DC City Council Repeals Voter-Approved Minimum Wage Hike for Tipped Workers

WedgeX · Oct 2, 2018

In two sessions at the Wilson Building today, the D.C. Council overturned Initiative 77, the ballot measure that gradually raises the minimum wage employers are required to pay tipped workers.

Lawmakers also nixed a compromise — introduced by Council member Elissa Silverman (I-At Large) — that would have raised the wage only for the city's lowest-paid tipped workers, such as parking attendants and bellhops.

...

D.C. voters approved the referendum in June, but it has been embroiled in controversy ever since, with restaurant workers and owners calling on the Council to throw it out despite its win at the polls. In a marathon hearing at the Wilson Building in September, opponents testified that raising employers' labor costs would destroy jobs, discourage tipping and devastate the restaurant and bar industries.

http://dcist.com/2018/10/dc_council_votes_to_repeal_initiati.php

Putting DC's city council on the same side as Tea Party Congressional Republicans who introduced legislation to stop the voter-approved initiative from being enacted.

Why was raising the minimum wage so important? The experts:

Although a small number of tipped workers are employed in high-end restaurants where they earn significant amounts in tips and receive higher incomes, high-earning servers are not representative of DC's tipped workforce. Currently, the median annual wage for bartenders and servers is approximately $31,000 and $25,000, respectively. The median annual wage for a hairdresser is about $30,000. The MIT Living Wage Calculator, which considers regional costs of living, estimates that a District worker with two children must make $32.50 per hour, or $68,000 annually to adequately provide for her family — more than twice what a bartender or hairdresser in the District make.

Living on tips does not provide sufficient, predictable income or economic security. Tipped workers — about 70 percent of whom are people of color — experience a poverty rate nearly twice that of other workers. In the District, the poverty rate of tipped workers is 13.7 percent—more than three times the poverty rate of non-tipped workers (4.5 percent) and Black tipped workers have a poverty rate of 18.5 percent. According to the Economic Policy Institute, average wages for tipped workers are nearly 40 percent lower than for all workers. Currently, 16 percent of DC's tipped workers have incomes that qualify them for SNAP benefits. In the District, most tipped work is low-wage work.

https://www.dcfpi.org/all/repeal-is-not-the-answer-dc-tipped-workers-need-a-raise/

And:

The median wage of tipped workers in D.C. is $14.41 per hour, inclusive of tips, which is 44 percent of the median hourly wage of nontipped workers in D.C. And because tipped workers get fewer hours on average, median tipped workers in D.C. annually earn only 34 percent of the median annual earnings of nontipped workers.

There are significant pay disparities within the tipped workforce. Black tipped workers are paid 23 percent less per hour (in wages and tips) than white tipped workers. Women tipped workers are paid 8 percent less per hour, and 20 percent less annually, in wages and tips than men tipped workers. Women tipped workers tend to work fewer hours per week than men, for reasons that are likely involuntary for some.

The poverty rate of tipped workers in D.C. is 13.7 percent—more than three times the poverty rate of nontipped workers (4.5 percent). Black tipped workers have a poverty rate of 18.5 percent.

https://www.epi.org/publication/tip...thrive-why-dc-should-implement-initiative-77/

The areas of DC that voted to raise the minimum wage were more often black and more often in poverty.

https://www.citylab.com/equity/2018/06/how-dc-voted-on-initiative-77/563300/

The breakdown of precincts voting in favor:

The racial breakdown of precincts:

Confusingly, the council members that voted to repeal represented the very communities that voted most heavily in favor of raising the minimum wage. The council members that represent whiter areas of the city actually voted against repeal.

Edit:

And it's final.

Helio said:

ColdSun · Oct 2, 2018

Title updated by OP's request.

SegFault · Oct 2, 2018

holy shit this is atrocious.

WedgeX · Oct 2, 2018

SegFault said:
holy shit this is atrocious.

I was continually disappointed in Michigan's government doing the same, and sadly DC's city council follows suit.

manchego obfuscator · Oct 2, 2018

if anything, it's even worse than it looks

Richietto · Oct 2, 2018

Everyone against this can eat a bag of shit. Fuck tip based jobs and fuck black folk especially, am I right????

Serene · Oct 2, 2018

This is super confusing. I came into the thread expecting this to be another example of rich white guys fucking everything up, but that totally doesn't seem like the case here?

Why would the people who voted for it be represented to repeal it?

Why would the people who voted against be represented against repeal?

None of this makes sense.

Edit: changed some wording

Pata Hikari · Oct 2, 2018

Serene said:
Why would the people who voted for it also vote to repeal it?

No what happened is that the people who voted to repeal it are in districts where the majority of the voters in said district voted for the referendum.

They're going against the will of their constituents.

Serene · Oct 2, 2018

Pata Hikari said:
No what happened is that the people who voted to repeal it are in districts where the majority of the voters in said district voted for the referendum.

They're going against the will of their constituents.

The way I'm reading it both sides are going against their constituents though. Like the reps on the side of people repealing voted to not do so, and the reps whose people voted to not repeal are deciding to repeal?

ItIsOkBro · Oct 2, 2018

is this elected council? just who the fuck do they think they are? you're supposed to represent the will of your constituents.

Pata Hikari · Oct 2, 2018

ItIsOkBro said:
is this elected council? just who the fuck do they think they are? you're supposed to represent the will of your constituents.

Yeah but you see ~~robber barons~~ job creators told them to vote no.

WedgeX · Oct 2, 2018

Serene said:
The way I'm reading it both sides are going against their constituents though. Like the reps on the side of people repealing voted to not do so, and the reps whose people voted to not repeal are deciding to repeal?

I think Ward 6 - the middle of the map - actually voted in favor but by a small margin.

It is very confusing, however. The at-large (who represent the district as a whole) council members split between the two.

Richietto · Oct 2, 2018

lmao "devastate the restaurant and bar industries".

Inugami · Oct 2, 2018

What's the point of ballot measures if they can be overturned in the least democratic way possible? Absolute garbage.

Pata Hikari · Oct 2, 2018

Green Slime King said:
lmao "devastate the restaurant and bar industries".

They might have only 99 piles of money.

manchego obfuscator · Oct 2, 2018

great example why it's never, ever enough to vote for Democrats. Gotta hold their feet to the fire 365 days a year

boxfactory · Oct 2, 2018

Don't worry guys these neoliberal democrats aren't racist this is purely an economic decision that just happens to affect ~~super predators~~ black people. They know what's best for you because they told msnbc to tell you that.

Daphne · Oct 2, 2018

It's the fundamental cruel setup of capitalism: You need a job to exist; there won't be enough jobs if pay and conditions aren't atrocious. Also, ignore the obscene mountains of wealth the capital class is constantly accruing through this situation.

Slime · Oct 2, 2018

boxfactory said:
Don't worry guys these neoliberal democrats aren't racist this is purely an economic decision that just happens to affect ~~super predators~~ black people. They know what's best for you because they told msnbc to tell you that.

They're just being pragmatic!

Chirotera · Oct 2, 2018

Pata Hikari said:
Yeah but you see ~~robber barons~~ job creators told them to vote no.

Their constituents are the rich. No one else.

This government needs to be cleaned out, all of it.

Akira86 · Oct 2, 2018

unfortunately its money versus the people, and the money went to the politicians instead of the people.

edit:

The median hourly wage of waitstaff in the district in May 2017 was only $11.86, including tips.
https://www.epi.org/blog/seven-facts-about-tipped-workers-and-the-tipped-minimum-wage/

Kirblar · Oct 2, 2018

Currently, the median tipped wage is 14.41 per hour. This means $3.89 comes from the employer (not counting benefits) and $10.52 comes from tips.

Because of the US's stupid tipping culture, restaurant salaries are a fixed cost that comes out of an intractable budget that, among other things, results in servers being paid more than they are in other non-insane countries without tipping culture, and where back of house staff (i.e., the cooks, who are trained professsionals) being paid less.

If this were to pass, ignoring inflation, the median tipped wage would increase to $25.52 an hour. To make the contrast blatant- Amazon just announced they're going to $15 an hour nationally. Paying $25/hr to servers is completely untenable for many restaurants and the negative impacet of this change would have been very real. Restaurants generally operate on razor-thin margins.

There are ways to address poverty, low wages, etc. in ways that aren't going to devastate businesses. This was not one of those.

Pata Hikari · Oct 2, 2018

Kirblar said:
If this were to pass, ignoring inflation, the median tipped wage would increase to $25.52 an hour. To make the contrast blatant- Amazon just announced they're going to $15 an hour nationally. Paying $25/hr to servers is completely untenable for many restaurants and the negative impacet of this change would have been very real. Restaurants generally operate on razor-thin margins.

Well then maybe they should raise prices instead of hiding them behind tips.

If paying workers a decent wage means that restaurants go out of business then the restaurants weren't viable businesses.

Deleted member 22490 · Oct 2, 2018

Vote blue no matter who

Orayn · Oct 2, 2018

Chirotera said:
Their constituents are the rich. No one else.

This government needs to be cleaned out, all of it.

Just get rid of the idea of governments IMO.

Kirblar · Oct 2, 2018

Pata Hikari said:
Well then maybe they should raise prices instead of hiding them behind tips.

If paying workers a decent wage means that restaurants go out of business then the restaurants weren't viable businesses.

Asking businesses to pay an artificially high wage far above the market rate isn't proving that they're unviable, it's you artificially making them unviable.

Want to help people and not just make tipped jobs into difficult-to-obtain, highly paid jobs? Just raise taxes and give people benefits.

Maneil99 · Oct 2, 2018

Increase pay. Get rid of tipping. Simple

Suiko · Oct 2, 2018

Kirblar said:
Asking businesses to pay an artificially high wage far above the market rate isn't proving that they're unviable, it's you artificially making them unviable.

Want to help people and not just make tipped jobs into difficult-to-obtain, highly paid jobs? Just raise taxes and give people benefits.

Could also start various policies encouraging then forcing the end of tipping.
Not easy, but it should be the end goal of this particular issue.

Kirblar · Oct 2, 2018

Maneil99 said:
Increase pay. Get rid of tipping. Simple

The high end restaurant workers don't want tipping gone because 20% of a $200 meal for two is a hell of a lot of money per night. The politics around this are nightmarish because the businesses aren't wrong to be concerned, the workers aren't wrong to be upset, but if you make things better across the board there will be very real, very large,and very painful losses for a vocal subset that makes a tipping ban near impossible to actually put into effect.

Pata Hikari · Oct 2, 2018

Kirblar said:
Asking businesses to pay an artificially high wage far above the market rate isn't proving that they're unviable, it's you artificially making them unviable.

The wages as they stand aren't viable for people to live on.

AKA: The entire reason people work

The wages as they are now is artificially low because the entire industry has colluded to keep them low.

Kirblar · Oct 2, 2018

Pata Hikari said:
The wages as they stand aren't viable for people to live on.

AKA: The entire reason people work

The wages as they are now is artificially low because the entire industry has colluded to keep them low.

They're completely viable for a single person to live on.

They're not viable for someone to raise a family on.

This is an important distinction about the debate here and why stuff like the BEZOS act is so self-destructive because people don't understand the marginal issues at play.

They're low because the workers are easily replaceable without a unique skillset. Not because of collusion. Wages are starting to go up because unemployment has been very very low.

Pata Hikari · Oct 2, 2018

Kirblar said:
They're not viable for someone to raise a family on.

So we're in agreement that these wages are unviable for people to live on and it's clear the law needs to step in and force these corporations to pay more.

manchego obfuscator · Oct 2, 2018

love to hear how this isn't pragmatic when states like WA have done the exact same thing without incurring the prophesied apocalyptic consequences for the restaurant business

Futureman · Oct 2, 2018

Kirblar said:
Currently, the median tipped wage is 14.41 per hour. This means $3.89 comes from the employer (not counting benefits) and $10.52 comes from tips.

Because of the US's stupid tipping culture, restaurant salaries are a fixed cost that comes out of an intractable budget that, among other things, results in servers being paid more than they are in other non-insane countries without tipping culture, and where back of house staff (i.e., the cooks, who are trained professsionals) being paid less.

If this were to pass, ignoring inflation, the median tipped wage would increase to $25.52 an hour. To make the contrast blatant- Amazon just announced they're going to $15 an hour nationally. Paying $25/hr to servers is completely untenable for many restaurants and the negative impacet of this change would have been very real. Restaurants generally operate on razor-thin margins.

There are ways to address poverty, low wages, etc. in ways that aren't going to devastate businesses. This was not one of those.

So workers who get tips are currently only being paid around $4/hr from their employer and raising that in any way will devastate the restaurants? I guess I just don't really understand the restaurant business as that seems crazy.

Kirblar · Oct 2, 2018

Pata Hikari said:
So we're in agreement that these wages are unviable for people to live on and it's clear the law needs to step in and force these corporations to pay more.

You can live on it. The responsibility of an employer is to pay you a wage you can live on, not to support your family. This is why we have welfare benefits that scale upward w/ family size. They are a good thing.

This is the distinction which the BEZOS act would backfire, because it would raise the cost of hiring people with families relative to single people, encouraging business to hire only single people without dependents in order to keep their costs down and lead to higher unemployment among those who most need a job.

Futureman said:
So workers who get tips are currently only being paid around $4/hr from their employer and raising that in any way will devastate the restaurants? I guess I just don't really understand the restaurant business as that seems crazy.

Raising the effective median wage to $25/hr, $10 or so above the current median, is going to blow them out, yes.

That's an extra $400/wk, per employee/40 hours worked. That adds up quickly.

Pata Hikari · Oct 2, 2018

Kirblar said:
You can live on it. The responsibility of an employer is to pay you a wage you can live on, not to support your family.

If you can't have a family on your wage then you can't live on it. Period.

Kirblar said:
This is the distinction which the BEZOS act would backfire, because it would raise the cost of hiring people with families relative to single people, encouraging business to hire only single people without dependents in order to keep their costs down and lead to higher unemployment among those who most need a job.

All this tells me is that the law's going to have to step in more in order to deal with these greedy subhuman monsters.

fauxtrot · Oct 2, 2018

Kirblar said:
They're completely viable for a single person to live on.

They're not viable for someone to raise a family on.

This is an important distinction about the debate here and why stuff like the BEZOS act is so self-destructive because people don't understand the marginal issues at play.

They're low because the workers are easily replaceable without a unique skillset. Not because of collusion. Wages are starting to go up because unemployment has been very very low.

Would you say the BEZOS Act is the Iraq War of legislation?

Kirblar · Oct 2, 2018

Pata Hikari said:
If you can't have a family on your wage then you can't live on it. Period.

Utterly wrong. Employers owe you a fair exchange of money for your labor. Requiring that they pay you more because you wanted to have a kid is absolute nonsense.

Deleted member 4021 · Oct 2, 2018

Well Kirblar has convinced me, we should definitely do what the capitalists tell us to do because they always have the interest of us laborers at heart. The wealth will trickle down.

Pata Hikari · Oct 2, 2018

Kirblar said:
Utterly wrong. Employers owe you a fair exchange of money for your labor. Requiring that they pay you more because you wanted to have a kid is absolute nonsense.

So are you deliberately missing my point or are you just that ignorant?

Any wage a person earns should be enough to support a family. Regardless of if they have a family or not.

Akira86 · Oct 2, 2018

Branduil said:
Well Kirblar has convinced me, we should definitely do what the capitalists tell us to do because they always have the interest of us laborers at heart. The wealth will trickle down.

don't drink that wealth. it's piss.

Kirblar · Oct 2, 2018

Pata Hikari said:
So are you deliberately missing my point or are you just that ignorant?

Any wage a person earns should be enough to support a family. Regardless of if they have a family or not.

The wage required to support a single person (without government assistance) is massively different than the wage required to support a person plus their ten kids.

The responsibility for that difference in required income/costs should not be falling on the employer, it should be falling on that person + the government.

manchego obfuscator · Oct 2, 2018

boy, wonder what Kirblar would say if the shoe were on the other foot and it were, say, Metro DC DSA calling to overturn a referendum that failed in whiter, more affluent districts and passed heavily in majority-minority ones. can't imagine!

Pata Hikari · Oct 2, 2018

Kirblar said:
The wage required to support a single person (without government assistance) is massively different than the wage required to support a person plus their ten kids..

Wow you sure did destroy that strawman! Totally good faith argument here.

Kirblar · Oct 2, 2018

manchego obfuscator said:
boy, imagine what Kirblar would say if the shoe were on the other foot and it were, say, Metro DC DSA calling to overturn a referendum that failed in whiter, more affluent districts and passed heavily in majority-minority ones. can't imagine!

Trash economics are trash economics regardless of who's pushing them.

Pata Hikari said:
Wow you sure did destroy that strawman!

It's not a strawman. The idea that wages should scale based on the number of kids you have is ridiculous.

Pata Hikari · Oct 2, 2018

Kirblar said:
Trash economics are trash economics regardless of who's pushing them.

See: Kirblar for a prime example of this.

Suiko · Oct 2, 2018

Pata Hikari said:
See: Kirblar for a prime example of this.

Really solid argument and rebuttal there.

Pata Hikari · Oct 2, 2018

Suiko said:
Really solid argument and rebuttal there.

I've already rebutted Kirblar's trash and bad faith arguments.

Kirblar said:
It's not a strawman. The idea that wages should scale based on the number of kids you have is ridiculous.

See him still trying to push this stupidity.

Protip: I never said that wage should scale based off the number of kids you have. But of course you know that, you've done nothing but argue in bad faith.

mrmoose · Oct 2, 2018

In the statistics with tipped workers vs non tipped workers, are they including only the service industry and similar jobs, or does non tipped workers include basically everyone from minimum wage to middle class to CEOs? If it's the latter isn't that comparison unfair when they admit that most tipped work is low wage work.

If you want to make it fair, outlaw tipping altogether and require they pay them like any other business does, and at the same time work on getting the minimum wage up to a livable wage for everyone. This is especially true if the tipping culture is discriminatory.

Kirblar · Oct 2, 2018

Pata Hikari said:
See him still trying to push this stupidity.

Protip: I never said that wage should scale based off the number of kids you have. But of course you know that, you've done nothing but argue in bad faith.

If a wage needs to be able to allow you to raise a family without additional government assistance, and family sizes are capable of scaling upwards to very large numbers, it's the natural end result of the argument.

DC City Council Repeals Voter-Approved Minimum Wage Hike for Tipped Workers

Together, we are strangers

One Winged Slayer

Community Resettler

Community Resettler

Happy New Year!!

One Winged Slayer

User requested account closure

Deleted member 4021