Missouri Republicans consider delaying voter-approved minimum wage hike, paid sick leave
A bill changing the terms of the Missouri minimum wage law approved by voters four months ago will leave all the promised benefits in place but may delay their implementation, the chairman of a House committee looking at the law said Wednesday.
State Rep. David Casteel, a High Ridge Republican, told members of the House Commerce Committee during a hearing that they will rewrite the several bills seeking to change Proposition A. That process will take time, he said, telling them not to expect a vote at the panel's regular meeting next week.
'No one in this body is trying to overturn the choice of the people,' Casteel said.
In an interview, Casteel said he's considering ideas that would delay a minimum wage increase set for Jan. 1, 2026, or the provision requiring most employers to offer paid sick and family leave.
'We're going to get into the nitty gritty of everything within the bill,' Casteel said. 'There's a lot we don't like, and there's a lot we do like, about all the bills that have been and will be presented.'
Republicans who control the legislature must find a sweet spot between the 58% majority who approved Proposition A and the major business groups who opposed the measure and are among the GOP's most reliable supporters.
Proposition A increased the minimum wage in Missouri to $13.75 an hour on Jan. 1 and $15 an hour next year. In future years, the wage would be adjusted for changes in prices, a provision that has been in state law since 2006. It also requires employers with business receipts greater than $500,000 a year to provide one hour of paid sick and family time for every 30 hours worked.
The paid leave provisions take effect May 1.
On Wednesday, the Commerce Committee held public hearings on two of the five bills on its agenda that would alter aspects of Proposition A.
One of the bills, filed by state Rep. Carolyn Caton, a Republican from Blue Springs, would repeal the inflation adjustment. It would also allow employers to pay workers younger than 20 the federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour and exempt all employers with business receipts less than $10 million annually.
'It isn't that we don't want to pay people,' Caton said. 'We want to pay people well, but we need to do so in a manner that is going to protect our small businesses.'
The other bill, filed by state Rep. Scott Miller, a Republican from St. Charles, would exempt workers under 21 from the state minimum wage and businesses with fewer than 50 employees. It would also allow employers to reduce the final paycheck of anyone who doesn't give at least two weeks notice before quitting, or any employee who violates the provisions of the employer's worker handbook.
'If a business is going to be obligated by law to pay a minimum wage, which is, frankly, the government is price-fixing labor, then the government ought to performance-fix the employees,' Miller said.
The campaign to pass Proposition A drew no large-scale opposition prior to the vote. But a court challenge filed in early December by major business advocacy groups asks the Missouri Supreme Court to invalidate the vote. The court has set the case for arguments on March 12.
At the same time, those business groups — Associated Industries of Missouri, the Missouri Chamber of Commerce and Industry and industry groups representing retailers, restaurants and grocers — are urging lawmakers to repeal portions or delay their implementation.
'In an ideal world, we would love to roll it all back,' Kara Corches, president and CEO of the Missouri Chamber of Commerce and Industry, said in a recent webinar. 'But part of the legislative process, or the sausage making process as we say sometimes, you don't always get, in the end, what you started with.'
Ron Berry, lobbyist for one of Proposition A's biggest backers, Missouri Jobs with Justice Voter Action, said during Wednesday's hearing that the proposals to exempt businesses with fewer than 50 employees would cover 96% of all private businesses.
Responding to a question about the difficulty employers will have covering the additional cost, Berry said labor isn't the only thing driving up prices.
'Whether it's wages or it's the cost of energy, all of you know inflation is higher, and we're all having to tighten our belts,' Berry said.
Buddy Lahl, CEO of the Missouri Restaurant Association, told the committee that his members want the exemption threshold raised to 100 employees as well as implementing the $10 million revenue floor.
He also said the sick leave provisions should not allow hours to be carried over from one year to the other.
'It should be a use it or lose it thing,' Lahl said.
Business lobbyists also warned of job losses, or even businesses that won't survive, if the increased minimum wage stands.
State Rep. Steve Butz, a Democrat from St. Louis, said he didn't believe that argument, noting that Missouri voters increased the minimum wage twice before without sinking the state's economy.
'We've had other increases in minimum wage,' Butz said. 'We always have been told that it's going to kill jobs and jobs continue to grow in the state.'
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


American Press
26 minutes ago
- American Press
Appeals court throws out massive civil fraud penalty against President Donald Trump
A New York appeals court on Thursday threw out the massive financial penalty a state judge imposed on President Donald Trump, while narrowly upholding a finding he engaged in fraud by exaggerating his wealth for decades. The ruling spares Trump from a potential half-billion-dollar fine but bans him and his two eldest sons from serving in corporate leadership for a few years. Trump, in a social media post, claimed 'total victory.' 'I greatly respect the fact that the Court had the Courage to throw out this unlawful and disgraceful Decision that was hurting Business all throughout New York State,' he wrote. The decision came seven months after the Republican returned to the White House. A sharply divided panel of five judges in New York's mid-level Appellate Division couldn't agree on many issues raised in Trump's appeal, but a majority said the monetary penalty was 'excessive.' After finding Trump flagrantly padded financial statements that went to lenders and insurers, Judge Arthur Engoron ordered him last year to pay $355 million in penalties. With interest, the sum has topped $515 million. Additional penalties levied on some other Trump Organization executives, including Trump's sons Eric and Donald Jr. — bring the total to $527 million, with interest. An 'excessive' fine 'While the injunctive relief ordered by the court is well crafted to curb defendants' business culture, the court's disgorgement order, which directs that defendants pay nearly half a billion dollars to the State of New York, is an excessive fine that violates the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution,' Judges Dianne T. Renwick and Peter H. Moulton wrote in one of three opinions shaping the appeals court's ruling. Engoron's other punishments, upheld by the appeals court, have been on pause during Trump's appeal, and the president was able to hold off collection of the money by posting a $175 million bond. The court, which split on the merits of the lawsuit and Engoron's fraud finding, dismissed the penalty in its entirety while also leaving a pathway for an appeal to the state's highest court, the Court of Appeals. Trump and his co-defendants, the judges wrote, can seek to extend the pause on any punishments taking effect. The panel was sharply divided, issuing 323 pages of concurring and dissenting opinions with no majority. Rather, some judges endorsed parts of their colleagues' findings while denouncing others, enabling the court to rule. Two judges wrote that they felt New York Attorney General Letitia James' lawsuit against Trump and his companies was justifiable and that she had proven her case but the penalty was too severe. One wrote that James exceeded her legal authority in bringing the suit, saying that if any of Trump's lenders felt cheated, they could have sued him themselves, and none did. One judge wrote that Engoron erred by ruling before the trial began that the attorney general had proved Trump engaged in fraud. In his portion of the ruling, Judge David Friedman, who was appointed to the court by Republican Gov. George Pataki, was scathing in his criticism of James for bringing the lawsuit. 'Plainly, her ultimate goal was not 'market hygiene' … but political hygiene, ending with the derailment of President Trump's political career and the destruction of his real estate business,' Friedman wrote. 'The voters have obviously rendered a verdict on his political career. This bench today unanimously derails the effort to destroy his business.' In a statement, James focused on the part of the case that went her way, saying the court had 'affirmed the well-supported finding of the trial court: Donald Trump, his company, and two of his children are liable for fraud.' 'It should not be lost to history: yet another court has ruled that the president violated the law, and that our case has merit,' James said. The appeals court, the Appellate Division of the state's trial court, took an unusually long time to rule, weighing Trump's appeal for nearly 11 months after oral arguments last fall. Normally, appeals are decided in a matter of weeks or a few months. Claims of politics at play Trump and his co-defendants denied wrongdoing. At the conclusion of the civil trial in January 2024, Trump said he was 'an innocent man' and the case was a 'fraud on me.' The Republican has repeatedly maintained the case and the verdict were political moves by James and Engoron, both Democrats. Trump's Justice Department has subpoenaed James for records related to the lawsuit, among other documents, as part of an investigation into whether she violated the president's civil rights. James' personal attorney Abbe D. Lowell has said investigating the fraud case is 'the most blatant and desperate example of this administration carrying out the president's political retribution campaign.' Trump and his lawyers said his financial statements weren't deceptive, since they came with disclaimers noting they weren't audited. The defense also noted bankers and insurers independently evaluated the numbers, and the loans were repaid. Despite such discrepancies as tripling the size of his Trump Tower penthouse, he said the financial statements were, if anything, lowball estimates of his fortune. During an appellate court hearing last September, Trump's lawyers argued that many of the case's allegations were too old and that James had misused a consumer protection law to sue Trump over private business transactions that were satisfactory to those involved. State attorneys said that while Trump insists no one was harmed by the financial statements, his exaggerations led lenders to make riskier loans and that honest borrowers lose out when others game their net worth numbers. Legal obstacles The civil fraud case was just one of several legal obstacles for Trump as he campaigned, won and segued to a second term as president. On Jan. 10, he was sentenced in his criminal hush money case to what's known as an unconditional discharge, leaving his conviction on the books but sparing him jail, probation, a fine or other punishment. He is appealing the conviction. And in December, a federal appeals court upheld a jury's finding that Trump sexually abused writer E. Jean Carroll in the mid-1990s and later defamed her, affirming a $5 million judgment against him. The appeals court declined in June to reconsider. Trump still can try to get the Supreme Court to hear his appeal. Trump also is appealing a subsequent verdict that requires him to pay Carroll $83.3 million for additional defamation claims.


The Hill
26 minutes ago
- The Hill
Senate Democrat predicts ‘day of reckoning' for private prison employees
Sen. Jon Ossoff (D-Ga.) on Wednesday said private prison employees would have to answer to their treatment of inmates amid the Trump administration's crackdown on illegal immigration and as more detention facilities may pop up around the U.S. 'There, at some point, is going to be a reckoning for all of this,' Ossoff told MSNBC during an appearance on 'The Weeknight.' 'These folks who are working at these private prison companies, who are on Kristi Noem's staff right now, they are at some point going to have to testify under oath about what is happening in the facilities that they're currently running,' he added. Democrats have slammed Republicans for rejecting their attempts to conduct oversight at facilities where U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) hold detained migrants awaiting deportation. Some state lawmakers were also denied entry to 'Alligator Alcatraz' last month, the detention center in the Florida Everglades. They have also been critical of President Trump's robust immigration agenda, with turmoil rising after lawmakers joined with protestors outside of an ICE center in New York earlier this year and anti-ICE protests sprung up in Southern California and beyond in opposition to an uptick in deportation raids after the administration sent National Guard soldiers to Los Angeles to quell demonstrations. Families of those detained and human rights groups have said their loved ones are suffering from abuse while in ICE custody, such as a lack of clean water and electricity. 'We're talking about pregnant women. We're talking about children,' Ossoff told MSNBC's Alicia Menendez. 'We're talking about people who have no business being in one of these horrible detention centers.' 'And, you know, I believe that the American people have rejected this draconian and inhumane approach to interior enforcement,' the lawmaker continued. 'But in terms of my Republican colleagues, no spine is yet visible in the Senate.' The Georgia Democrat also noted that the treatment is 'indefensible' citing what he said is over 500 credible reports of abuses. House and Senate Democrats joined forces to send a Wednesday letter to Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Kristi Noem hoping to address the alleged injustices. 'Brushing aside concerns from human rights watchdogs, environmentalist groups, and Tribal nations, [DHS] has greenlit the construction of this expansive detention facility that may violate detained individuals' human rights, jeopardize public and environmental health and violate federal law,' Democrats wrote in a letter to Noem inquiring about operations at 'Alligator Alcatraz.' It's unclear if they've received a response.


The Hill
26 minutes ago
- The Hill
Most say partisan redistricting threatens democracy: Survey
Most Americans said partisan redistricting in the House threatens democracy, according to a new Reuters/Ipsos poll. Fifty-five percent in the Reuters/Ipsos poll said there is a negative effect on democracy from changing House district maps to secure seats, with 46 percent of Republicans and 71 percent of Democrats saying the same. California and Texas are going head-to-head in a redistricting fight, with other states evaluating a similar process. On Wednesday, the Texas state House passed a new set of GOP-leaning congressional lines, placing Republicans another step closer toward adopting a new map that kicked off a redistricting arms race. California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D), who is pushing for redistricting in his own state, appeared to issue a threat to the Lone Star State in a vague post on the social platform X. 'It's on, Texas,' the Golden State governor said in his evening post. Twenty-seven percent in the Reuters/Ipsos poll said they were unsure if there is a negative effect on democracy from changing House district maps to secure seats, and 18 percent said there was a positive effect from doing so. The same Reuters/Ipsos poll also found President Trump's approval rating stuck at the lowest level of his second term, 40 percent. The Reuters/Ipsos poll, which was conducted from Aug. 13-18, included 4,446 participants and has a margin of error of about 2 percentage points.