Posted on 07/28/2006 9:31:35 AM PDT by NormsRevenge
WASHINGTON - Bowing to moderates and seeking to defuse a campaign issue before leaving for vacation, House GOP leaders Friday planned a vote on a bill to increase the minimum wage to $7.25 per hour within three years.
The vote comes after almost 50 rank-and-file Republican lawmakers pressed House leaders — who strongly oppose the wage hike and have thus far prevented a vote — to schedule the measure for debate. Democrats have been hammering away on the wage hike issue and have public opinion behind them
"We weren't going to be denied," said Rep. Steve LaTourette, R-Ohio, a leader in the effort. "How can you defend $5.15 an hour in today's economy?"
It was a decade ago, during the hotly contested campaign year of 1996, that Congress voted to increase the minimum wage. A person working 40 hours per week at minimum wage makes $10,700, which is below the poverty line for workers with families.
House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., said GOP leaders had yet to determine the specifics of the bill, especially what to add to it to ease the sting on small businesses and other constituencies, such as the restaurant lobby. Lawmakers were hoping to bring it up for a vote by late Friday night, but Hastert said he was not completely certain the vote would occur.
Rep. Howard McKeon (news, bio, voting record), R-Calif., chairman of the House Education and the Workforce Committee, said Thursday that GOP leaders may attach a proposal passed last year that would make it easier for small businesses and the self-employed to band together and buy health insurance plans for employees at a lower cost.
That idea was blasted as a "poison pill" by Democrats and labor unions. The small business health insurance bill exempts new "association health plans" from state regulations requiring insurers to cover treatments such as mental health and maternity care. And opponents fear they would offer inferior prescription drug benefits.
Opponents of the idea also worry that the new health plans would skim healthier workers from traditional plans, thereby increasing the costs and pressures on those plans.
"It's outrageous the Republican Congress can't simply help poor people without doing something for their wealthy contributors," said Rep. Tim Ryan (news, bio, voting record), D-Ohio.
And Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., called it a "political stunt" for GOP leaders to attach the minimum wage increase to legislation that's sure to bog down in the Senate. Democrats filibustered the health plans bill in May.
"It's a political stunt to put (the minimum wage increase) on a bill they know is doomed," Pelosi said.
Democrats have made increasing the wage a pillar of their campaign platform and are pushing to raise the wage to $7.25 per hour over two years. In June, the Republican-controlled Senate refused to raise the minimum wage, rejecting a proposal from Democrats.
It's long been clear that there is wide support for the wage increase in the House, but Republican leaders have a general policy of bringing legislation to the floor only if it has support from a majority of Republicans. Perhaps one-fourth of House Republicans support the wage increase.
Inflation has eroded the minimum wage's buying power to the lowest level in about 50 years. Yet lawmakers have won cost-of-living wage increases totaling about $35,000 for themselves over that time.
Lawmakers fear being pounded with 30-second campaign ads over the August recess that would tie Congress' upcoming $3,300 pay increase with Republicans' refusal to raise the minimum wage.
Why would anybody bother starting their own business if they don't think they'll be sucessful as a result? A worker should be paid for what they contribute to the company's profits, which in a low-profit margin industry like fast food or grocery stores (the two places you'll most commonly find minimum wage workers) isn't very much.
Also, if the pay is really that bad, then all other jobs in the area should pay more, meaning that the owner would not be able to hold onto workers at those wages.
Oh no...you're just a businessman, and you're rich anyway.
He's not holding a gun to anyone's head saying "you must work for me." The employee is agreeing to work for that much money. What don't you get about that?
If your job is that rare is it not already on the soon to be extent list?I am not minimizing the impact this would have on you or your family....the fault is not with the wage laws but with the free trade policies....which threaten to beggar us all.
Wow. You've missed the whole point.
I didn't say anything about employees. I'm talking about the right for two people to negotiate their own terms in a business transaction. I set a price; you are free to pay that price or buy the product elsewhere.
There is no law protecting Hershey's income because they might want people to pay more for chocolate. There is no law protecting Duracell's income because they might want people to pay more for batteries. Labor is precisely the same: It's a product with a market value, and the two parties, employer and employee, are free to negotiate the value of that product. If the wage offered by the employer is too low, the employee is free to find a job somewhere else. If the wage demanded by the employee is too high, the employer is free to hire someone else.
The bottom line is freedom. Should people be free to negotiate between themselves, or not? Why is it fair to tie the hands of one but not the other?
An employee is paid what his work is worth. If he can only do $5.00 per hour worth of work, there is no reason for an employer to be forced to pay $7.25 for that work. It makes no more sense than if the Fed Gov were to declare that we all must pay $5.00/gallon for gasoline, just because oil company executives would like the higher priced lifestyle. The principle is the same, whether it's a "rich" person or a "poor" person flexing his greed.
If the $5.00-per-hour employee would like a bigger paycheck, then he has some options. He can improve his education, making his knowledge worth more in the labor market. He can go into business himself, risking his own money and efforts for the opportunity to keep all the profits for himself. In short, he can make his skills more valuable, then he will be paid more for his time. To demand more pay than his labor is really worth is simply theft. It's taking what isn't rightfully his. If he hasn't earned the pay, he has no right to demand it.
LOL! Yep, I suppose I am rich, when compared with the rest of the world. In comparison with the rest of the USA, though, I'm quite comfortably middle class. Two used cars and a mortgage on a less-than-2000-square-foot house.
Let’s not be ugly? It starts with your arrogant posts my friend. On to the substance….I doubt the employees are contractually obligated to stay, so why not leave for another job? It's what normal people do. Employers are not “job providers”. They exist only to make a profit. I think Leonard Cohen said it best: Don’t work for pay, get paid for your work.
do you really believe this? Really? Let your self go for just a moment and imagine this country if no labor laws had been enacted....if the monopolies had not been broken apart... do you not see that soon all power and all force would concentrate in the few. You would Latin America.
It seems employees are paid as little as possible, thus increasing the owner's profits. If there is a surplus of laborers the employers will take the one willing to work for the lowest wage - the most desperate.
Let me ask you something. Personally, when you have a purchase decision to make, such as filling up your gas tank, do you try to pay the highest price possible or the lowest? Do you, personally, look for good deals, getting the most value for your money?
We have found your tagline!
SO the minimum wage gets pushed closer to real wages. Will everyone else be getting a 40% wage hike over the next 3 years? I didn't think so. Oh, wait. Many union employees have their wages calculated as a percentage of above the minimum wage. So now union employees (I wonder how many are gov't employees) will also be getting 40% raises, too!
I don't understand?
The impact wouldn't be on my family. I'd just go out and get another job. I'm merely complaining that the job I'd have lost is one I'm happy with.
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.