Minneapolis OKs minimum wage of $15 an hour
MINNEAPOLIS - The Minneapolis City Council voted overwhelmingly on Friday to raise the city’s minimum wage to $15 an hour over the next few years, joining other large U.S. cities that have increased basic wages.
The ordinance passed 11-1. For large businesses with 100 or more employees, the higher wage will be phased in over five years, starting with an increase to $10 an hour from the current state minimum of $9.50 on Jan. 1, 2018. The higher wage will be phased in for smaller businesses over seven years. The $15 minimum wage will be fully implemented citywide by July 2024.
“Today, we uplift all workers,” council member Abdi Warsame said in a letter that was read aloud. Warsame was absent from Friday’s meeting on a pilgrimage to Mecca but added his “yes” vote from afar. “Today’s vote, while historic, is just another step in our unending journey to build a better city.”
Council member Blong Yang cast the lone dissenting vote. Yang said he was worried the ordinance might hurt his constituents in north Minneapolis, including smallbusiness owners and entrepreneurs who are minorities and young workers.
“Entrepreneurs of color also hire more people of color,” Yang said. “At $15 an hour, with the minimum wage, is an increased barrier to entrepreneurs and small-business owners I represent.”
Supporters of the wage increase packed the council chambers and cheered after the vote.
Supporters argue the higher wage will especially benefit low-income workers and minorities.
According to a city news release, more than 84,000 people in Minneapolis have incomes below the federal poverty level.
Increasing the minimum wage to $15 would benefit 23 percent of workers in Minneapolis, about 71,000 people.
“It marks a new day and a new opportunity, and I celebrate it,” Minneapolis Mayor Betsy Hodges said in a statement. Hodges signed the ordinance shortly after its passage, her spokesman, Eric Fought, said.
Critics contend the ordinance may chase budget-conscious customers out of the city and force small businesses in Minneapolis to cut staff or reduce hours to make up for the higher wages.
Council member Jacob Frey, a candidate for mayor this fall, amended the ordinance to clarify that certain franchisers such as fast-food restaurants will qualify as big businesses, even though a particular store may have fewer than 100 workers.
Members of the advocacy group 15 Now Minnesota called passage of the ordinance “historic,” but some advocates are disappointed it will take seven years for people working for small businesses to get to $15.
The ordinance does not include an exception for tipped workers.
Schedule changes, a reduction in hours, suspending an employee or denying a transfer request are other examples of negative actions that could be viewed as deterring an employee from taking or requesting sick leave, she said.
Because the law presumes such actions are retaliation, businesses face a higher standard of defending themselves — “clear and convincing evidence” rather than the “preponderance of evidence” that’s more typical in employmentlaw cases, according to an analysis by Steptoe & Johnson.
“It makes it easy for an employee to bring a cause of action,” Bass said.
The new paid sicktime rules also apply to part-time, temporary and seasonal workers — not just permanent staff.
The law actually enables workers to take paid sick time in hourly increments — or even smaller units if an employer’s payroll system allows it.
“Clever employees could insulate themselves (from adverse actions) by spreading out their sick time,” said Laura Pasqualone, an associate attorney at law firm Lewis Roca in Phoenix.
The law requires all businesses and nonprofits with one or more workers to provide at least 24 hours or three days of paid sick leave each year. Entities with 15 or more Arizona employees must provide a minimum 40 hours or five days.
Only the federal and Arizona state governments are exempt, as well as people employing babysitters or certain close relatives.
The law was passed last November by Arizona voters as Proposition 206, which also hiked the state’s minimum wage to $10 an hour starting in January of this year. Arizona voters handily approved the measure, which also skirted legal challenges. The state Supreme Court in March rejected an argument that Proposition 206 was unconstitutional.
Arizona’s law on this issue is one of the most progressive in the nation. Yet Tomas Robles, executive director of LUCHA or Living United for Change in Arizona, said the sickleave proposal resonated with voters because it cuts across political lines.
“This issue hits home with almost every family, especially mothers,” said Robles, whose group helped put the measure on the ballot. “It’s about treating workers with respect and dignity. It’s not really a progressive or conservative issue.”
While linked with the minimum-wage hike, studies suggest that more Arizona workers could be affected by the sick-leave provision, said Robles.
Employers with more generous paid time-off policies might not need to offer more of these benefits, but they probably should track sick time separately and definitely should have policies in place to substantiate their actions.
Many employers lump sick, vacation and personal days in one big “personal time off” basket. While such policies often offer more generous benefits than that required by the Arizona law, they might not be in compliance, Pasqualone warned.
For example, a company might have a “use it or lose it” policy on paid sick time, but the Arizona law requires that unused time (up to 24 or 40 hours) be carried forward to a new year, she said.
As another example, workers under the new law don’t need to give a reason for taking sick time off until they have been absent three straight days.
If a company’s policy requires a doctor’s note on Day 1, it wouldn’t be in compliance.
Permissible uses for taking sick time under the new state law, which range from an actual illness to scheduling legal help to deal with sexual abuse or a stalker, are broader than those specified under some company policies.
The law also requires employers to track sick time on employee pay stubs (or similar documents) and to post fliers describing the new rules in a prominent place, such as a break room.
Employers face penalties for not complying with various aspects of the law, such as a minimum penalty of $150 a day for retaliation and a minimum $250 penalty for violating the pay stub and record-keeping requirements.
The Industrial Commission of Arizona is the state agency tasked with enforcing the new law, but private attorneys have motivation to get involved. That’s because attorneys who successfully sue businesses on behalf of workers stand to receive their fees or other costs as reimbursed awards.
If a business fires a worker and was found liable of unlawful retaliation, it potentially might need to pay back wages, penalties of at least $150 per day, fees for the employee’s attorney — and rehire the person, according to Steptoe & Johnson.
Pasqualone suggests employers carefully track the reasons for disciplining workers or taking other potentially adverse actions, preferably in written documents.
“Make sure you’re on very strong ground,” she said. “Be prepared to show strong evidence that supports your decision.”