Want to make less money? Florida GOP undermines voters with minimum wage scheme.
The minimum wage in Florida is under attack – and this time in a very dishonest way.
After years of purposeful inaction by state lawmakers, Florida voters took matters into their own hands five years ago by passing a constitutional amendment that raised the minimum wage in the state. The voter initiative increased the then-paltry minimum wage of $8.65 per hour for nontipped workers, by putting it on a schedule of yearly increases that tops out at $15 an hour by Sept. 30, 2026.
This year, the graduated minimum wage is $13 an hour in Florida.
The constitutional amendment passed despite a well-funded opposition led by several business groups, including the Associated Builders and Contractors of Florida, the Associated Industries of Florida, the Florida Farm Bureau, the Florida Home Builders Association and the Florida Restaurant and Lodging Association.
And it didn't sit well with the Republican-led state legislature, either. GOP lawmakers apparently have decided to disregard the state's constitution and the will of the voters expressed through that referendum. It took them five years to find a new way to circumvent the voters' wishes. What they've come up with is a real doozy.
Need a break? Play the USA TODAY Daily Crossword Puzzle.
A new Florida bill would let employers pay below minimum wage
A bill (SB 676) working through the Florida Legislature this session rewrites labor laws in the state to allow workers to voluntarily request to get paid less than the minimum wage.
Yes, I know. It sounds crazy.
Who goes into a job asking to be underpaid? Or hopes to get a job that makes an instant pay cut sound like an exciting new opportunity?
I guess the conversation will go something like this: 'Good news! You're hired. Now, just sign here on the line that says you have agreed to participate in our floor-sweeping apprenticeship opportunity at $7.25 an hour.
'If you do well there, you'll be eligible for a french fries work-based learning opportunity as soon as you complete your restroom internship.'
Under this bill, reclassifying low-wage jobs as internships, apprenticeships or work-based learning opportunities would allow employers to sidestep the state's minimum wage law by hiring workers willing to sign away their absolute right to a minimum salary.
The bill's sponsor in the Senate, Jonathan Martin, R-Fort Myers, tried to make this Dickensian dystopia sound like a noble gesture by calling it 'trading pay for a marketable skill.'
By Martin's reckoning, Florida is full of people who don't deserve to be paid a day's pay for a day's work.
The bill doesn't define what a 'skill' is. There's also no definition in state law that defines an 'internship.'
Tellingly, the bill purposefully allows the subminimum pay to apply to workers of all ages – not just teenagers. And it is being forwarded despite clear language in the Fair Labor Standards Act and Florida case law that employees can't waive their rights to minimum pay.
We need fair wages. This is the opposite.
In the end, this bill is just a legally flawed gift to businesses looking to cut labor costs at the expense of their poorest, unskilled workers.
'If we think that $13 an hour is what a bag boy at a grocery store should be making in rural Florida, then I think we have a misconception of either what's reasonable or we're not relating that to the cost of goods and services anymore,' Martin said.
Reality check: A living wage in Florida for an adult with no children is $23.41 an hour, according to MIT's Living Wage Calculator. And there are about 1.5 million Floridians working in jobs that pay less than $15 per hour, according to data compiled by the Florida Policy Institute.
The problem in Florida isn't that wages are too high and corporate profits are too low.
This bill is a monumental step in the wrong direction. It lends a hand to those who need it least at the expense of those who are most in need.
Here's how Jackson Oberlink, the legislative director for the social justice group Florida For All, put it.
'Let's be honest, no worker truly opts out of fair wages. There is zero protections in this bill against coercion, fraud, or employer intimidation, meaning bad actors can and will exploit it,' Oberlink told lawmakers at a committee meeting earlier this month.
'Under this bill," he added, "a fast-food worker, a grocery store cashier or a construction apprentice could suddenly find themselves reclassified as an intern and making far less than the legal minimum wage.'
'If this bill becomes law, it won't just hurt individual workers. It will drive down wages across entire industries as more and more businesses push workers into these bogus exemptions to cut costs,' Oberlink said.
'All we're asking for is fair pay for a hard day's work without loopholes, without carve-outs and without games,' he said.
Is that too much to ask? We'll soon find out.
Frank Cerabino is a news columnist with The Palm Beach Post, where this column originally published. He can be reached at fcerabino@gannett.com
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
39 minutes ago
- Yahoo
The Trump admin is struggling to hire staff for this key official
The Trump administration is reportedly having trouble hiring aides and top advisors to work for U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, according to NBC News. The Republican White House has been searching for a new chief of staff and several other senior advisors for Hegseth following 'a series of missteps that have shaken confidence in his leadership,' NBC News reported. Vice President JD Vance and White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles have been involved in the search for staff members. But so far, three people have already turned down potential jobs, according to the report. To further complicate matters, the White House has also rejected some individuals that Hegseth wants to hire, while Hegseth has rejected some of the White House's candidates, according to NBC News. Last April, members of Hegseth's staff were either put on leave or had left their positions at the Pentagon. Hegseth placed two senior aides on leave in April amid an investigation into a leak of sensitive information from the Pentagon, according to USA Today. It was also revealed in April that Hegseth's Chief of Staff, Joe Kasper, would leave his position, according to Politico. John Ullyot, a former spokesperson for the Pentagon under Hegseth, wrote in an April Politico op-ed that his former boss is leading a department that is in disarray. 'It's been a month of total chaos at the Pentagon,' Ullyot wrote. 'From leaks of sensitive operational plans to mass firings, the dysfunction is now a major distraction for the president — who deserves better from his senior leadership." The New York Times also reported in April that Hegseth created a group chat on Signal with his wife and brother. There, he shared details of a military strike in March against Yemen's Houthi militants, according to the Times. It was previously reported that the details of the strike were shared in a separate Signal chat group featuring Hegseth, other top Trump officials and the editor-in-chief of The Atlantic. The stories of the Signal chats were referred to as 'SignalGate.' The Pentagon's watchdog is investigating whether any of Hegseth's aides were asked to delete messages from Signal that may have shared sensitive military information with the editor-in-chief, according to The Associated Press. U.S. House committee demands Harvard send them hiring policies for review ICE detains most-followed TikTok star amid Trump immigration crackdown Mass. doctor ousted by RFK Jr. as part of purge to CDC vaccine advisory committee Williams College stops accepting federal grants, opposing new policy What Gov. Newsom said after an Ala. senator called LA 'a third world country' Read the original article on MassLive.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
TN Republicans' bill would oust officials who release 'confidential' immigration enforcement details
Top Tennessee Republican lawmakers have proposed a bill that would make it a felony and grounds for removal if public officials jeopardize the safety of federal law enforcement officers or disrupt federal immigration enforcement by revealing confidential operation details. The bill, filed by House Speaker Cameron Sexton and Senate Majority Leader Jack Johnson on June 9, comes after a weeklong operation by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement in Nashville in early May. The operation led to hundreds of traffic stops, in coordination with the Tennessee Highway Patrol, and nearly 200 arrests. Nashville Mayor Freddie O'Connell has been under scrutiny from state and federal Republican leaders over his response to the arrests. During the operation, O'Connell updated an existing executive order that requires city departments to report communications with federal immigration officials to the mayor's office, tightening the timeline for those reports. Even in its original version, the executive order included a provision that those communications be posted online for transparency. When O'Connell's office posted that list in late May, it originally included the names of some officials who called. Those names have since been removed from the version of the spreadsheet posted online. During the sweeps in Nashville, O'Connell also repeatedly asked federal officials to release the names and charges of the people arrested, but to no avail. Some community members, meanwhile, were outspoken in their opposition to the operation. Immigrant rights groups and other Nashvillians showed up to protest at Nashville's ICE office not long after the sweeps began on May 4. That opposition extended to further protests several weeks later, an appearance from New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker and a volunteer effort to monitor and verify ICE activity. U.S. Rep. Andy Ogles and other D.C. Republicans have since called for a federal investigation into O'Connell, which was officially initiated on May 30. Meanwhile, Sexton called for O'Connell to rescind his executive order, saying it risks the safety of federal immigration agents. "The people of Tennessee expect their elected leaders to protect law enforcement — not endanger them," Johnson said in a June 9 news release. "When a public official like Mayor O'Connell chooses political activism over public safety, especially by interfering with federal immigration enforcement, he has no business holding office in this state." Johnson said he hopes the legislation "sends a message" to O'Connell and other "blue city" leaders that may act similarly. 'Mayor O'Connell's public refusal to rescind his executive order makes the need for this legislation unmistakably clear to prevent future political defiance that undermines the rule of law and puts law enforcement at risk,' Johnson said in the release. Sexton and Johnson did not provide any examples of O'Connell's interference with immigration enforcement operations. The bill would make it a Class E felony for state or local officials to "negligently release" information that identifies officers tasked with immigration enforcement and paves the way to oust those who violate the law, according to the release. Additionally, it expands provisions under the Tennessee Public Records Act to protect undercover officers and sensitive enforcement activity and beefs up penalties for unauthorized disclosures of protected law enforcement information. The bill is backed by top Senate Republicans, including Lt. Gov. Randy McNally, Speaker Pro Tempore Ferrell Haile, Republican Caucus Chair Ken Yager and Finance Committee Chair Bo Watson. It is set to be taken up in the 2026 legislative session. O'Connell's office had not responded to The Tennessean's request for comment by 11 a.m. on June 10. The move by Tennessee Republicans comes a few days after U.S. Sen. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tennessee, introduced legislation to make it illegal to 'dox' federal law enforcement officials. She said the bill is a direct response to the spreadsheet published by O'Connell's office detailing recent communications between city departments with federal immigration agents. Blackburn filed the Protecting Law Enforcement From Doxxing Act on June 4, explicitly naming O'Connell as the impetus. That bill would make it illegal to 'publish the name of a federal law enforcement officer with the intent to obstruct a criminal investigation or immigration operation.' An individual found guilty of doing so would face a fine and imprisonment of five years. In their joint news release on June 9, Sexton and Johnson praised Blackburn's efforts and say their proposed legislation complements her proposal. "Tennessee has always stood with law enforcement and we will not allow politically motivated actors to put officers' lives in danger simply to score political points with the far left," Sexton said in the release. "Tennessee will not become California, and Nashville will not become LA or San Francisco on our watch." Typically, "doxxing" refers to the act of publicly providing personally identifiable information about an individual or organization, usually via the internet, such as their home addresses, private contact information and names of family members. As for the public availability of law enforcement officers' names, they are not typically considered private information. This article originally appeared on Nashville Tennessean: TN bill would punish officials who reveal immigration enforcement details
Los Angeles Times
an hour ago
- Los Angeles Times
Hegseth faces sharp questions from Congress on deploying troops to Los Angeles
WASHINGTON — Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth was met with sharp questions and criticism Tuesday by lawmakers who demanded details on his move to deploy troops to Los Angeles, and they expressed bipartisan frustration that Congress has not yet gotten a full defense budget from the Trump administration. 'Your tenure as secretary has been marked by endless chaos,' Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., told Hegseth. Others, including Republican leaders, warned that massive spending projects such as President Trump's desire for a $175 billion Golden Dome missile defense system will get broad congressional scrutiny. The troop deployment triggered several fiery exchanges that at times devolved into shouting matches as committee members and Hegseth yelled over one another. After persistent questioning about the cost of sending National Guard members and Marines to Los Angeles, Hegseth turned to his acting comptroller, Bryn Woollacott MacDonnell, who said it would cost $134 million. Hegseth defended Trump's decision to send the troops, saying they are needed to protect federal agents as they do their jobs. And he suggested that the use of troops in the United States will continue to expand. 'I think we're entering another phase, especially under President Trump with his focus on the homeland, where the National Guard and Reserves become a critical component of how we secure that homeland,' he said. The House Appropriations defense subcommittee hearing was the first time lawmakers have been able to challenge Trump's defense chief since he was confirmed. It is the first of three congressional hearings he will face this week. Lawmakers complained widely that Congress hasn't yet gotten details of the administration's first proposed defense budget, which Trump has said would total $1 trillion, a significant increase over the current spending level of more than $800 billion. And they said they are unhappy with the administration's efforts to go around Congress to push through changes. Key spending issues that have raised questions in recent weeks include plans to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on security upgrades to turn a Qatari jet into Air Force One and to pour as much as $45 million into a parade recently added to the Army's 250th birthday bash, which coincides with Trump's birthday Saturday. Rep. Betty McCollum, D-Minn., quizzed Hegseth on deploying about 700 active duty Marines to assist more than 4,100 National Guard troops in protecting federal buildings and personnel during immigration raid protests in Los Angeles. She got into a testy back-and-forth with him over the costs of the operation. He evaded the questions but later turned to MacDonnell, who provided the estimate and said it covers the costs of travel, housing and food. Hegseth said the 60-day deployment of troops is needed 'because we want to ensure that those rioters, looters and thugs on the other side assaulting our police officers know that we're not going anywhere.' Under the Posse Comitatus Act, troops are prohibited from policing U.S. citizens on American soil. Invoking the Insurrection Act, which allows troops to do that, is incredibly rare, and it's not clear if Trump plans to do it. The commandant of the Marine Corps, Gen. Eric Smith, told lawmakers at a separate budget hearing Tuesday that the Marines who have arrived in Los Angeles have not yet been called on to respond. He said they have no arrest authority and are only there to protect federal property and federal personnel. When asked by Sen. Richard Blumenthal, a Connecticut Democrat, about the danger Marines would use lethal force that could result in injuries and deaths, Smith said he is not concerned. 'I have great faith in my Marines and their junior leaders and their more senior leaders to execute the lawful tasks that they are given.' Committee members pressed Hegseth on Ukraine's surprise drone attack in early June that destroyed a large number of Russian bomber aircraft. And they questioned the administration's future funding for Kyiv. Hegseth said the strikes caught the U.S. off guard and represented significant advances in drone warfare. The attack has the Pentagon rethinking drone defenses 'so we are not vulnerable to a threat and an attack like that,' he said, adding that the department is learning from Ukraine and is focused on how to better defend its own military airfields. He acknowledged, however, that funding for Ukraine military assistance, which has been robust for the past two years, will be reduced in the upcoming defense budget. That cut means that Kyiv will receive fewer of the weapons systems that have been key to countering Russia's onslaught. 'This administration takes a very different view of that conflict,' he said. 'We believe that a negotiated peaceful settlement is in the best interest of both parties and our nation's interests.' The U.S. to date has provided Ukraine more than $66 billion in military aid since Russia invaded in February 2022. The panel zeroed in on funding issues, with only a few mentions of other entanglements that have marked Hegseth's early months. They touched only briefly on his moves to fire key military leaders and purge diversity programs. And there was no discussion of his use of the Signal messaging app to discuss operational details of strikes in Yemen. Hegseth has spent vast amounts of time during his first five months in office promoting the social changes he's making at the Pentagon. He's been far less visible in the administration's more critical international security crises and negotiations involving Russia, Ukraine, Israel, Gaza and Iran. Hegseth has posted numerous videos of his morning workouts with troops or of himself signing directives to purge diversity and equity programs and online content from the military. He has boasted of removing transgender service members from the force and firing so-called woke generals, many of whom were women. He was on the international stage about a week ago, addressing an annual national security conference in Asia about threats from China. But a trip to NATO headquarters last week was quick and quiet, and he deliberately skipped a gathering of about 50 allies and partners where they discussed support for Ukraine. Baldor and Copp write for the Associated Press. Adriana Gomez Licon in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., contributed reporting.
