About that minimum-wage EO …

Can Barack Obama raise the federal minimum wage by executive order? Reports this week have Obama promising Senate Democrats that he was looking into his options, but they would be limited … even more limited than he thinks, probably:

Obama and congressional Democrats are pushing for an across-the-board hike in the minimum hourly wage, from $7.25 to $10.10. But Republicans are cool to the plan, warning it could hurt the economy.

Federal contractors represent only a fraction of the nation’s employees. Businesses that together received more than $446 billion in federal contracts employ some 2 million workers, only some of whom are paid the minimum wage.

Still, an increase for that segment of the workforce could generate momentum toward a raise for all workers now paid the lowest amount allowable by law.

Proponents of the plan say Obama need not wait for Congress to pass legislation. Sanders and Boxer were among 15 senators who sent a letter to Obama in September, urging him to set a minimum-wage preference for private companies doing business with the federal government.

An executive order to that effect would be tantamount to setting a minimum wage for federal contractors, they said.

“Profitable corporations that receive lucrative contracts from the federal government should pay all of their workers a decent wage,” the lawmakers wrote.

At first blush, I thought it was possible this would be permissible (if not advisable) under our Constitutional scheme, given that he was directing the Executive itself to make these payments.

But despite that trying-to-be-fair impulse, I’d still like to see legal opinions on this. After all, the President will not be paying these wagesout of his own funds. The excess wages will, of course, be paid for by taxpayers, and absent an act of Congress raising the federal contractor minimum wage, this seems probably illegal.

Color me skeptical, too. One cannot write statutory law through EOs, which is what would have to happen to force companies with federal contracts to pay a certain wage or higher to all their workers. That takes Congress to act, and they’re not budging, which is why Obama is gabbing about “looking into” EOs. Even if he issued it, no company would be under any legal requirement to comply.

Obama could require the executive branch to write contracts with that requirement, though, without Congressional involvement. That can be done with an EO, although it probably wouldn’t require one. However, that requirement would force contractors to offer higher bids, forcing the executive branch to go back to Congress for more money, and would likely result in fewer jobs as contractors reduced costs. The same would be true for any attempt to force a higher floor for direct executive-branch jobs, too. Either way, Obama would have to go back to Congress for more funds.

I’d file this in the “cheap talk” category. Figuratively speaking, of course.

Update: Just to clarify my first point in light of some of the comments, EOs only apply to executive branch agencies and their direct employees, not to contractors or those working for contractors. The latter are bound by statute and the terms of the contract, and nothing more. Obama can pretend that he has the authority to order this in an EO, but contractors will simply ignore it — it can’t be enforced, and won’t be.

It's all part of the ILLEGAL ALIEN IN CHIEF's plan to "Collapse the System"

Union Support Of Minimum Wage Hike Is Self-Interested

Mary Kay Henry, president of the Service Employees International Union, ... was quick to emphasize that her organization's support of a more-than-twofold increase in the minimum wage was "not about growing unions." This may be true — but it's also undeniable that such a move would have a profound impact on growing union paychecks, even if those unions don't count a single minimum-wage employee in their ranks. The fine print can be found in union contracts. Each year, the Department of Labor's Office of Labor-Management Standards (OLMS) releases a number of union collective bargaining agreements (CBAs). Unsurprisingly, many CBAs available in the OLMS database LINK union salaries and wage rates to the federal minimum wage. There are a number of methods that unions use to accomplish this end. The two most popular appear to be setting baseline union wages as a percentage above the minimum wage, and mandating a flat wage at a set level above the minimum wage. One example is a series of CBAs signed with the Union of Needletrades, Industrial and Textile Employees (UNITE). Their contracts mandated that"(w)henever the federal legal minimum wage is increased, minimum wage (in the agreement) shall be increased so that each will be at least fifteen (15%) percent higher than such legal minimum wage." There's also an SEIU local's contract, which ordered that"(t)he minimum hourly wage rates shall exceed any statutory applicable minimum wage rate by 50 cents." Some unions have also arranged contracts where the employer MUST renegotiate their contracts in case of a minimum-wage hike, NO MATTER HOW LONG is left on the pact's life span. The possibility for abuse here is staggering:Unions with average wages WELL ABOVE the minimum wage CAN INSERT such clauses into their contracts, FORCING negotiations in industries not otherwise affected by a wage hike. Given the limited number of CBAs available in the OLMS database, it's impossible to determine just how widespread this practice is. But at least one union has trumpeted this arrangement as "one of the many advantages of being a union member." Earlier this year on its blog, the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union proudly boasted that "oftentimes, union contracts ARE TRIGGERED TO IMPLEMENT WAGE HIKES IN CASE OF MINIMUM WAGE INCREASES." This is a stunning admission of SELF-INTERESTt for an organization that's actively PUSHING minimum-wage hikes at both the state and federal levels of government. It also raises questions about unions' growing use of nonunion "worker centers" like the Restaurant Opportunities Center, OUR Walmart, Fast Food Forward and other organizations that have made headlines in recent months. These groups advocate many policies that would affect those businesses that pay a minimum wage — restaurants, retailers, etc. — and a minimum-wage hike is often the FIRST demand that these union front groups make. This only casts further suspicion on the motives of the labor unions funding these groups. No matter how you look at it, the benefits that these unions stand to reap from a minimum-wage hike should raise questions about their real motives — and whether they're only manipulating the debate over fast-food wages for their own benefit. Berman is the executive director at the Center for Union Facts.

“Mary Kay Henry, president of the Service Employees International Union, ... was quick to emphasize that her organization’s support of a more-than-twofold increase in the minimum wage was “not about growing unions.”

This is the key. I’ll most likely not present the most logical map to the endpoint but my theory is that this is one of the foundations of single payor. Down the road, as single payor replaces ObamaCare, all healthcare workers will become in essence government employees. Think about how many thousands of new, dues paying union members will magically become part of the SEIU. Barry had sealed this deal with Andy Stern years ago. Barry promised Andy and the SEIU thousands of new members, Andy says great, this is the wage structure we need so we can pay the slush fund. Gotta pay a living wage to all of the new union members so dues can be extracted and kickbacks to the dems can be made. It’s convoluted but what dem scheme isn’t, especially when large sums of cash are involved?

"but my theory is that
this is one of the foundations of single payer.
Down the road, as single payer replaces ObamaCare,
all healthcare workers will become in essence government employees.
Think about how many thousands of new, dues paying union members will magically become part of the SEIU.

Barry had sealed this deal with Andy Stern years ago.
Barry promised Andy and the SEIU thousands of new members,
Andy says
great,
this is the wage structure we need
so we can pay the slush fund.
Gotta pay a living wage to all of the new union members
so dues can be extracted
and kickbacks to the dems can be made.

It’s convoluted
but what dem scheme isn’t,
especially when large sums of cash are involved?"

I'll say this:

"You're WELL AHEAD of the crowd,
in thinking out the corruption
behind this "FALSE FLAG" ! "

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.