The Senate voted down two amendments Tuesday that would call for the increase of the federally-mandated minimum wage. A proposal by Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) and a counter-proposal by Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) each fell comfortably short of the 60 vote minimum required for passage.
Minimum wage is perennially contested not only for its generosity but for its very existence. I find this curious, as nearly all Americans would decry as international scandal the sweatshops in which workers overseas are unprotected by labor laws such as ours. In fact, one of the core arguments of free trade is centered on America’s favorable view toward working people.
Let’s consider our own country as it stands today. Minimum wage workers earn about $10,700 annually, which is approximately $5,000 below the official poverty line for a family of three. Wage law as it stands, therefore, is basically the institution of poverty on lower-income working people.
Opponents cite minimum wage as pricing workers out of the labor market and increasing costs to employers.
But rather than being excessively enamored with simple market forces, one should pay attention to the social benefits of government intervention on behalf of workers.
What is often forgotten is that a deficient minimum wage such as ours allows employers to legally keep their workers in poverty.
Raising this rate would lower the burdens on social programs like Welfare, decrease crime rates, improve average standard of living, education and a slew of other economic indicators. It is not at all unlikely that these would outweigh any meager decrease in corporate profits.
As you may have guessed, the Democratic proposition was more munificent toward low-income workers than that of the Republicans, prescribing a $2.10 hourly increase in three increments of 70 cents each. The comparatively miserly offering recommended by some Republicans calls for a $1.10 hourly raise in two increments of 55 cents.
Sen. Santorum is on the Democratic hit list — one of our targets for regaining control of the Senate chamber. He is a red senator in the blue state of Pennsylvania and carries with him the added bonus of being the No. 3-ranking Republican. Big game indeed.
As for Sen. Santorum’s bill, there is more in the mix than the aforementioned minimum wage hike. Attached to the proposal is an increase in the exemption ceiling for labor standards and the unusual provision for something known as “flex time.”
The former measure translates as an increase from $500,000 to $1,000,000 in the minimum revenue required for a business to conform to the Fair Labor Standards Act. This means that many more businesses would be exempt from rules governing minimum wage, overtime pay and other basic labor constraints.
“Flex time,” according to Santorum’s bill, would allow workers to have their workweeks adjusted in bi-weekly chunks, conceivably cheating many out of traditional weekly overtime as their hours are adjusted from one week to another.
Despite Tuesday’s rejection by the Senate, subsequent failure in the House for both bills was previously guaranteed by Republicans on Capitol Hill. But actual passage of the bill has remained a non-issue from the beginning.
This is likely just the first of many legislative feuds in preparation for the coming off-year elections in 2006. The hopes for minimum wage reform hinge on the political hopes of incumbents and challengers.
In much the same way that “Defense of Marriage” was placed on the ballot to earn votes for Bush in key states, so we will see workers’ rights appear as an attractive issue for blue voters like myself.
The only political difference here is that this one will actually help people.
