logo
Colorado lawmakers advance bill to cut tipped minimum wage in Denver, Boulder

Colorado lawmakers advance bill to cut tipped minimum wage in Denver, Boulder

Yahoo21-02-2025
An employee at the Briar Common Brewery + Eatery in Denver pours a beer for a patron on Jan. 7, 2021. (Moe Clark/Colorado Newsline)
Tens of thousands of servers, bartenders and other tipped workers in Denver and Boulder could face a significant pay cut under a bill being advanced by Colorado lawmakers who say the change is necessary to help a struggling restaurant industry.
Members of the House Business Affairs and Labor Committee voted 11-2 in favor of House Bill 25-1208 on Thursday night, after nearly six hours of testimony from supporters and opponents. Democratic state Reps. Bob Marshall of Highlands Ranch and Sheila Lieder of Littleton were the only 'no' votes.
The bill would dramatically increase the 'tip offset' — the dollar amount that employers can subtract from the minimum wage paid to tipped workers, as long as tips make up the difference — in cities and counties that have raised their local minimum wages above the statewide level. For a tipped restaurant employee in Denver, the minimum wage would fall from $15.79 to $11.79 per hour; at 40 hours a week, that could mean over $7,000 a year in lost pay.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Restaurant owners and business groups, who have lobbied for the change for years, say that high labor costs, combined with pandemic disruptions and inflationary pressures, have caused hundreds of local restaurants to close their doors and pushed many others to the brink.
'Labor costs, which used to be 25 to 30% of restaurants' costs, are now 50 to 60%,' Sonia Riggs, president of the Colorado Restaurant Association, told the committee. 'Menu prices can't keep pace or consumers stop dining out. It's like death by a thousand increases.'
Workers, labor unions and progressive groups, however, say the bill is a misguided, and potentially counterproductive, effort to help an industry that faces a variety of economic headwinds. The average restaurant server in the Denver metro area makes a little over $39,000 annually including tips, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics data. HB-1208's 'huge overnight pay cut' for those workers, said Caroline Nutter of the Colorado Fiscal Institute, attempts to balance the industry's books on the backs of its most vulnerable employees.
'We need to consider what slashing wages by almost $140 million a year might due to consumption, demand and revenue,' Nutter said. 'There are ways to address the issues that restaurants are facing. There must be a way to do this with workers at the table and without starting (by) cutting the wages of some of the lowest-paid workers in the state.'
The state's labor department says there are roughly 21,000 tipped employees who could be affected by the change. No amendments to the bill were made in Thursday's committee hearing, though several Democrats on the panel said they expected changes at a later stage. State Rep. Steven Woodrow, a Denver Democrat and one of the bill's sponsors, said he would continue talks with opponents, but something must be done to help an industry in 'crisis.'
'We have ideas on how we can make the policy more labor-friendly,' Woodrow said. 'We are looking for partners on the other side to have those conversations with. At this point, we've run up against fairly stiff opposition.'
Two major changes to Colorado's wage laws enacted over the last 20 years set state and local policymakers on a collision course with the restaurant industry.
In 2006, Colorado voters approved a constitutional amendment to raise the statewide minimum wage and adjust it annually based on inflation. The measure also fixed the state's tip offset at $3.02 per hour. Over time, the flat $3.02 tip credit has shrunk to a smaller and smaller percentage of the overall minimum wage — from over 40% in 2007, when the minimum wage was $6.85 an hour, to just 20% today, with the minimum wage set at $14.81.
And in 2019, Democratic lawmakers repealed a preemption law that banned cities and counties from setting their own, higher minimum wages. A handful of local jurisdictions — the cities of Denver, Boulder and Edgewater, along with unincorporated Boulder County — have done so.
If passed, by October of this year, HB-1208 would effectively exempt tipped workers from local minimum wage hikes, by requiring local governments to increase their tip credits by an amount equal to the difference between the local and state minimum wages. For example, in Denver, which has raised its minimum wage to $4.00 above the state's level, the tip credit would rise to $7.02. After one year, cities could raise or lower their tip credits by no more than 50 cents annually, within a certain range.
HB-1208 has divided local elected officials in cities with higher minimum wages. Denver City Council has taken a position against the bill, and several council members testified in opposition in Thursday's hearing.
'This is one of the most flawed pieces of legislation I've ever seen come through this building, and I don't say that lightly,' Denver City Council Member At-Large Sarah Parady told lawmakers. 'I am astounded, and as a local legislator insulted, by the idea that the state of Colorado would force its biggest and most expensive city to directly cut worker pay by thousands of dollars per year.'
But Mayor Mike Johnston supports the change, said Dominick Moreno, a former state senator and the mayor's deputy chief of staff for strategy. Moreno was a sponsor of the 2019 legislation allowing local governments to raise their minimum wage. The tip credit issue should have been settled at the time, he said, but the sides weren't able to come to an agreement.
'I think everyone understood at that time that we were kicking the can down the road, and that eventually something would need to be done to address this issue,' Moreno said. 'I think now you're seeing quite an untenable situation for the restaurant community.'
Marshall took issue with the abrupt wage cuts the bill would force, floating the possibility of a 'glide path' for local governments to comply with.
'This issue has been a long in coming, over eight years, piece by piece,' he said. 'And yet we're trying to cram down the workers in one year.'
While there's little doubt that restaurants have faced a variety of challenges in recent years, some opponents of HB-1208 dispute the prevailing narrative from bill sponsors and industry groups that Colorado's dining scene is in free fall.
'The restaurant industry in Denver isn't dying,' Matthew Fritz-Mauer, director of the labor division at the Denver Auditor's Office, told lawmakers. 'The sky is not falling. There is no reliable empirical support for this claim.'
A widely circulated statistic showing a 22% decline in the number of restaurant licenses in Denver since 2022, Fritz-Mauer said, is based on 'incomplete data' and doesn't account for a significant change in the city's licensing system in 2023. He cited BLS data showing stable employment figures for the industry as a whole.
Moreno acknowledged that changes to licensing procedures 'may have disrupted the numbers a little bit,' but said the mayor's office still finds the figures 'quite concerning.' Other proponents of HB-1208 said the BLS data, which includes workers in commissaries used by food trucks, caterers and online-only 'ghost kitchens,' doesn't accurately reflect the health of the hospitality industry.
Democratic state Rep. Alex Valdez of Denver, another HB-1208 sponsor, cited the recent closure of familiar spots around the state Capitol as proof that the bill is necessary.
'It's astounding to me that we had testimony from the auditor's office that there's no problem,' Valdez said. 'Everyone in Colorado can see the problem. Everyone in Denver can see the problem. It's a major problem.'
Analysts say per-person restaurant visits have steadily declined from their peak in the 1990s, part of a broader trend towards American adults spending more of their time alone or at home. The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated those trends, and while revenues and employment in the foodservice sector at large have rebounded to pre-pandemic levels, that bounceback has been achieved through a shift away from full-service, independent restaurants towards large chains and expanded takeout and delivery service.
Dozens of local restaurant owners testified in support of HB-1208 on Thursday. Many of them said that changing the tipped wage would help their bottom lines, but not by much.
'It's everything. It's rent, cost of goods, labor,' said Jeff Osaka, a Denver restauranteur who said he's been forced to close one of his two remaining restaurants, Osaka Ramen. 'So this bill would help a fraction of that. This is a good stepping stone.'
But Jesse Thornton, an airport bartender and member of foodservice union Unite Here Local 23, said that after decades of extremely low pay, minimum wage hikes over the last decade have finally meant 'real wages' for restaurant employees for the first time. Rolling back those gains would be 'devastating' for workers who live paycheck to paycheck, he said.
'Restaurant owners would profit from this bill, and working Coloradans would not,' said Thornton. 'Tipped workers don't get raises unless the minimum wage goes up. That's a fact of the industry.'
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

4 Ways Trump's Policies Harm Americans, Per Buttigieg
4 Ways Trump's Policies Harm Americans, Per Buttigieg

Buzz Feed

time8 minutes ago

  • Buzz Feed

4 Ways Trump's Policies Harm Americans, Per Buttigieg

Former secretary of transportation Pete Buttigieg is being applauded online for his recent, simple breakdown on all the ways Donald Trump's chosen cabinet is negatively impacting Americans' lives. While sitting down for NPR's Morning Edition, Pete insisted that Democrats need to change their approach if they want to reach voters. "We do have to look at what we're doing that makes it hard to hear what we have to say," he told host Steve Inskeep. "Too often we talk in terms that are academic. When we're talking about deeply important things, like freedom and democracy, we still have to have a way of talking about it that relates to how everyday life is different." As an example, Pete shared ways our "everyday life is different and worse" under Trump's presidency, because, as he said, "When you have an autocrat in power, he can get away with appointing incompetent people over very important things in our lives." To start, he said, "Right now we have the secretary of defense — in charge of defending the American people — who was accidentally texting military strike information to journalists." "We have the person in charge of American public health, who is a quack who doesn't believe in medicine, and now measles is on the rise in America," he continued. "We have a secretary of education — in charge of your kid's educational well-being — who has spoken about the importance of 'A1,' which means she does not understand that the acronym is AI, which means she does not understand the most important development affecting education in our lifetimes." Pete continued, "We have a secretary of homeland security who sat on funding and did not allow it to go to Texas during the floods for at least two days for no good reason." "So these things do affect you," Pete concluded. "Not for academic reasons, but because of what happens when you have a loss of accountability. Those are the kinds of things I think we need to talk about before anybody can hear us." A clip of Pete's simple yet effective explanation was shared to X, formerly known as Twitter, where it garnered over 1.7 million views and over 1,000 comments. By and large, people are calling Pete's breakdown "brilliant." One person said, "This breakdown of the incompetence of the administration is simple yet brilliant. And the reality of how they're affecting peoples' REAL lives is heartbreaking and infuriating." "Last thirty seconds should be mandatory listening," another agreed. "The loss of accountability over trumps horrible yes men stooge picks for cabinet undeniably makes your life worse as an American. It isn't up for debate." Others called Pete "the best communicator in US politics"... ...and insisted, "This is who We The People employ!!!" Talks like this have made Pete a favorite amongst voters looking to the future of the Democratic Party. And even some abroad. What are your thoughts? Let us know in the comments.

Trump, Vance blast ‘fake news' Epstein meeting
Trump, Vance blast ‘fake news' Epstein meeting

The Hill

time8 minutes ago

  • The Hill

Trump, Vance blast ‘fake news' Epstein meeting

President Trump and Vice President Vance blasted reports on Wednesday that said a group of top administration officials were gathering to discuss whether to publish audio and a transcript of Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche's meeting with Ghislaine Maxwell. Trump was asked if Vance was hosting a gathering to discuss the Epstein situation, after CNN first reported that the meeting at the vice resident's residence was taking place that evening. 'I don't know, I could ask you that question,' Trump said, looking at his vice president. 'I don't know of it, but I think, here's the man right here.' Vance then chimed in, bashing the journalists who reported it. 'I saw it reported today, and it's completely fake news. We're not meeting to talk about the Epstein situation, and I think the reporter who reported it needs to get better sources,' Vance said. The president added, 'look, the whole thing is a hoax. It's put on by the Democrats.' He added that the reporting is a 'way of trying to divert attention to something that is total bulls—.' The vice president's office earlier Wednesday also criticized the reporting. 'The CNN story is pure fiction. There was never a supposed meeting scheduled at the Vice President's residence to discuss Epstein strategy,' said William Martin, communications director to Vance. The meeting was reportedly expected to include Vance, White House chief of staff Susie Wiles, Attorney General Pam Bondi, FBI director Kash Patel and Blanche. The FBI didn't respond to a request for comment from The Hill. Blanche recently met twice with Maxwell, a longtime associate of deceased financier Jeffrey Epstein, as the administration faces increasing pressure to release more information from the Epstein files. Trump on Wednesday also said he hasn't been briefed on what Maxwell told Blanche. He said earlier this week that he wasn't aware of the decision to move Maxwell from a federal prison in Florida to a federal prison in Texas. 'I didn't know about it at all,' Trump said. 'It's not a very uncommon thing.' The move to Texas comes as Maxwell, who was convicted of sex trafficking and is serving a 20-year prison sentence, and her legal team are appealing her case to the Supreme Court in hopes of having her conviction overturned.

Why redistricting is so important, in 3 charts
Why redistricting is so important, in 3 charts

NBC News

time10 minutes ago

  • NBC News

Why redistricting is so important, in 3 charts

Texas Republicans' move to redraw their congressional map mid-decade and Democrats' retaliatory redistricting efforts have captured national attention for a very simple reason: How House districts are drawn can shape American politics for years. Gerrymandering generally reduces the number of competitive races, and it can lock in nearly immovable advantages for one party or another. Under the new map proposed in Texas, no seat's presidential vote would have been decided by single digits in 2024, and Republicans would have a path to pad their narrow congressional majority in the 2026 midterm elections. This means more people could reside in congressional districts under solid control of one party. NBC News analyzed how the question of who draws the maps — and how they do it — can shape elections for years afterward. The difference between safe seats and competitive districts Who draws district lines can make the difference between contested general elections in a state in November and elections that are barely more than formalities. NBC News analyzed every House race in the country from 2012 to 2020, the last full 10-year redistricting cycle, based on how each district was drawn. In states where state legislators drew the maps, single-digit races (elections in which the winners won by less than 10 percentage points) were rarest. Only 10.7% of House races fell into that competitive category. There are plenty of reasons that don't involve gerrymandering. For one thing, voters of both parties have increasingly clustered in recent years, leaving fewer places around the country that are politically divided. Still, gerrymandering does play a significant role. When commissions or state or federal courts drew the lines last decade, the rate of competitive elections jumped, though safe seats are still overwhelmingly likely. Competitive elections were especially prevalent in states with court-drawn districts: 18.1% of races in those states had single-digit margins from 2012 through 2020. A look at Pennsylvania, whose legislative-drawn map was thrown out and replaced in 2018 by the state Supreme Court, illustrates the dramatic change that can come based on who draws congressional lines. The same state with the same voters living in the same places suddenly had many more competitive elections. From 2012 through 2016, just three of Pennsylvania's 54 House general elections under the initial map had single-digit margins. After the state Supreme Court threw out the map and imposed a new one, the number of battleground races bumped up. Eight of 36 House races had single-digit margins in 2018 and 2020. Meanwhile, ahead of the 2026 midterms, The Cook Political Report with Amy Walter rates 40 House districts as toss-ups or slightly leaning toward one party. More than half (23) of those 40 competitive districts are in states where commissions or courts drew the maps. How a state's partisanship compares with whom it sends to Congress The power of the redistricting process can bend a state's representation in Congress away from its overall partisanship, with wide differences between the statewide vote in some states and the makeup of their House delegations. Take Illinois, for example, where Donald Trump got 44% of the vote in 2024. Republicans hold only three of the state's 17 seats in Congress, or 18%. (NBC News is looking at presidential data instead of House data here because some races are uncontested.) And even though Trump got 38% of the vote in California last year, Republicans hold only 17% — that's nine seats — of the state's 52 congressional districts. On the other side of the ledger, Trump got 58% support in South Carolina last year, and 86% of the state's House delegation is Republican. In North Carolina, 51% voted for Trump last year, and Republicans have 71% of the delegation. The comparison between House seats and presidential election performance isn't perfect. But it demonstrates that how district lines are drawn can generate different results from what statewide results might suggest. Right in the middle of the chart is Virginia. Its 11 congressional districts split 6-5 for Democrats, meaning Republicans hold nearly 46% of the state's seats in Congress, and Trump won 46% of the vote in Virginia last year. Also, just because a state's maps favor one party compared with the statewide results after one election doesn't mean the redistricting process was biased. Tightly divided Pennsylvania has seven Democrats and 10 Republicans in Congress, and three GOP-held districts are rated as toss-up or lean-Republican races in 2026, according to the Cook Political Report. Each state charts its own course Since each state is responsible for handling its own redistricting, the process is different depending on where you look, giving immense power to different institutions state by state. In 27 states, legislatures approved the maps. In seven, independent commissions approved them, seven had court-approved maps, two had political commissions, and one state's maps were approved by a backup commission, according to data from Loyola Law School. (The six states that elect only one person to the House don't draw new congressional maps.) Loyola Law School's " All About Redistricting" website defines politician commissions as panels elected officials can serve on as members. The website defines backup commissions as backup procedures if legislatures can't agree on new lines.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store