Off the rails?
Tuesday, Dec 2, 2014 - Posted by Rich Miller
* It certainly appears that local preemption on the minimum wage issue is now off the table…
Prior to returning to Springfield for the final scheduled days of the legislature’s fall session, [House Speaker Michael Madigan] dismissed talk that lawmakers — if they act to raise the state wage — would take away Chicago’s ability to do so.
“Without describing what we’re going to do, we would not interfere with what they’re going to do in the city,” Madigan told the Tribune after watching his former top House lawyer get sworn in as an appellate judge. Asked if that meant Chicago would be allowed to have a higher minimum wage rate than the rest of the state, Madigan replied, “Yep.”
Still, Madigan and other House Democrats acknowledged difficulties in coming up with votes needed to hike the state minimum wage rate.
“Well, we’re working on it,” Madigan said.
* Mark Brown has more on that last part…
Nearly 78 percent of those voting last month in state Rep. Mike Zalewski’s suburban legislative district cast ballots in favor of raising the state’s minimum wage to $10 an hour.
But as a minimum wage proposal is considered by the Illinois House this week, Zalewski (D-Riverside) is among many Democratic legislators whose support is far from certain.
Zalewski said he prefers a uniform minimum wage hike across the state, which will become less likely Tuesday if Chicago aldermen, as expected, endorse Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s plans for a $13-an-hour city minimum wage.
Despite two-thirds of Illinois voters endorsing a minimum wage increase, despite Democratic candidates making it a central focus of their 2014 election strategy and despite Democrats holding super-majorities in both legislative chambers, there remains a strong possibility lawmakers this year will leave untouched the state’s $8.25 an hour minimum wage.
For those hard-pressed to understand how that could be, some guidance can be found in the example of Zalewski, who insists he favors a minimum wage increase, too.
“We all want to see a higher minimum wage,” he said.
But Zalewski said he doesn’t see the wisdom of allowing the city of Chicago to have its own separate minimum wage that is higher than the rest of the state.
There’s a whole lot of finger-pointing going on here, but business groups which were willing to accept a $10 statewide minimum wage as long as it preempted Chicago’s ordinance met this morning and decided to work against any minimum wage bill that doesn’t include preemption.
The end result could be a Chicago minimum wage that’s $4.75 an hour higher than anywhere else in the state.
* It’s gonna be a heck of an economics experiment if the state bill fails. The naysayers claim that businesses will move across the street to the suburbs, or close or not expand, while low-paid suburban workers will flock across the border into the city, possibly creating worker shortages or pushing up suburban wages. We’ll find out pretty soon.
- AlabamaShake - Tuesday, Dec 2, 14 @ 9:56 am:
The Speaker could pass a minimum wage increase to $10, without preemption, if he wanted. The votes are there.
- A guy... - Tuesday, Dec 2, 14 @ 9:59 am:
===* It’s gonna be a heck of an economics experiment if the state bill fails. The naysayers claim that businesses will move across the street to the suburbs, or close or not expand, while low-paid suburban workers will flock across the border into the city, possibly creating worker shortages or pushing up suburban wages. We’ll find out pretty soon.====
I believe to degrees, all of this will be true. Labor is in almost all cases the most expensive part of business, especially in minimum wage type jobs. If it could be done another way…it would be, as evidenced by hour many minimum wage jobs have been replaced by technology, robotics and outsourcing.
Now the rate (across the street in many cases) is 50% higher. That’s like a patriot tax few will be willing or able to pay and remain competitive. This is not a good idea.
- The Captain - Tuesday, Dec 2, 14 @ 10:00 am:
The results of a bifurcated intrastate minimum wage will be muddled and the future narratives will be driven by certain media friendly anecdotes in lieu of useful data.
- Wordslinger - Tuesday, Dec 2, 14 @ 10:06 am:
I smell a rat in the Dem opposition. They’re using the Chicago issue as an excuse to make nice with and troll for contributions from organized business interests.
What do they have against home rule? If Chicago wants a higher minimum wage, so what? It costs more to live and work in Chicago than it does in Marion or Effingham.
Why would a guy from Riverside care that the minimum wage is higher in Chicago? Sales taxes are higher, too.
I think Rep. Z saw that most voters didn’t bother to go to the polls last month, so it’s safe to go with the money boys. He’s probably right. Decisions are made by those who show up.
- better days - Tuesday, Dec 2, 14 @ 10:22 am:
LOOKOUT ..The democrats talk of a sharp rise in the minimum wage …means large tax hikes loom
Front page article today in the WSJ says it all about the middle class
- walker - Tuesday, Dec 2, 14 @ 10:26 am:
Of course the Speaker said that. The whole idea of preempting Chicago home rule in this way, was a red herring. Was never going to happen, no matter who it might seem to help.
- VanillaMan - Tuesday, Dec 2, 14 @ 10:27 am:
This is a done deal. You want to play smart politics with it. You make the new governor sign it. You use it to show Mr. “Shake up Springfield” the limits and conditions of being a governor in a BLUE state. Make Governor Rauner sign it after having publically opposing it for a year. Get his administration off to a solid understanding.
Rauner wants to deal too. This is how politics work. For too long the Democrats haven’t had to work with Republicans to create our needed bipartisan government. Sloppy and lazy one party command over Illinois has left the Democrats forgetful on how to do that.
Jamming this done deal through a lame duck session is rank political amateurism. It’s like watching g the fat kid stuff himself with Halloween candy because he hears Daddys car drive up. On this issue the Democrats have no need to fear the new Daddy. You wait for the right moment to personally show him that.
Voters support this. Don’t blow that political opportunity by panicking like you don’t think voters knew what they were doing. You hold it so that you can show the new governor how he needs to listen to you and the voters over his losing team of anti-minimum wagers.
You build bipartisanship by welcoming the new governor to office and then letting him know how things are done now that he arrived.
School Rauner, stop acting afraid of him.
- John Parnell - Tuesday, Dec 2, 14 @ 10:29 am:
Zalewski seems like a deer in the headlights. He wants a raise in the minimum wage because of the heavy support by the voters, but he can’t bring himself to abandon his contributors. His best play is to give the bill to someone with a backbone. Fish or cut bait, my friend.
- Del Clinkton - Tuesday, Dec 2, 14 @ 10:29 am:
When Republicans talk about another war….LOOKOUT…means an expansion of Welfare for the Wealthy. Nothing pays for a war like increased entitlements to the top 1%!
- John A Logan - Tuesday, Dec 2, 14 @ 10:33 am:
“It’s like watching the fat kid stuff himself with Halloween candy because he hears Daddys car drive up”
Golden Horse Shoe for best one liner of the year.
- anon - Tuesday, Dec 2, 14 @ 11:31 am:
So Zalewski going AWOL on his bill will result in an even bigger gap between City and suburban minimum wages. Is that his goal?
- Weltschmerz - Tuesday, Dec 2, 14 @ 11:33 am:
Anyone have any ideas about how this will effect social service non-profits? I’m sure large corporations already have plans to address this but what about charities etc.?
- Gooner - Tuesday, Dec 2, 14 @ 12:03 pm:
Weltz,
I suspect the impact on charities will be that they will have to stop the current practice of paying huge money to execs and terrible money to the people actually doing the work.
- Harry - Tuesday, Dec 2, 14 @ 12:27 pm:
That $13/hr City rate won’t be in effect until about 2018 or 2019. So, no, it’ll be quite a while until you see a $4.75/hr differential, and even that assumes the State doesn’t do something in the meantime.
- Weltschmerz - Tuesday, Dec 2, 14 @ 1:10 pm:
Gooner,
That would be a first, anywhere.
- Yellow Dog Democrat - Tuesday, Dec 2, 14 @ 1:12 pm:
=== The naysayers claim that businesses will move across the street to the suburbs, or close or not expand, while low-paid suburban workers will flock across the border into the city, possibly creating worker shortages or pushing up suburban wages. We’ll find out pretty soon. ===
Or, more likely, the Chicago businesses will lobby to raise the minimum wage in suburban cook once they realize Chicago is a done deal.
Exactly what happened with the smoking ban.
- crazybleedingheart - Tuesday, Dec 2, 14 @ 1:19 pm:
Re: Emanuel — “Friends like these, huh, Mikey?”
- liandro - Tuesday, Dec 2, 14 @ 1:30 pm:
If Chicago goes this alone, I’m genuinely curious to see what happens to employees who started at minimum but are already above that. How many businesses will give them big raises too? How much will it narrow the wage scale instead? And how long will that last? I’ve said before how, in rural areas like mine, quite of a few of the people hurt will be those veterans who actually NEED a living wage, but will be losing out raises to newbies by government mandate.
I, personally, have employees who started at minimum and are at or above $10/hr. I genuinely don’t know how quickly I could adjust my pay scale in the face of a jump that massive. I’d obviously wait to see what the first price increases did to sales and bottom line, but man…that’s a big jump to absorb, all going to the least-experienced (and often youngest) employees. If I had to be forced into a wage hike, I’d prefer it be to veterans who: 1. need it more, and 2. have earned it more. Indeed, every price increase I’ve done in recent years was largely to enable giving raises to veterans via pushing my wage scale higher (and NOT to pay more to completely inexperienced newbies).
Experiment is right, heh.
- crazybleedingheart - Tuesday, Dec 2, 14 @ 1:45 pm:
Wages haven’t come close to keeping pace with the growth of productivity and earnings in decades, but you only ever hear handwringing about the a “jump that massive” (as liandro puts it) (between now and 2019) (with advance notice to everyone, allowing for time to plan) when it comes to money going out, not pouring in.
Funny, that.
I guess folks find ways of adjusting to the market on the fly when it matters!
- Boring Boring Arsenal - Tuesday, Dec 2, 14 @ 1:53 pm:
We need to focus on creating jobs that provide a living wage. Many good paying jobs have been automated or shipped overseas. How can we change this?
- tabster - Tuesday, Dec 2, 14 @ 4:24 pm:
Zalewski needs to listen to his constituents, and speaking of, they need to be pressuring him to follow their wishes.
- DuPage Grandma - Tuesday, Dec 2, 14 @ 5:07 pm:
“The end result could be a Chicago minimum wage that’s $4.75 an hour higher than anywhere else in the state.”
The minimum wage increase in Chicago will take place over 5 years according to these steps: “The ordinance will boost the city’s minimum wage to $10 in July, $10.50 a year later, $11 the year after that and then $1 annually until reaching $13 in July 2019.”
It is unlikely that Chicago minimum wage earners will ever be earning $4.75 more than those outside of the city.
Certainly Illinois will have a minimum wage increase before July 2019. I doubt that minimum wage workers will be standing in line to buy their train passes any time soon.
- Enviro - Tuesday, Dec 2, 14 @ 6:05 pm:
@ 9:55 “Labor is in almost all cases the most expensive part of business, especially in minimum wage type jobs.”
It is more likely that labor is in almost all cases the most expensive part of business when the top executives are paid hundreds of thousands if not millions.
Congratulations to the minimum wage workers in Chicago. You deserve the increase to $10 passed today in Chicago.
- Odysseus - Tuesday, Dec 2, 14 @ 9:51 pm:
“I, personally, have employees who started at minimum and are at or above $10/hr.”
Way back in the good old days, I had a job where I got regular raises until I was making 4.35/hr. Then they raised the minimum wage to 4.25/hr. I got bupkis.
There’s plenty of precedent for compressing the low end of the wage scale when the minimum rises. No matter how fair or unfair it might be.
- Weltschmerz - Wednesday, Dec 3, 14 @ 6:07 am:
Anybody seen the latest Chili’s ad on TV? There’s a terminal at your table and when you’re done, you just swipe a card or phone and leave. No waitperson to look for or tip and no minimum wage employee to pay and do any employment paperwork for.