The Set It and Leave it Alone Minimum Wage Act of 2015 (Signed)

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The exception for tipped employees was removed by previous legislation.

Yes, but they are on a seperate minimum wage schedule, one that presently ihas them set to be higher then the minimum wage for the rest of the work force. The concern I have, is that employers will just stop giving tips and maybe that is desirable, I don't know.

I would be fine with giving tipped employees the same treatment as other employees provided they are put on the same tract as the others.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I am assuming that the present minimum wage is higher than stated (in past legislation) $12.50 based on the adjustments. If it is four percent as stated elswhere, then it is probably around 13.00 by now. The increase to 14 is about 7.5% increase, but the increase to $15 is about a 15% jump. An increase of 7.5% is risky, but a 15% jump is substantial when considering the potential negative impacts. I am willing to compromise elsewhere, but I cannot support going to $15.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I must object unfortunately.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

NAY

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I object.

Didn't you already pass legislation on interns achieving the same objectives?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

36 hours have expired no?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Ah, I don't recall withdrawing my objection before the 36 hours expired, Bore.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

NAY

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Its one of the better amendments so far I would say on this bill. However, I am still deeply concerned with the direction that this has taken on some aspects.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Since 2013 my long-term objective has been to scale back the minimum wage in favor of alternatives or a collection of alternatives as opposed to using it constantly like we have in this chamber. Seriously, we have averaged a change once a year since I started and in the last two years it has been closer to every nine months. That is neither a smart nor a practical policy to pursue.

I offered this bill to bring stability to that situation at the very least if anything else wasn't possible at this stage and it is clear that such is not the case. I won't get to vote on this bill, and that is probably for the best at this point because I would be tempted to vote nay.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

This feels like an out of body experience.

That sounds like a reasonable change, although I'm afraid the inclusion of internships in this legislation at all might have turned the bill into something far different than what Yankee intended...

Not necessarily, but my preference certainly would have been that they go with the separate bill approach.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

If you want to set a minimum, it doesn't have to be same level as I pointed out a few weeks ago, the tipped employees were on a different schedule of automatic increases in the minimum wage then the main one was.

I undestand the desire to ensure that interns aren't treated like garbage, but, and I hate to disagree with Windjammer here, but this is exactly the problem with using a one size fits all approach to putting more people in the middle class, especially one such as the minimum wage. If having a seperate tier with a lower rate for interns, is the best option for the interns and those agencies that hire them like those Lief said, then take that easier and far more practical path then trying to form some complex subsidization scheme.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I think that the Polnut's amendment and the other suggestions are steps in the right direction, but as pointed out by Senator Hagrid, my fear is that with the inclusion of interns, we are turning the bill into something different than the Yankee's purpose.

If no one was concerned about my original purpose before last Friday, or even before the 23rd or whatever it was, I highly doubt they care now.

I mean including interns is not so much the problem. All encompassing is actually not to far from what I wanted because that would have increased the stabilization overall, but when the stabilization was thrown out for yet another increase at the outset, that is when this bill truly came off the rails. Still a good deal could be worked out with a definition as shua mentioned and so forth. In which case a situation would thus be formed where a reluctant vote one way or the other is needed. Reluctant aye because it is not perfect, or reluctant nay because a potentially good bill when bad that had potential originally. Like with a lot of things though, there was a method to my madness.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Your main argument, Mr. shua, resides on the thought that the whole labor system would collapse in itself when this novella of the law is being passed. This is most untrue. We are not, if I may, I quote, "closing off avenues for people to get (...) experience" - simply because the option of unpaid internships expires for companies, said will still be in need of younger, "fresh" manpower. They will not suddenly stop to hire people, simply because they cannot do so - companies will continue to need the same workforce they do today, they will need the same works currently done by unpaid interns to be done by some employees.  There will however be a difference in that they will then have to pay those people they would have kept on timely confined and unpaid internships at least the minimum wage.

Yes and subjected to the same rigorous demands on experience and education as other employees thus closing off the avenues as shua said. The companies don't take risks in this day in age, that is why I used to the "pre-packed, foiled sealed ready to go employee with 10 years experience and a superb degree" line in the now tabled interns bill. He is not saying the whole labor market will collapse, he is saying it will become more restricted and exclusive, the exact opposite goal of what you want to achieve here.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Where is the outrage at the Senate unanimously passing a $15 minimum wage, from the same crowd that that moaned incestantly behind the scenes about my conditioned voting. At least a reluctant nay bemoaning a good opportunity wasted to advance a good idea in place of a bad was still a nay on a terrible policy.

I wrote this bill at $14 because I calculated that to be about the current rate with the inflationary induced increases under the previous statute. In fairness, I probably should have halted the formulaic increase, but my goal wasn't to hit workers, but to stop the incessant meddling with the policy by the gropers of the Senate's social engineers and allow for the economy to adjust to a set policy. To make a statement that enough was enough

As I expected, this was too much to ask of this Senate and probably every Senate since Duke left office. I have supported the minimum wage for years, but at some point you have to reach a point where you have gone too far. $15 is insane for many parts of this country. We had a very modest degree of flexibility under the right wages for right regions act, but that was repealed of course even though it was a policy pushed by the first Labor President. In Duke's second term, cobbling together Senators from three Parties, we managed to scale back an increase schedule that would have left us with an $18 rate. Now we are nearly halfway up that same schedule with yet another increase.

My preferred approach would be to let the regions handle it of course, which with current political alignments would yield $15 everywhere except the South and maybe the Pacific. The more practical approach would be to reduce the Federal one, replace that decrease with expanding Nixcome and let the regions decide if they prefer increasing it beyond that. Practical in a political sense, but forming that in a policy sense is difficult as all hell.