mothering Justice who led the effort to get paid sick time on the ballot. “We got 400,000 signatures and the people weren’t confused — they knew exactly what they were signing. This is not democracy. People signed a petition and expected their voice to be heard.”


“The fact that over 400,000 people signed the petition who want this to be the standard should prompt the legislature to vote against the changes,” he said. “As a business owner, I want the state Legislature to support businesses like me.”

Under the minimum wage bill, the $9.25 current minimum wage would increase by $.23 cents per year until 2030 when it hits $12 per hour. Tipped workers were removed from that equation and their $3.52 current hourly wage would increase by $.04 cents per year and hit $4 per hour in 2030. If the tips don’t bring an employee up to the minimum wage, the employer would have to pay the shortfall.

Senate Minority Leader Jim Ananich, D-Flint, opposed the bills and said he believes the action is unconstitutional. He cited an opinion from former Attorney General Frank Kelley, who said that bills could not be adopted and then amended in the same session year.

But Senate Majority Leader Arlan Meekhof, R-West Olive, said he believes the state constitution allows the Legislature to make changes to adopted laws.

The bills — SB 1171 and 1175 — now head to the House of Representatives for consideration as soon as next week.

*****************************************************************

"A rising tide lifts all boats"

[TC Talks]

I don't understand this: $12 an hour wages = more discretionary income = more spending power = more $$$ in the economy.

Nothing like averting a ballot initiative to fuck over voters. This will be back and I hope they go for $14 an hour implemented retroactively.

[Deleted User 24]

The GOP shits and runs.

[MWmetalhead]

Most jobs already pay at least $11 per hour in this state.

I think the wage increase schedule for non-restaurant jobs probably should've been left alone. To use a Bill Schuette phrase, the originally approved language would've helped ensure we as a state "do not go backward."

However, the Senate's changes to the sick time and restaurant wage provisions were prudent. I support those aspects of the legislation.

I do think there's a decent chance that this legislation - if it becomes law - will be challenged in court.

[TC Talks]

States with the greatest success have higher minimum wages. Why would marginalizing the workforce create a better Michigan? It won't.

[Mega Hertz]

This is assuming, of course, your job offers that entitlement-laden "I'm puking and shitting my guts out and can't get out of bed" sick time. Not only can you not afford to miss time, but you also can't afford the doctor.

I have seen this happen far too many times. I remember eons ago when I was 17 and working at a national chain steakhouse. I got food poisoning from a Dinty Moore TV dinner, and couldn't even stand. It was brutal. Never having missed a day of work in the year I worked there, when I called to inform management that I wouldn't be in, the manager of the kitchen (who was not even the boss I was supposed to report to) told me, and I quote, "You don't find someone to cover your shift, you don't have a job".

That taught me to NEVER fall ill or allow life to happen ever again!

[Turkeytop]

A higher minimum wage means fewer jobs.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol ... s/5582779/

Those who still had jobs would make more on the lower end, but is it worth many making nothing?

We heard those same dire predictions here in Ontario, when earlier this year, the minimum wage was increased from$11.60/hr to $14.00/hr. In fact, it hasn't happened..

Ontario is currently experiencing a labour shortage. Even unskilled jobs are going unfilled. Just about every fast food joint has help wanted signs posted out front.

https://lfpress.com/business/local-busi ... rn-ontario

[Mike]

I do think there's a decent chance that this legislation - if it becomes law - will be challenged in court.

From September: https://www.mlive.com/news/index.ssf/20 ... ballo.html

Such amendments could potentially "gut" the proposals, attorney Mark Brewer said during a press conference today for the Michigan One Fair Wage Group. Brewer also is the attorney for MI Time to Care.

If lawmakers opt for the adopt-and-amend plan, they likely would need to pass the initial bills by Friday, Sept. 7, the deadline by which the Secretary of State must certify questions on the ballot.

Brewer said such a maneuver would violate Article 2, Section 9, of the Michigan Constitution, which lays out the rules for ballot initiatives.

"The constitution does not allow the Legislature to adopt and then change in the same legislative session," Brewer said. "That is not an option."

He said the point is underscored by a 1964 opinion by then-Attorney General Frank Kelley that says amendments to laws resulting from ballot initiatives could occur in "subsequent sessions."

Three law professors interviewed by MLive said that Brewer is correct.

"If they did it, it would blatant disregard for the constitution. It would be a clear violation of Article 2, Section 9," said Mark Totten, a Michigan State University law professor and former Democratic candidate for attorney general.

He said there is no definitive ruling by the Michigan Supreme Court, but that's only because the Legislature has never before attempted such a strategy.

"All you have to do is read the constitution," Totten said. "The text is clear."

Moreover, he said, it's just a matter of common sense.

"If it were permissible, the Legislature could do an end-run around ballot initiatives every time," Totten said.

He added the state constitution "reflects that people are uncomfortable with giving the Legislature the sole power to make laws. In fact, even just by talking about this, legislative leaders are showing we can't trust them to have that sole power."

Does the constitutionality issue have merit?

[Deleted User 8570]

I do think there's a decent chance that this legislation - if it becomes law - will be challenged in court.

From September: https://www.mlive.com/news/index.ssf/20 ... ballo.html

Such amendments could potentially "gut" the proposals, attorney Mark Brewer said during a press conference today for the Michigan One Fair Wage Group. Brewer also is the attorney for MI Time to Care.

If lawmakers opt for the adopt-and-amend plan, they likely would need to pass the initial bills by Friday, Sept. 7, the deadline by which the Secretary of State must certify questions on the ballot.

Brewer said such a maneuver would violate Article 2, Section 9, of the Michigan Constitution, which lays out the rules for ballot initiatives.

"The constitution does not allow the Legislature to adopt and then change in the same legislative session," Brewer said. "That is not an option."

He said the point is underscored by a 1964 opinion by then-Attorney General Frank Kelley that says amendments to laws resulting from ballot initiatives could occur in "subsequent sessions."

Three law professors interviewed by MLive said that Brewer is correct.

"If they did it, it would blatant disregard for the constitution. It would be a clear violation of Article 2, Section 9," said Mark Totten, a Michigan State University law professor and former Democratic candidate for attorney general.

He said there is no definitive ruling by the Michigan Supreme Court, but that's only because the Legislature has never before attempted such a strategy.

"All you have to do is read the constitution," Totten said. "The text is clear."

Moreover, he said, it's just a matter of common sense.

"If it were permissible, the Legislature could do an end-run around ballot initiatives every time," Totten said.

He added the state constitution "reflects that people are uncomfortable with giving the Legislature the sole power to make laws. In fact, even just by talking about this, legislative leaders are showing we can't trust them to have that sole power."

Does the constitutionality issue have merit?

Probably... and they’ll have a much harder time ramming this through next session if it doesn’t stand...

[Deleted User 14803]

I hope when the vote happens next week that the minimum wage will not go up to $12. an hour till 2030.

[Turkeytop]

I hope when the vote happens next week that the minimum wage will not go up to $12. an hour till 2030.

I assume you aren't a minimum wage worker.

[Deleted User 8570]

I hope when the vote happens next week that the minimum wage will not go up to $12. an hour till 2030.

Why? So folks can buy less stuff?

[Deleted User 14803]

Now, if you raise the minimum wage small businesses owners have to pay workers more and may have to lay off some employees,restaurant owners have to raise menu prices that in turn cuts back on customers, The grocery store raises prices and everything just keeps going up.
The minimum wage job is there for the young just starting to get in job market and for most people to supplement their income it’s not a lifetime situation to be on minimum wage ones whole life.By the way Turkey ,I’m Retired.

[G G]

If the babbys want to make better money, make them get off their obamaphones and facechat and look for real jobs. All they do is stem and have babbys that I have to pay for. That's okay. President Trump will put an end to all of that!

[Deleted User 14803]

If you see minimum wage increase like the left wants ,you will see automation in places you never seen before faster then you think ,right now in some Micky D’s they have kiosks replacing counter order takers,
Next is food preparation and than the next thing and so on ,eventually you will have 1 or 2 people a shift in a fast food establishment and at that point the Raise the minimum wage screaming restaurant employees will in deed get their $15. An hour this is not just in food service but eventually every industry.In 1973 my first job was at Burger King I became manager in ‘75 way back then BK was talking automation so it’s coming but if minimum wage goes up you can best believe it will be here quickly.