Wednesday, March 08, 2006

Republicans try to steal Democratic Thunder...

From today's Toledo Blade:

COLUMBUS — House Republicans yesterday stunned Democrats by attaching a 90-cents-an-hour increase in Ohio’s minimum wage to a controversial bill reducing workers’ compensation benefits for injured workers.

Ohio’s minimum wage of $4.25 per hour would be increased to match the federal minimum of $5.15, the first state increase in 15 years. The move affects workers who are exempt from the federal minimum, including those working for small restaurants, bars, and other businesses doing less than $500,000 in gross sales a year.

The last-minute maneuver places Democrats in the awkward position of voting against an increase in the minimum wage today when the bill reaches the House floor.

Ohio and Kansas are the only two states who have a minimum wage that is lower than the Federal limit. It's an obvious move similar to what happened with Election reform, make legislative changes to attempt to avoid a situation where voters decide. One of the many reasons I didn't think it was wise to make the minimum wage amendment the cornerstone of the Democratic GOTV process. This will make it more difficult because one of the primary pushing points on this was Ohio having a lower rate than the Feds. Now all Democrats are left with is "Well we want it higher than $5.15", which isn't supported by several business groups.

Another interesting move is reported in today's Cleveland Plain Dealer. Republicans want to change the wording used to determine districting from "persons" to "citizens". This would eliminate illegal immigrants being used as part of those figures.

I have mixed emotions on this one, since illegal immigrants can not vote, I can see the logic in not counting them. Yet we do get federal dollars based on the number of "people" and illegal immigrants do use services provided by taxpayers. This could start a precedence where if those numbers only end up being the ones used, that would be a negative.

17 comments:

historymike said...

Yep, lots of shifty policking going on down there in Columbus, Lisa.

Unknown said...

I'm assuming that my wage will now go up .90 to compensate?

Unknown said...

If your base wage is contingent upon the state minimum wage? It will go up. Chances are it won't since despite the hype there are not that many positions that pay $4.25 an hour to begin with. Most employers already pay the the federal or above as it is. Locally I know of two gas stations that pay as a starting wage $4.50 an hour for attendents, but even McDonald's out here pays above the Federal Minimum as a starting wage.

According to testimony before the Ohio Senate in 2005, they don't even provide numbers of how many make the Ohio minimum wage.

Link

Ohio's current minimum wage, of $4.25, is actually lower than the federal level, although the federal wage applies to most Ohio workers.

The group advocating an increase to $7.15 an hour lists the numbers who would be affected by that but no one seems to want to provide a breakdown of who makes under the Fed $5.15 an hour.

They list, 446,000 earning less than $7.15 an hour. Latest stats from ODJFS list, 5,431,300 nonfarm wage and salary employment

PridePress said...

Games!

Do they not know that there are real people at risk when they play these games against one another?

I guess the real question there is not that they know they exist, but if they care?

Scott G said...

I think that if they can count people in prison, they can count immigrants.

Unfortunately those games are good politics. Like naming a bill the Patriot Act or calling something the marriage protection bill. It is true that it hurts "real" people, but "real" people don't pay attention or think when they vote

jakejacobsen said...

To respond to me4president. They're not 'immigrants', they're illegal immigrants, all the difference in the world and I guarantee you your area is not recouping what it spends on illegals from the federal government.

Most locales receive about 20-30% back on what they spend on social services, health care and imprisonment of illegals. And president Bush is fighting to make that number smaller.

I think we need to honestly assess what illegals cost our society in money terms and societal terms. If locales feel the pinch more, I think they'll scream more instead of going along with greedy businessfolk who are working hard to make sure the American blue collar worker (of which I'm one) becomes extinct.

historymike said...

Jake's numbers, however, do not take into account Social Security.

While the households of immigrant families do receive social services at levels higher than the US average (9.7% of immigrant families versus 7.5% of total US families), only 4.2% of immigrant households receive SSI, versus 26.3% of the total US population.

USCIS source
These figures use immigrants arriving after 1980.

Immigrants, on the average, are younger than the US population (28.3 years as opposed to 32.9 years).

Mark said...

Hate to nitpick, but SSI is not the same thing as Social Security income, which is the statistics you were pointing out. SSI stands for Supplemental Security Income. It's a whole different social program altogether, though it is handled by the Social Security office.

Scott G said...

What is the cost of not having an immigrant worker force? That is what Bush is trying to address with his immigration reform because his corporate buddies don't want to lose the cheap labor. None of us want that to happen when the cost of many items could go up and hurt the locals also.

How much do I receive back for the imprsionment and prosecution on drug charges related to marijuana?

historymike said...

True, Steph. Got my acronyms mixed up.

Me4 raises a good point about all the work that would not get done, at least not at the wages that get paid to newly-legal and illegal immigrants.

This is a complicated issue...

Scott G said...

They are all complicated issues. That is why we come to Lisa's and comment. I just wish she provided chips and cognac

Unknown said...

lmao, I'll work on that me4, what kind of chips would you like?

:-)

Scott G said...

Ruffles with sour cream and chive dip

Unknown said...

Good choice, that would be my favorite too.

:-)

historymike said...

Cognac...mmmmmm!

If I were to start drinking again (big if), that would be one of the first things I would sample.

A nice VSOP, a roaring fire - God, I wish I were rich to enjoy such luxuries every day!

Scott G said...

I wish I could afford the good stuff too. I want a bottle that a person would have to pay taxes on if received as a gift

Mark said...

I'm a long way away from that version of the "good stuff." To me the "good stuff" means the difference between paying $10 a bottle and $20.