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,...
Post a Comment
Read more

San Diego Rolls Back Vaccine Mandate For City Workers

Last Tuesday, the San Diego City Council voted to do away with the vaccine mandate for city employees. The city’s vaccine mandate that was in place required city workers to get the coronavirus vaccine or risk termination.  Perhaps to this surprise of no one, the city’s policy came under fire with 14 employees being terminated and over 100 other employees resigning.  With the coronavirus subsiding, including in Southern California, the San Diego City Council took action. Now, bear in mind, the repeal of the vaccine mandate does not take place immediately. With that being said, the mandate will be repealed March 8th.  I suppose the question now is, what other cities or regions follow San Diego’s lead? For additional information:   https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/politics/story/2023-01-24/san-diego-repeals-controversial-covid-19-vaccine-mandate-citing-drop-in-cases-hospitalizations
Post a Comment
Read more

NLRB: Former Employee Cannot Be Barred From Work Premises After Filing Wage Suit

MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC - NLRB Facts :  MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC d/b/a Grand Sierra Resort & Casino ("GSR") operated a facility that included a hotel, casino, restaurant, clubs, bars, and a pool which were all open to the general public.  Tiffany Sargent ("Sargent") was briefly employed by GSR as a "beverage supervisor" in December of 2012.  After her employment ended, Sargent continued to socialize at one of the clubs.  GSR had a long standing practice of allowing former employees to patronize its facility and did not prohibit Sargent from doing so.  In June of 2013, Sargent and another employee filed a class and collective action against GSR for alleged unpaid wages, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Nevada law.  In July of 2014, GSR denied Sargent access to an event at one of the clubs.  GSR followed up with a letter and stated that with the on-going litigation (from the wage suit), it decided to bar Sargent from the premises. ...
1 comment
Read more