As Susan wrote, a report from the Restaurant Opportunities Center United called “Tipped Over the Edge” is shining a light on the unfair treatment faced by servers, cooks, and other restaurant workers. The banner headline is this: the federal subminimum wage for tipped workers is $2.13 an hour – and it has been that way since 1991.
This comes on the heels of news out of Florida, where a GOP-run Senate committee has approved SB 2106, a bill that would return the state subminimum wage for tipped workers to 1985 levels.
It should be common sense, but let’s spell it out for the so-called legislators who think this is good policy: paying working people less hurts the economy. Less money in the pockets of those most likely to spend instantly means less money going to grocery stores, gas stations, utility companies and other small businesses. Less money for businesses means fewer hires. That kills jobs. Get it?
Our members sure do. When we posted this news on Facebook, Working America members reacted strongly. Many of them work or have worked in the restaurant industry:
I was a restaurant chef for over 20 years. Everyone in the restaurant business is generally under paid and over worked. All restaurants are sweatshops, pure and simple… Jerry – Utica, New York
$2 an hour now? I made that as a waitress in the 80′s. Rita – Wabasha, Minnesota
I put up with a lot of hours on my feet….The tips were good on some days and near zero on other days. When the economy is bad, so are the tips. –Sherry
Years ago I worked as a waitress at the local campus PIzza Hut…got paid barely $1/ hr (this was the early ’70′s!) – the frat boys were the worst tippers and kept me running constantly. Ever since, I’ve always tipped, no matter what. –Mary
Many of my friends have worked in restaurants and my mother worked for 60 cents an hour back in the 1950′s as an assistant cook and waitress. Wages have not come very far in all these years, have they? –Susan – Fall River, Wisconsin
I think it’s disgraceful that employers are allowed to pay 2.13 per hour!! A tip should be an added bonus for a job well done – not money to make up what the employer doesn’t want to pay!! That’s always been ridiculous to me!! I always tip above and beyond because I appreciate good service! Having to pool and share tips is ridiculous too yet happens at many places! -Terri
However, when business owners take it upon themselves to pay their servers a fair wage, the results are good for staff – and good for the economy as a whole. Amber from Tallahassee, Florida writes:
I gave up on waitressing because I was sick of management using servers at slave wages to do hours and hours of un-tipped labor every week. Got a job next to a small diner with very low prices and delicious food, they pay their servers minimum wage plus tips and they do all the same work I did for $2.13/hr at other restaurants. The owner is frequently around also, she lives comfortably but not high on the hog.
Not all bosses are like Amber’s. Without federal legislation mandating the first increase in the tipped subminimum wage in 20 years, servers in states like Florida will continue to scrape by and be subject to their ALEC-influenced, anti-worker state legislators and cash-strapped managers.
Rep. Donna Edwards (D-MD) has introduced the Workers for Adequate Gains for Employment in Services, or WAGES Act, which would increase the hourly subminimum wage to $3.75 after 90 days and $5.00 after a year. We don’t think that’s asking for too much, and would help some of our lowest-paid workers have a better life.
Unfortunately, the committee that will consider the bill is dominated by Republicans, none of whom have co-sponsored or stated their support for the WAGES Act.
UW students packed the Wisconsin capital rotunda to celebrate the one-year anniversary of their “I Love UW” protest that sparked the Wisconsin uprising. Photo via @JacquelynGill on Twitter.
Hope you all had a wonderful Valentine’s Day! We received a couple of great gifts in honor of that lovely holiday – but a few stinkers as well.
Bad news first. On Capitol Hill, House Republicans and Democrats agreed to a compromise on the payroll tax extension, the Medicare “doc fix,” and at long last, the extension of unemployment insurance for millions of Americans. Unfortunately, the GOPers used their cruel and selfish proposals to extract concessions from Democrats – the so-called compromise involves cutting UI from 99 weeks down to 63 or 73 weeks, depending on the state. All this at a time when the average length of unemployment is at an all-time high, as high as it’s been since the Labor Department started keeping track.
However, out in the states, there are a few hopeful signs. Arizona’s insane collective bargaining ban might be canceled due to lack of interest – from Republican legislators! Even Governor Jan Brewer, who loves unnecessary fights, is only lukewarm on pursuing this particular part of the attack on workers’ rights.
Over in Indiana, we heard from the Lunchpail Republicans, a group of Indiana pro-workers moderates who are incensed with Gov. Daniels and Speaker Bosma for ramming through a ban on fair share clauses in union contracts. Turns out that there are still conservatives out there who yearn for the old days, when you could vote for a Republican without voting for the ALEC agenda. These guys aren’t messing around either: they are running eight pro-worker candidates in primaries against legislators who voted for the fair share ban.
But wait, there’s more! Down in Florida, where Rick Scott is breaking new ground in low public approval, a proposal to privatize state prisons was defeated in a bipartisan vote. It was a rare instance of Tea Party groups and progressives seeing eye to eye: after all, why would you want to increase costs to the taxpayer just to line the pockets of a small number of super-wealthy prison executives? Oh right, if you’re Rick Scott.
One more bright spot this week was in Maine, where pro-worker candidate Chris Johnson won an upset in a special election to fill an open State Senate seat. Congrats Chris! We’re glad you’re joining our friend Rep. Diane Russell to keep tabs on Governor Paul “I Hate Beautiful Murals” LePage.
Meanwhile, Susan fought Medicare fraud, Seth sent us #unionvalentines, Chase showed us the real-life effects of restricting UI, Catherine dressed up as the Tin Man, Ali showed Colorado Rep. Mike Coffman what’s what, Doug found a really awesome metaphor to explain “right to work” laws, and we joyously celebrated the one year anniversary of the Wisconsin uprising.
We’ll see you next week on Main Street – and don’t forget to sign up for our weekly Main Street Digest email. Have a great weekend!
Sources from the Colorado AFL-CIO have confirmed that Colorado Senate Bill 100 (Right to Work) has died in the Senate Business, Labor and Technology Committee.
SB 100 was sponsored by Tea Party State Senator Tim Neville.
Colorado voters previously defeated “Right-to-Work” in its 2008 form, Amendment 47. This round of “Right-to-Work” push was led by an adviser to the Independence Institute, Jeff Crank from Americans for Prosperity, The National Right to Work Committee, the Associated Builders & Contractors and Tony Gagliardi from the NFIB. The Colorado AFL-CIO alleges that “not one real worker or real business owner showed-up to back these extremists and it made them look pathetic.”
The bill died in a 4-2 vote.
Even though fair share agreements were banned in Indiana last month, and even though Colorado is surrounded by states with similar laws, the appetite for an attack on workers is not there in the Centennial State.
But at least two of those anti-union bills, including one that would outright ban collective bargaining for state workers, are on the rocks – and we may have pro-worker Republicans to thank for it.
On Tuesday, however, two Republican leaders in the Senate told the Arizona Guardian (sub. req.) they don’t have enough votes to keep the bill alive.
“Senate President Steve Pierce and Senate Whip Frank Antenori expressed serious doubt that there were enough Republicans in the upper chamber willing to pass a bill ending collective bargaining,” the Guardian reported. Antenori described the bill’s chances as “questionable.”
Even Gov. Brewer, no stranger to controversy, is keeping the collective bargaining bill at an arm’s length. “All I can tell you definitively,” said Gov. Brewer’s spokesman Matthew Benson, “is that…there was no coordination with the governor or her office in the development of those bills.” Benson also said that if the bills reach the Governor’s desk that she would “weigh them on the merits.”
That’s political speak for “please don’t write in the paper that these bills were my idea.”
As Dave Dayen writes at Firedoglake, this is the departure from the pattern of 2011. In Wisconsin, it’s been well-documented that Republicans pulled out all the stops to ram through their anti-union “budget repair” bill. In Ohio, which has a much stronger labor presence than Arizona, Senate Bill 5 was passed the same way. And of course, in Indiana last month, Speaker Bosma and Gov. Daniels risked enormous Super Bowl protests to push through a ban on fair share clauses.
We’re remaining vigilant on this issue: even though Arizona GOP doesn’t seem fully behind the collective bargaining ban, that bill has already been passed out of committee, and could get a full vote any day.
Besides, two other anti-worker bills will see a vote today: one would prohibit the government from paying an employee for union activities, while the other would prohibit automatic deduction for union dues which help pay for basic representation. Arizona already has a ban on fair share clauses for all workers.
Until we hear official commitments to keep basic rights for public workers from legislators on both sides of the aisle, there’s no reason to assume these attacks on workers won’t continue. But the apparent lack of interest in the war on workers (in a state that has never backed down from useless, punitive, ALEC-inspired laws) is a heartening, if small, sign of hope.
Last November, our Ohio members joined thousands of other working families and stood up to Gov. John Kasich and corporate interests by overwhelmingly repealing Senate Bill 5, which would have cut collective bargaining rights for over 350,000 Ohio workers.
But only a few months later, a Quinnipiac poll shows that 54 percent of Ohioans would support a so-called “right to work” law, which in 22 other states have lowered wages for all workers, created less safe workplaces, and weakened the ability of unions to represent their members. (This does not bode well for the future of Indiana, the 23rd RTW state).
Indiana recently became a “right to work” state, meaning that workers can no longer be required to join a union or pay dues or fees to a union as a condition of employment. Do you think that Ohio should become a “right to work” state or don’t you think so?
According to the poll, those who said Ohio should become a right to work state include 55 percent of independents and 31 percent of Democrats, and 32 percent of union households, in addition to 3 out of 4 Republicans.
The campaign to repeal Senate Bill 5 was successful in explaining how the collective bargaining restrictions would hurt all workers. We must do the same for so-called “right to work.”
The goal of a “right to work” law is the same as the goal of Ohio’s Senate Bill 5 – weaken the voices and power of working people. Where Senate Bill 5 went through the front door, RTW laws go through the back door, draining the resources of the institutions that protect workers.
Like Senate Bill 5, the RTW pushers will talk about getting Ohio’s economy back on track. But RTW laws reduce wages for all workers, both union and non-union (accounting for different costs of living in the states). How on earth does putting less money in workers’ pockets help the economy?
Like Senate Bill 5, the RTW pushers will talk about the rights of workers. But RTW laws lower the likelihood that employees – both union and non-union – will get health care or pensions through their jobs. In addition, the rate of workplace deaths is 53 percent higher in RTW states.
Like Senate Bill 5, the RTW pushers will talk about the need to bring businesses to the state. But RTW is not a meaningful factor in those decisions. A survey of manufacturers in Area Development magazine showed that RTW laws ranked 16th in terms of influencing location decisions, slipping from 14th in 2009. RTW has never ranked in the top ten factors influencing where businesses move.
Like Senate Bill 5, the RTW pushers will talk about the need to create jobs. Yes, we agree: jobs should be the number one priority for Ohio leaders. But RTW laws have no impact on job growth. None whatsoever. There is no evidence that these laws get people have to work or improve the economy in any way.
“Right to work” isn’t about rights, and it’s not about work. So what’s it about? Like Senate Bill 5. It’s about politics. Right-wing legislators and conservative groups, aided by massive amounts of out-of-state money, want to divide working people: union and non-union, public and private. They want us to be squabbling and distracted while they further enrich the ultra-wealthy.
In Indiana, a group of pro-worker, moderate Republicans is recruiting candidates to run in primaries against several of the state legislators who helped ram through a “right to work” law earlier this year.
They call themselves the “Lunchpail Republicans.” From their website, it appears that their goal is to oust House Speaker Brian Bosma (R-Indianapolis), one of the biggest pushers of right to work, from his leadership position. Eight candidates have already been recruited to run in May’s primaries.
Workers’ rights wasn’t always a partisan issue. Even the lionized President Ronald Reagan was a supporter of collective bargaining rights, and over the years there have indeed been state and federal GOP elected officials who have carried on that tradition.
But lately, because of the growing, pervasive influence of ALEC, the Koch Brothers, Wall Street, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and other radical anti-worker groups on the Republican Party (and as protecting the ultra-wealthy has increasingly become the GOP’s singular goal), collective bargaining and having a voice on the job have been transformed – at least in the eyes of the media and the broader public – into partisan issues.
The state house fights since 2010, we’ve seen instances of Republicans standing up to their leadership over workers’ rights issues. Some, like Wisconsin’s Sen. Dale Schultz (R-Richland Center), have been successful; with a reduced Republican majority in the Wisconsin Senate, Schultz now carries more clout than ever, as well as the distinction of being the only Republican to vote against Gov. Walker’s union-busting bill.
Others have fallen victim to political retaliation. In New Hampshire, a state with a long-standing tradition of moderate Republicanism, former union member Rep. Lee Quandt (R-Exeter) was removed from his leadership position after speaking out against his party’s anti-worker agenda. House Speaker William O’Brien used every tactic imaginable to whip Republicans into passing a “right to work” bill, yet failed consistently.
Part of the reason that the repeal of the union-busting Senate Bill 5 in Ohio was so successful was that it was not a partisan issue. The repeal campaign reached out consistently to those describing themselves as “conservatives,” and had the support of Republicans like the outspoken Sens. Bill Seitz and Tim Grendell, former U.S. Senator George Voinovich, and even right-wing radio host Bill Cunningham. The “Republicans Voting No On Issue 2” Facebook page has 3,500 members. In the end, more people voted No on Issue 2 to repeal Senate Bill 5 – in an off-year election – than voted to elect current Governor John Kasich in 2010.
What’s different about Indiana is that this is the first time that a moderate, pro-worker faction has broken off and formed a PAC with the expressed purpose of waging an intra-party fight over collective bargaining and workers’ rights.
In Indiana, five GOP Representatives and nine GOP Senators voted against right to work. 82 Republicans voted for its passage. While the pro-worker contingent is small, they are bold, and vocal. As the Chair of the Lunchpail Republicans David Fagan bluntly told Rachel Maddow, “If you can’t defeat right to work, we will defeat those elected officials who voted for it.”
When it comes to gathering signatures, Ohio working families hold the record. Last year, in response to the blitzkrieg passage of the union-busting Senate Bill 5, Ohioans across the state gathered 1.3 million signatures to get a repeal measure on the 2011 ballot, over six times the required number.
Anti-worker conservatives have some big shoes to fill.
Even though the unpopular Gov. John Kasich doesn’t want to touch the so-called “right to work” issue, conservative leaders are going ahead with it anyway. Earlier this month, Attorney General Mike DeWine approved language for a “right to work” amendment. That means organizers now have to gather 385,253 valid signatures from at least 44 of Ohio’s 88 counties. To have a buffer, anti-worker organizers want at least 600,000 signatures.
In a state that just overwhelmingly smashed Senate Bill 5, does such an effort have a chance? One of the measure’s backers, Ohio Liberty Council’s Chris Littleton, was trying to downplay expectations. “Ohio will become a right to work state,” said Littleton last Friday, “I just can’t tell you a timeline.”
But just like with Senate Bill 5, there’s going to be a lot of money flowing into Ohio to try and convince people that such a law would be good for the economy, even though in 22 other states such laws have led to depressed wages and unsafe workplaces. With neighboring Indiana ramming through a right to work law earlier this year, anti-worker forces may feel that they have momentum on their side.
One of the best metaphors for why “right to work” laws are bad for all workers comes from the Union Review’s John Crumbler, who calls them “right to shirk laws.” Say you had to cross a river to get to work in the morning. If there was a bridge and it had a toll booth, everyone who used the bridge would have to pay the toll – otherwise you could use a ferry. But what if you were told the toll was optional? Of course people would opt not to pay the toll if they could cross the bridge either way. Soon, the bridge would fall into a disrepair and collapse, because no one would be paying for its upkeep – which is what the ferry companies wanted in the first place.
