Skip to main content

Legal Fight Brewing Over Arizona’s Penalization of Cities, Towns, & Counties With Higher Wage Rates Than the State

 

Readers might remember that in 2016, voters in Flagstaff approved an hourly wage rate of $15.  However, that wage rate was (and still is) higher than the statewide hourly wage rate of $12.15.  The bad news comes in when you recall that there is a law in place that cities, towns, and counties cannot approve a higher wage rate than the statewide wage rate.  If that happens, the city, town, or county is required to reimburse the state for costs associated with that higher wage rate.

Currently, there is a lawsuit pending in Maricopa County Superior Court to challenge this penalty provision.  The outcome of that lawsuit remains to be seen.

With that being said, voters in Tucson are scheduled to vote on a similar measure in November which would result in a $15/hour wage rate by 2025.  However, one might assume that voters might be a bit gun shy about approving a higher wage rate if it would result in penalties being imposed for a wage rate higher than $12.15/hour.  A smart special interest group could drum up fear/anger/concern/etc. heading into the November vote in an effort to defeat the measure.

First thing will be to see if the lawsuit in Maricopa County gets resolved before November.  If it does, that will provide clarity, one way or the other for voters in Tucson.  If there is no ruling before November, the question will be whether Tucson voters feel like rolling the dice.  Stay tuned.


For additional information:  https://tucson.com/news/local/arizona-penalizing-cities-with-own-minimum-wage-could-affect-tucson-vote/article_5c97d6ae-f47c-11eb-b11a-3bf8a2eb37f5.html

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

NLRB: Discussion Among Employees About Tip Pooling is Protected Concerted Activity

  This Advice Memorandum from the National Labor Relations Board’s Associate General Counsel, Jayme Sophir, addressed whether employees which discussed and complained about tip pooling at work constituted protected concerted activity. In relevant part, an employer in New York operated a chain of steakhouses.  While tip pooling was in place at these steakhouses, some of the employees objected to it on the grounds that it was not transparent and improperly divided tips among the workers.  Employees were told not to complain or talk to each other about the tip pool and were told that doing so would endanger their jobs.  Despite the employer later attempting to provide some clarity as to how the tips were being divided, rancor still existed among some employees.  At one point, the employees were told by a general manager that some employees that had been talking about the tip pool were “cleared out” and the employer would continue to do so. In the Advice Memorandum, it was noted that emplo
Post a Comment
Read more

What I’ve Been Reading This Week

A few years ago, I remember when the “Fight for $15” movement was taking off around the country.  Lo and behold, it appears that a $15/hour minimum wage is not the stopping point, which should be no surprise.  As the below article notes, New York is aggressively moving to ramp up hourly wage rates even higher.  While all the  below articles are worth a read, I called particular attention to that one. As always, below are a couple article that caught my eye this week. Disney World Workers Reject Latest Contract Offer Late last week, it was announced that workers at Disney World had rejected the most recent contract offer from the company, calling on their employer to do better.  As Brooks Barnes at The New York Times writes, the unions that represent about 32,000 workers at Disney World reported their members resoundingly rejected the 5 year contract offer which would have seen workers receive a 10% raise and retroactive increased back pay.  While Disney’s offer would have increased pa
Post a Comment
Read more

Utah Non-Compete Bill Falters in House

Last month, a non-compete bill sponsored by Representative Brian Greene (Republican from Pleasant Grove) & up for vote in the Utah House failed to make it through the Legislature.  The bill sought to ban enforcement of non-competes if they came after a worker was already employed, given no compensation (such as a bonus or promotion) for signing the non-compete, and laid off within six months.  However, by a 22 - 49 vote, the bill was resoundingly defeated after some business groups lobbied to kill the non-compete bill.  One group in particular, The Free Enterprise Utah coalition, argued that the Utah State Legislature should hold off on any changes to non compete laws in the state until a survey about non competes was done among Utah businesses.  Representative Greene had countered this claim and argued that a survey was not needed to show that the current non compete laws in the states allowed many businesses, including some small high tech companies in the state, to per
Post a Comment
Read more