Finally, a vote on a minimum-wage increase?

July 28, 2006

First, the good news. Fifty House [tag]Republicans[/tag], most of them slightly less conservative and nearly all of them worried about re-election, wrote a letter this week urging Majority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) to schedule a floor vote on a [tag]minimum-wage[/tag] [tag]increase[/tag] this week. [tag]GOP[/tag] leaders, suddenly worried about “bolstering a thin list of legislative accomplishments” in advance of Congress’ summer break, appear ready to give in and hold a vote.

It’s very reminiscent of the last minimum-wage increase, shortly before the 1996 elections, when the Republican leadership decided an increase would pay political dividends. This year, the GOP not only wants to accomplish something that people care about before the midterms, but the party also wants to take away one of the Dems’ more salient [tag]campaign[/tag] issues.

But before anyone celebrates, let’s remember nothing is easy when it comes to House Republicans.

GOP leaders … are considering a measure that would link a minimum-wage increase to a bill allowing small businesses to pool together to buy health insurance. They are also considering a measure that would allow employers to offer more flexible work schedules, freeing them from rules that mandate a 40-hour workweek.

Both moves would be risky. Democrats and labor unions have fought the small-business group health plan, maintaining that it would circumvent state health coverage mandates, such as cancer screenings and other treatments. Such a bill died in the Senate in May when Republicans came up five votes short of the 60 required to cut off a filibuster.

The flextime bill, which Republicans have sought for more than a decade, is strongly opposed by labor unions that say it would deny millions of workers overtime pay. AFL-CIO President John J. Sweeney decried both the insurance and the flextime measures as unacceptable “poison pills.”

This is a risky game for the GOP.

The Republican leadership appears willing to swallow a minimum-wage increase, but they want to add a spoonful of big-business sugar to make the medicine go down. Dems, on the other hand, want a minimum-wage increase to benefit working people, but they also want a “clean” bill. All the while, there are at least 100 Republicans who don’t want an increase at all.

Indeed, if the leadership believes an increase will help the party in midterms, Dems can (and probably will) look for an excuse for a fight — and tell the unions they’ll pass a real minimum wage increase as the majority party next year. Of course, it’s just as likely Republicans leaders will decide that they’ll intentionally muck up the bill, force Dems to balk, and they try to blame the minority for the bill’s failure.

Boehner and Hastert, therefore, have to walk a tightrope. My hunch is the leadership can read the polls as well as anyone else, and they’ll cave and give the Dems what they want, assuming the Dems stand their ground.

It should be interesting. Stay tuned.

I can’t wait to see the signing statement;>

  • Just when I think the Repugs can’t get any more lame, they do this. The entire “flexible time” concept (and I have problems calling it that; it makes it sound all fluffy and friendly when it’s not– we should call it the “eliminating overtime” concept) is a really nice idea, and yes, some employers would use it to give non-exempt workers more flexible schedules. Unfortunately, a lot of large organizations would use it to get around overtime pay regulations.

    I have yet to see a bill addressing this area that would give workers true flexibility and yet protect them and their rights. I suspect this is because most bills aren’t written by anyone who has the least bit of interest in the workers themselves.

    Tying overtime to the minimum wage increase is simply idiotic. I hope you’re right, CB, and they cave on this.

  • I suppose the ad writes itself:

    “Republican’ts can’t do anything for the average American without bribing their paymasters. Now, to get a minimum wage increase, the Republican’ts are bribing big business by threatening overtime rules and small business by eliminating state health insurance rules.”

    Pithy, simple, and clear.

  • If I were asked how the Democrats can turn the tables on the Republicans with regard to this minimum wage bill, I would argue they need to point out the hypocrisy evident in the GOP’s tax cutting strategy. By giving small businesses tax cuts to offset the wage increase, they are actually enacting a subsidy that is ultimately funded through taxpayer generated revenues…in essence they are creating a new tax funded social program…even though they repeatedly espouse the need to cut back on such funding. The measure would ultimately becomes an added burden for the already struggling middle class while at the same time shielding corporations from sharing in the cost of the much needed wage increase.

    read the full article here:

    http://www.thoughttheater.com

  • This is a dangerous game. I already see the political ads coming, “Dems killed minimum wage increase”- and the press will play along…

    The Dems have to be very careful, or the Republifucks will have that as their line. And, like usual, Joe Six-Pack won’t hear about the bad parts of a killed bill, just the sound-bite about the minimum wage…

  • Well, this country was founded on compromise…to get something, you have to give something. As the minority party, I think Dems will have to settle for a few concessions to get the minimum wage increased. What would be sad is if the whole issue disintegrated because of partisan bickering over these issues. I agree with Castor (#6), that headline will read “Dems killed minimum wage increase”. And then, so much for “6 in ’06″…

    Of course, letting Republicans take credit for the minimum wage increase seems unfair, but I think everyone would like to see politicians take the high road, for once, and do something for the benefit of their constituents instead of playing for political gain.

  • So, can somebody explain to me in small words how the “flexible time” thing kills overtime? Also, I read rege’s link about the insurance angle, thanks. Apparently this is the same plan we heard about a couple of years ago not to let small businesses join together to buy health insurance (which they can already do) but to join together to buy health insurance and avoid state regulations. It’s a total sop to the insurance industry, who would be allowed to cover only those businesses with younger (read: healthier) employees. Then the rest of the employees would remain in the state-wide pool and their rates would go up because the population of their pool just got a lot older (read:sicker).

    So, how doess the flexible time angle work?

  • Tenebras- ‘flextime’ turns time away from 8 hours a day to 80 hour two-week time-periods. Currently, a person who works more than 8 hours in one day is entitled to overtime pay for the extra time (so, for instance, if they work a 12-hour period, 4 hours would be overtime).

    The ‘flextime’ proposed would dilute that time over a two-week pay period. So, even if you worked 18 hours in one day, so long as you didn’t exceed 80 hours in two weeks, you wouldn’t get any overtime.

    The reality is that many companies would take advantage of this, forcing longer work hours, then sharply cutting time towards the end of a pay period to keep the workers under that 80 hour cap. Essentially, under this system, almost nobody would get overtime pay.

  • Right. Thanks for the breakdown. It sounds pretty shitty, but it has such a pretty name. Flextime. They should call it Flexitime. That’s even more soothing.

  • One minor correction to Castor Troy’s excellent response: in some states overtime is paid once someone has worked 40 hours in a week, not 8 hours in a day. This, of course, allows for some abuse but in a much more limited fashion than the two-week version would.

    • Comments are closed.