- Joined
- Sep 24, 2011
- Messages
- 44,458
- Reaction score
- 58,159
- Location
- Atlanta
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
I had to go find a story on this to get more context, ended up with ABCNews...
abcnews.go.com
The issue of two minimum wage standards for tipped vs. non-tipped (or tipped out) employees has been a mess for years now. If I understand the issue correctly this is entirely because of Federal Labor Laws which allow for businesses to decide more can be considered a tipped employee, by various means as in direct tipped or tip shared ("tipped out",) and move even more of their workforce to consumer partially paid for.
Now Arizona Republicans are trying to do something differently than Massachusetts. The former is looking for more means to move more employees to tipped status and have that rate be less than what is on the books now in these categories. Whereas Massachusetts is looking to kill the two-tiered or "subminimum wage" (sometimes three-tiered when you move people around based on partial tips) system entirely for one minimum wage for everyone. There are other states that have a single minimum wage and the Massachusetts plan stair steps it from two to one out to 2029.
Restaurant Associations support the Arizona move, no article mentions similar support in Massachusetts (should surprise no one.)
While we are arguing about this no where is either state really considering living wage, the concept of what it takes to exist and participate healthy enough in an economy. But then again every time we push that the response is needing less people via some automation or changes to product delivery. And ultimately price costs for the consumer. Becomes a circular debate.

Should the minimum wage be lower for workers who get tipped? Two states are set to decide
Voters in Arizona and Massachusetts are set to decide whether employers should be able to continue to pay tipped workers such as servers and bartenders a lower minimum wage than non-tipped workers
The issue of two minimum wage standards for tipped vs. non-tipped (or tipped out) employees has been a mess for years now. If I understand the issue correctly this is entirely because of Federal Labor Laws which allow for businesses to decide more can be considered a tipped employee, by various means as in direct tipped or tip shared ("tipped out",) and move even more of their workforce to consumer partially paid for.
Now Arizona Republicans are trying to do something differently than Massachusetts. The former is looking for more means to move more employees to tipped status and have that rate be less than what is on the books now in these categories. Whereas Massachusetts is looking to kill the two-tiered or "subminimum wage" (sometimes three-tiered when you move people around based on partial tips) system entirely for one minimum wage for everyone. There are other states that have a single minimum wage and the Massachusetts plan stair steps it from two to one out to 2029.
Restaurant Associations support the Arizona move, no article mentions similar support in Massachusetts (should surprise no one.)
While we are arguing about this no where is either state really considering living wage, the concept of what it takes to exist and participate healthy enough in an economy. But then again every time we push that the response is needing less people via some automation or changes to product delivery. And ultimately price costs for the consumer. Becomes a circular debate.