Election year mistake or playing to their base?

tbone · 08-03-2006, 02:34 PM

Well we have all heard about the minimum wage increase and the estate tax break, in fact it's a thread in this subforum. I was however unaware increasing the minimum wage, as the bill is written, would override state laws in several states that allow tipped employees to keep their wages on top of the federal minimum wage, unlike other states that can use the tips to make up the difference between the $2 the waitress is paid and the actual minimum wage of over $5.

So I question the judgement of allowing this seemingly special interest technicality into this already high profile bill that seems to be penalizing some of the lowest wage earners in the country while at the same time giving the much covered estate tax breaks to the multi-millionaires. The tipped employees and at least one gov't reports says this federal bill will lower wages of tipped employees in these states.

If this is simply playing to their base, does the GOP think there is enough millionaires to elect them?

Original story here

Selected quotes:

A provision in GOP-written minimum-wage legislation passed by the House and under consideration this week in the Senate could change the law in those seven states. (The others are Montana, Alaska, Minnesota and Oregon.) It would deal a pay cut of $3 or more an hour to thousands of waiters, bellhops and hairdressers in those states, according to Democrats and labor groups.

Republicans and the National Restaurant Association, which opposes a minimum-wage increase and fought for the tip provision, dispute the Democratic interpretation. They say the legislation is intended to have an impact only when the states in question increase their minimum wage — at which point the increase would come out of a worker's tips, not an employer's payroll.

But a memo by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service on Wednesday backed up the Democrats' position. Under the bill's language, the seven affected states "would seem to be prohibited from enforcing the minimum-wage rate provisions of their laws with respect to a tipped employee," the memo said.

ballz2wallz · 08-03-2006, 03:23 PM

i'm not sure i understand what's going to happen...what will change? they can't keep their tips? what states does this apply to?

Thorgrim · 08-03-2006, 03:24 PM

Repost

tbone · 08-03-2006, 05:23 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

i'm not sure i understand what's going to happen...what will change? they can't keep their tips? what states does this apply to?

This will apply to 8 states including California, Washington, etc....see website for all 8. Currently those states require waitresses, and other "tipped" employees to be paid minimum wage (federal is $5.25?, and some of the states have higher minimum wages). They get to keep their tips on top of the wage they are paid. The other 42 states allow tips to make up the difference between the actual wage a business pays the employee and the federal minimum wage, thus waitresses in my state (Ohio) get paid a little over $2.00 an hour and their tips are expected to push them over the $5.25 mark. So no biggie for those states.

But for the 8 other states, this new federal law will decrease hourly wages currently required under state law by at least $3 per hour for people who only make $18,000-$35,000 a year anyway. This technicality is strongly supported by the restaurant association and was slipped in kind of under the radar.

I don't think this is a repost, unless you think I am debating minimum wage or estate taxes, which I am not. Please post the link if it is indeed a repost and I apologize.

ballz2wallz · 08-03-2006, 05:28 PM

oh i see...

i must say though, servers get a good bit of money in tips. most i've known that only make $2 bucks/hr. do very well. i'm not sure this is going to matter much.

tbone · 08-03-2006, 05:42 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

oh i see...

i must say though, servers get a good bit of money in tips. most i've known that only make $2 bucks/hr. do very well. i'm not sure this is going to matter much.

Don't get me wrong, some servers make a decent living. But to suddenly decrease any servers wages by $3 an hour would change a lot of things even for the ones who make $15 an hour.

The ones, however, who work 3rd shift at the neighborhood denny's pulling down a cool $17,000 a year including tips are going to have to struggle with paying rent, electric, etc. or go on gov't assistance. Take $3 an hour off that and it's going to be rough!! Going from $17,000 a year to more like $12,000 and now qualifying them for Gov't assistance due to being below the poverty line. I kind of thought self sufficience was the goal and not gov't assistance?

JaJae · 08-03-2006, 06:35 PM

In NJ, if you don't make minimum wage in tips as a server, many restaurants don't bother paying you the difference to make minimum wage. This could really hurt them.

Honestly I don't believe in this whole tipping thing the way it is now. Tipping used to be a bonus to the server's salary on top of the costs of dining. Restaurants have managed to weasel their pay and cut their costs of employees. It's not fair to other businesses. I'd rather pay an extra buck for my burger and have the business pay the server more per hour than be obligated to tip 15-20% (I generally tip 20-25%).

If this goes through and people start losing money they'll likely change to a better paying job and restaurants will be forced to start paying more. Which I would prefer. The other downside is many of them won't find a better paying job and then rather than the restaurants paying for it, we will.

I honestly feel we should just do away with the federally allowed lowered minimum wage for servers and force all restaurants to pay at least minimum wage. That would solve the problem. If you force them all to do it, they'll all have to raise prices to compensate. There's no reason restaurants should be able to get slave wages for their labor, it doesn't make sense.

Other professions who work on tips, such as hair stylists get a decent living wage. Servers should too.

6SpeedTA95 · 08-03-2006, 06:42 PM

I hope this bill doesn't passjust because I dont like min wage laws, I dont want an increase in min wage. Furthermore I dont want the feds stepping on the toes of the states. And finally I AM for the tax cuts but I'd rather have the bill not pass.

Thorgrim · 08-03-2006, 06:53 PM

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

I hope this bill doesn't passjust because I dont like min wage laws, I dont want an increase in min wage. Furthermore I dont want the feds stepping on the toes of the states. And finally I AM for the tax cuts but I'd rather have the bill not pass.

Some states have no min-wage laws, would you like companies to be able to set wages at 20 cents an hour?

ballz2wallz · 08-03-2006, 06:55 PM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Some states have no min-wage laws, would you like companies to be able to set wages at 20 cents an hour?

capitalism prevents them from doing so :wink:

ballz2wallz · 08-03-2006, 06:57 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

In NJ, if you don't make minimum wage in tips as a server, many restaurants don't bother paying you the difference to make minimum wage. This could really hurt them.

that's illegal isn't it?

honestly, i don't mind this bill...i realize that minimum wages HAVE to be increased at some point. i certainly don't agree with the reasons or the frequency that the democrats want minimum wage increases, but i realize over time they have to match inflation...and i certainly agree with the estate taxes elimination.

i'm not sure this tipping thing is going to affect as many people as you think...i have a feeling it's being blown out of proportion.

6SpeedTA95 · 08-03-2006, 08:23 PM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Some states have no min-wage laws, would you like companies to be able to set wages at 20 cents an hour?

If the market dictates thats what the job is worth then yes. Considering less than 2 % of wage earners (note: thats WAGE earners, which doesn't include exempt employees) earn minimum wage I'd say the market is doing a good job dictating wages.

Thorgrim · 08-04-2006, 01:36 AM

http://today.reuters.com/news/articl...S-UPDATE-1.XML

its dead, rejoice

they only got 56 out of 60 needed to end the debate, its filibustered

Oh Senate Dems, how I love thee

ballz2wallz · 08-04-2006, 09:52 AM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

http://today.reuters.com/news/articl...S-UPDATE-1.XML

its dead, rejoice

they only got 56 out of 60 needed to end the debate, its filibustered

Oh Senate Dems, how I love thee

translated: i'd rather the dems beat the republicans than see some real progress in society

Thorgrim · 08-04-2006, 10:25 AM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

translated: i'd rather the dems beat the republicans than see some real progress in society

If progress is giving paris hilton 91 million extra ontop of her $100 million she's already getting as a tax cut during a time of war against terrorism...then count me out

Scrum · 08-04-2006, 10:33 AM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

translated: i'd rather the dems beat the republicans than see some real progress in society

Tax breaks for the rich are very progressive.

ballz2wallz · 08-04-2006, 10:36 AM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

If progress is giving paris hilton 91 million extra ontop of her $100 million she's already getting as a tax cut during a time of war against terrorism...then count me out

the fact that you use paris hilton as a reason to block a bill is

ballz2wallz · 08-04-2006, 10:36 AM

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

Tax breaks for the rich are very progressive.

how many more minimum wage earners are there than rich?

the fact you even call it a 'tax break' is ridiculous. it's arleady been taxed once! why do you want to tax it again? because you can?!

motivez · 08-04-2006, 10:32 PM

How can conservatives in the same breath claim that a minimum wage is going to cause so many problems for the country, but then say that there's really not that many people that minimum wage impacts?

I've heard that argument over and over again and no one has been able to provide statistics on minimum wage, so seems most of what's being repeated is conjecture or talking points.

Also, what happened to us being at war and having to give up our freedoms, etc, to protect America? Why are freedoms the only things that should be sacrificed while the very rich get a pass in a "time of war"?

Nonphixion · 08-05-2006, 11:25 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

In NJ, if you don't make minimum wage in tips as a server, many restaurants don't bother paying you the difference to make minimum wage. This could really hurt them.

Honestly I don't believe in this whole tipping thing the way it is now. Tipping used to be a bonus to the server's salary on top of the costs of dining. Restaurants have managed to weasel their pay and cut their costs of employees. It's not fair to other businesses. I'd rather pay an extra buck for my burger and have the business pay the server more per hour than be obligated to tip 15-20% (I generally tip 20-25%).

If this goes through and people start losing money they'll likely change to a better paying job and restaurants will be forced to start paying more. Which I would prefer. The other downside is many of them won't find a better paying job and then rather than the restaurants paying for it, we will.

I honestly feel we should just do away with the federally allowed lowered minimum wage for servers and force all restaurants to pay at least minimum wage. That would solve the problem. If you force them all to do it, they'll all have to raise prices to compensate. There's no reason restaurants should be able to get slave wages for their labor, it doesn't make sense.

Other professions who work on tips, such as hair stylists get a decent living wage. Servers should too.

JaJae, I expect you're an experienced server?