Michigan Senate passes bill watering down court-ordered changes to tipped minimum wage
In July, the Michigan Supreme Court ruled Republican lawmakers acted illegally in 2018 when they adopted a proposal to eliminate the state's lower minimum wage for tipped workers to circumvent a statewide vote on the plan, which they later amended to keep the tipped minimum wage at 38% of the standard minimum wage. The court's order to increase the tipped minimum wage until it reaches the standard minimum wage by 2030 takes effect Feb. 21. But state lawmakers appeared to have reached an agreement to stop that phaseout ahead of the deadline.
Lawmakers in the Michigan Senate modified Senate Bill 8, introduced by state Sen. Kevin Hertel, D-St. Clair Shores, to raise the tipped minimum wage to 50% of the standard minimum wage instead of 60% as initially proposed. House Speaker Matt Hall, R-Richland Township, put forward the 50% threshold as a compromise after lawmakers in the House voted to keep the tipped minimum wage at 38% of the standard minimum wage.
Most Democrats in the Michigan Senate voted against Hertel's bill, which had the support of Senate Majority Leader Winnie Brinks, D-Grand Rapids. Most Republicans in the chamber joined her in voting for the bill.
The bill — which still requires a vote in the House to land on Gov. Gretchen Whitmer's desk — would increase the minimum wage to $12.48 from $10.56 on Feb 21. It would increase to $13.73 in 2026 and $15 in 2027 with subsequent increases tied to inflation. The tipped minimum wage would remain at 38% of the standard minimum wage this year, then increase to 40% in 2026, 42% in 2027, 44% in 2028, 46% in 2029, 48% in 2030 and 50% in 2031.
Whitmer earlier this week called on lawmakers from both parties to come together to modify the court-ordered changes to the minimum wage.
Under the current tipping system in Michigan, customers' tips pay the difference between the lower tipped minimum wage and the standard minimum wage. If that doesn't happen, the employer fills the gap.
Michigan's restaurant lobby has predicted business closures and job losses under the court's changes to the tipping system, but proponents of eliminating the tipped minimum wage have accused the restaurant industry of fearmongering.
Justin Winslow, President & CEO of the Michigan Restaurant & Lodging Association commended lawmakers in the Michigan Senate for their vote. "Today marks a significant victory for Michigan's hospitality industry," he said in a statement Thursday.
Some Democratic lawmakers wanted to see their colleagues leave the court's order untouched, arguing Michigan should join the seven other states in the U.S. without a lower tipped minimum wage. State Rep. Dylan Wegela, D-Garden City, expressed disappointment with Whitmer, saying she should have threatened to veto any attempt to dilute the court's minimum wage order.
One Fair Wage — a national group advocating for the elimination of the tipped minimum wage — has previously threatened to gather signatures for a voter referendum on any minimum wage changes that diminish the court ruling on the issue.
Auto Industry: Republican senator introduces bill to kill EV subsidy
The court's ruling also ordered changes to paid sick leave in Michigan to take effect Feb. 21. Lawmakers continue to debate the policy. Whitmer has also called for a bipartisan deal on sick leave or extending negotiations into the summer, angering advocates.
"Every day we delay. Michigan families have waited long enough for this basic protection that allows them to care for themselves and their loved ones without sacrificing their economic security," said Mothering Justice National Executive Director and Founder Danielle Atkinson in a statement Thursday.
Contact Clara Hendrickson at chendrickson@freepress.com or 313-296-5743.
This article originally appeared on Detroit Free Press: Michigan Senate passes bill to preserve tipped minimum wage
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
13 minutes ago
- Newsweek
JD Vance Reacts to Gavin Newsom's New Nickname for Him
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Vice President JD Vance responded to Gavin Newsom on Wednesday, after the California Governor dubbed him "Just Dance Vance" repeatedly on social media. Newsom has taken to mimicking President Trump's style on social media, with posts in all caps and insulting nicknames for political opponents. Vance appeared on Laura Ingraham's Fox News show on Wednesday, when he was asked: "Newsom's given you a nickname, which I don't even understand, called 'Just Dance Vance,' so I guess what's your favorite dance?" Vice President JD Vance speaks during the 61st Munich Security Conference on February 14, 2025 in Munich, Germany (left) and California Governor Gavin Newsom speaking about the 'Election Rigging Response Act' at a press conference... Vice President JD Vance speaks during the 61st Munich Security Conference on February 14, 2025 in Munich, Germany (left) and California Governor Gavin Newsom speaking about the 'Election Rigging Response Act' at a press conference at the Democracy Center, Japanese American National Museum on August 14, 2025 in Los Angeles, California (right). More Johannes Simon/Mario Tama/GETTY Vance responded: "This idea that Gavin Newsom is somehow going to mimic Donald Trump's style, I think that ignores the fundamental genius of President Trump's political success which is that he's authentic. He just is who he is. "You've got to be yourself, you've got to actually talk to people honestly about the issues. I don't think it's that complicated; don't be a crazy person, be authentic, if the Democrats did that they'd do a hell of a lot better." President Trump has taken to calling Governor Newsom "Newscum" on social media. This is a breaking news story. Updates to follow.
Boston Globe
15 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Everyone wins in Trump-Wu clash — except immigrants
Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up It was a perfect political performance — not just for Wu but also for the Trump administration. Advertisement Since President Trump took office, Boston and its mayor have become the perfect targets for a Trump administration looking to please a base that scorns liberal cities and their impractical policies. Likewise, when Trump attacks, Wu gets to position herself as the city's savior against a hostile regime. But this mutually beneficial feud does little to address legitimate immigration policy issues. The more Wu taunts Trump to build up her own political standing, the more she risks a harsher backlash against the city — and the state's vulnerable migrant population. Advertisement The federal government has the right to deport unauthorized immigrants. Cities and towns can choose not to help the government. In both cases, Massachusetts politicians are right to call out the Trump administration's overzealous targeting of peaceable and productive migrants. But they lose credibility by ignoring nonsensical policies that endanger public safety by preventing cooperation between immigration authorities and police on civil detainers for criminal migrants. A civil detainer is a request to local authorities that they hold an immigrant in detention until federal agents can pick them up. Boston ignores detainers, even which is a big part of why the city is in Bondi's crosshairs. The state has also released migrants That's because in 2017, the Supreme Judicial Court ruled in Lunn v. Commonwealth that the Legislature would have to specifically authorize court officers to honor civil detainers to hold deportable immigrants, a decision that has been interpreted to apply to local police too. The Democratic-led Legislature has failed to do so, not even for unauthorized immigrants who have committed heinous crimes. That means if for any reason Boston officers pick up a convicted criminal who is also in the county illegally, they can't hold them solely on a federal civil detainer — no matter how much safer the community would be without them. Ed Davis, the former Boston Police commissioner who was front and center at Tuesday's press conference, acknowledged in an interview that the lack of cooperation between police and immigration authorities can pose a public safety risk. 'I think that it's logical when there are criminal charges against people that the police use every tool at their disposal, including the immigration law, to try to stop that behavior and remove the individuals responsible from their victims,' Davis told me, clarifying that he prefers that detainers are honored by local law enforcement for individuals convicted of serious crimes. Advertisement He also noted that criminal migrants often victimize members of their own community. Before the current restrictions on cooperation, 'I used to go to neighborhoods like East Boston. … I would explain the policy that we had [then], which was to use the immigration laws to deport really dangerous criminals, people that were preying on their own communities,' he said. 'And the immigrant communities in the city were supportive of that.' The Trump administration has made it clear that its priority is to deport criminal migrants, but 'collateral arrests' of other migrants can occur in the process — and it has said that risk is greater in sanctuary cities. 'If more agencies had just turned people over in a confined setting [law enforcement custody], we wouldn't be out in the community,' acting director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement Todd Lyons By allowing law enforcement to cooperate with immigration officials on cases that endanger public safety, Massachusetts leaders might just be able to decrease the number of federal agents out in the migrant communities they purport to protect. Advertisement Wu and her Democratic colleagues have ignored these gaps in the law. But it's far from a controversial take to support the deportation of migrants who have committed violent crimes. In fact, The Trump administration is choosing a maximalist approach both to send a message and to make a spectacle out of punishing liberal cities. But by ignoring impractical policies as she positions herself as a resistance figure, Wu plays into Trump's political hand — even while strengthening her own in the process. Carine Hajjar is a Globe Opinion columnist. She can be reached at
Fox News
28 minutes ago
- Fox News
Trump hails Texas redistricting approval that could add five GOP congressional seats nationwide
President Donald Trump is calling Texas lawmakers' approval of a sweeping redistricting plan to add up to five new GOP-leaning congressional seats a "Big WIN" for Republicans. Trump fired off a post via Truth Social hailing the state for "never letting us down," saying the victory was more than a state win but a national turning point. He went on to urge other Republican-led states to follow the Lone Star State's lead. "Big WIN for the Great State of Texas!!! Everything Passed, on our way to FIVE more Congressional seats and saving your Rights, your Freedoms, and your Country, itself. Texas never lets us down. Florida, Indiana, and others are looking to do the same thing. More seats equals less Crime, a great Economy, and a STRONG SECOND AMENDMENT. It means Happiness and Peace," he said. Trump also suggested that a move in that direction could secure as many as 100 additional seats for the GOP nationwide if they followed suit. "But Republicans, there is one thing even better - STOP MAIL-IN VOTING, a total fraud that has no bounds. Also, go to PAPER BALLOTS before it is too late - At one tenth the cost, faster, and more reliable. If we do these TWO things, we will pick up 100 more seats, and the CROOKED game of politics is over. God Bless America!!!," the post went on. Texas Republicans pushed the new congressional map through the state House Wednesday in an 88–52 party-line vote, brushing aside Democratic objections in a bid to strengthen the GOP's hold on Congress heading into 2026. While Trump celebrated the redistricting as a major Republican win, Democrats framed it as only the beginning of a much larger legal battle. "This part of the fight is over, but it is merely the first chapter… Our best shot is in the courts. This is not over. We will continue fighting," said Rep. Gene Wu of Houston. Texas House Democrats also accused the GOP of trying to dilute minority voting power, saying the map was illegal and racially discriminatory. "Members, it breaks my heart to see how this illegal and rigged, mid-decade redistricting scheme is dividing our state and our country," Rep. Chris Turner, a Democrat, said. "This is Texas, it's not Washington D.C. The impulses of outside politicians and their billionaire backers shouldn't dictate what we do in this chamber, in this House." "This process was a total sham from the very beginning… This is a racist power grab that especially goes after our African American and Latino representatives," said Rep. Jon Rosenthal Republicans defended the map as necessary to reflect population growth and safeguard voter representation. "Different from everyone else, I'm telling you, I'm not beating around the bush," Rep. Todd Hunter, said about the map's goal. "We have five new districts, and these five new districts are based on political performance." California Gov. Gavin Newsom and the California Democrats unveiled their new map last week in an effort to nullify the map Texas Republicans were creating. If that bill is passed, it would create five new Democratic-leaning congressional districts that would counteract Texas. The dueling maps highlight the high-stakes fight for control of the House, with both parties using redistricting to try to lock in their advantage before 2026.
