Oklahoma Strips Cities of the Right to Pass Higher Wages, Sick Leave

[Indy Texas]

It is sad, but not at all surprising, that people are basing their opinion here not on whether they think it is a good idea for such policies to be set at the local level, but whether they can get the policies they prefer more easily if they are set on the state level or the local level.

I wonder how many proponents here of letting local governments set minimum wages would still be proponents if those governments were wanting to lower the minimum wage to $5/hour or eliminate all requirements that employers offer even unpaid sick leave?

That isn't the same thing. If the state minimum wage is $7.25 an hour and a city wants to make their own minimum wage $8.00 an hour, they are still following state law (they're meeting the $7.25 an hour requirement and simply going above and beyond that). If they set it at $5.00 an hour, they would be in violation of state law and not meeting the minimum requirements.

A lower level of government is required to do what the higher level of government mandates. If it wants to do more, it can, but it cannot do less than the minimum that is required.

[Indy Texas]

It is sad, but not at all surprising, that people are basing their opinion here not on whether they think it is a good idea for such policies to be set at the local level, but whether they can get the policies they prefer more easily if they are set on the state level or the local level.

I wonder how many proponents here of letting local governments set minimum wages would still be proponents if those governments were wanting to lower the minimum wage to $5/hour or eliminate all requirements that employers offer even unpaid sick leave?

That isn't the same thing. If the state minimum wage is $7.25 an hour and a city wants to make their own minimum wage $8.00 an hour, they are still following state law (they're meeting the $7.25 an hour requirement and simply going above and beyond that). If they set it at $5.00 an hour, they would be in violation of state law and not meeting the minimum requirements.

A lower level of government is required to do what the higher level of government mandates. If it wants to do more, it can, but it cannot do less than the minimum that is required.

As for as home rule is concerned, what is the difference between a state allowing a local government to set a minimum wage lower than the default state minimum wage and it allowing a local government to set one higher than the state default?  In terms of the desirability of allowing the minimum wage to be set by local governments, there is absolutely no difference.

The only difference I can see that would lead you to prefer only allowing local governments to set higher minimum wages is that you prefer higher minimum wages and thus want to have as many levels of government as possible be able to set them higher.  But unless you are prepared for local governments to set lower minimum wages than the state minimum, or for that matter to allow state governments to set lower minimum wages than than the federal minimum, don't pretend for a second that you are an advocate of local decision making.  Instead, you're engaged in forum shopping for your preferred policy.

Again, it's a question of whether they are meeting the state standards or not.

If the state minimum wage is $7.25 an hour, then a minimum wage that is higher than that is compliant. If the state is saying "You may not pay your workers less than $7.25 an hour" and a city says "You may not pay your workers less than $8.00 an hour," then the city has met the test of not paying workers less than $7.25 an hour.

If the city passed a law saying "You may not pay your workers less than $5.00 an hour" then that law is either in conflict with the state law or it is superceded by it. You can't make a logical argument in favor of letting cities have minimum wages lower than the state level without negating the whole purpose of a statewide minimum wage.

It's not forum shopping.

Texas has a certain set of bans on abortion. If Travis County (Austin) wanted lower regulations on abortion, they should not be allowed to do so. If they wanted more regulations on top of the state ones, that would be fine. But they have to be in compliance with what is decided at the state level.

[Indy Texas]

Her reasoning makes sense..

Why should she care?

If Oklahoma City raised their minimum wage to an absurd level and "killed jobs" then the businesses and the jobs would just move to Norman or somewhere else nearby. All the better for Norman. Sucks to be OKC. Mary Fallin isn't tasked with looking after OKC. She's tasked with looking after Oklahoma and for Oklahoma as a whole it's a wash.

[Indy Texas]

Let's go through Logic 101.

Federal Minimum Wage sets the floor for wages. If wages are X, then X ≥ 7.25

All minimum wages subject to federal standards (i.e. state or local minimum wages) must meet that standard - it is necessary.

If New York sets its minimum wage to 10, you have

X ≥ 10

If X ≥ 10, then X must be greater than or equal to 7.25 as well. There is no contradiction.

If Oklahoma tries to set its minimum wage to 5, you have

X ≥ 5

This doesn't work because if X were, say, 6, then it would not meet the necessary condition of X being greater than or equal to 7.25

[Indy Texas]

Let's go through Logic 101.

Federal Minimum Wage sets the floor for wages. If wages are X, then X ≥ 7.25

All minimum wages subject to federal standards (i.e. state or local minimum wages) must meet that standard - it is necessary.

If New York sets its minimum wage to 10, you have

X ≥ 10

If X ≥ 10, then X must be greater than or equal to 7.25 as well. There is no contradiction.

If Oklahoma tries to set its minimum wage to 5, you have

X ≥ 5

This doesn't work because if X were, say, 6, then it would not meet the necessary condition of X being greater than or equal to 7.25

X ≥ 5 ∩ X ≥ 7.25 renders a result of X ≥ 7.25.  I'm not sure what your point is.

If X≥7.25, then X≥5

The inverse is not necessarily true.

[Indy Texas]

Let's go through Logic 101.

Federal Minimum Wage sets the floor for wages. If wages are X, then X ≥ 7.25

All minimum wages subject to federal standards (i.e. state or local minimum wages) must meet that standard - it is necessary.

If New York sets its minimum wage to 10, you have

X ≥ 10

If X ≥ 10, then X must be greater than or equal to 7.25 as well. There is no contradiction.

If Oklahoma tries to set its minimum wage to 5, you have

X ≥ 5

This doesn't work because if X were, say, 6, then it would not meet the necessary condition of X being greater than or equal to 7.25

It is necessary only because Federal minimum wage law does not allow states to set a lower local standard but does allow them to set a higher standard.  But that is because of the text of the law.  The law just as easily could allow states to set any level they choose, with the Federal standard applying only if a State chooses to not legislate, or it could set the national minimum wage to only 7.25 and not allow State or local law to set a higher standard.

Indeed, while I doubt it would ever happen, the Federal law could set a minimum wage of 7.25 and then only allow states to set lower minimums.  I say "doubt" rather than "am certain" only because Taft-Hartley does precisely that concerning union representation, allowing states to bar union shops, but not allowing them to permit closed shops, so there certainly is precedent for Federal labor law setting a standard that States are then permitted to weaken.

If full home rule were allowed in either field of labor law, then States would be free to set any minimum wage they chose, be it higher or lower than minimum wage and States would be free to either bar the union shop or permit the closed shop.  In neither case does that happen.

That wouldn't be a minimum wage law. Minimum wage laws set floors on what firms can pay workers. What you're referring to would set ceilings on the floors that could be set on what firms can pay workers.

[Indy Texas]

Inks, he was trying to contest my point that I doubted that those supporting higher local minimum wages would still support that if local governments could also set one that was lower than the state or national minimum wage by engaging in a irrelevant semantic argument over what is meant by a "minimum wage" that asserted that a national or state minimum wage could only be trumped by a higher local minimum wage and never ever by a lower local minimum.  I freely admitted that is the way such laws do work in the U.S., but pointed out that meant that local governments did not have full local control over minimum wages.  Under full local control then if a local government set the minimum wage within its boundaries to $5, then that would be the minimum wage there regardless of what any state or Federal law said.  Indy Texas then doubled down on his irrelevant argument that had nothing to do with my point by resorting to Illogic 101 and bringing out the mathematical symbols.

Yes, because that is what a minimum is. It means nothing less than a given amount. Are we seriously having to belabor this point?