logo
Bill advances to slow annual increases to Nebraska minimum wage

Bill advances to slow annual increases to Nebraska minimum wage

Yahoo30-04-2025

State Sen. Jane Raybould of Lincoln. March 31, 2025. (Zach Wendling/Nebraska Examiner)
LINCOLN — State lawmakers advanced an amended proposal Wednesday to slow annual increases to Nebraska's minimum wage down to a fixed rate, rather than using the inflationary bumps that voters approved in 2022.
Legislative Bill 258, from State Sen. Jane Raybould of Lincoln, advanced 33-16 with a 'compromise' from State Sen. Stan Clouse of Kearney setting annual increases to the state minimum wage at 1.75%. Voters in 2022 approved permanent cost-of-living increases each Jan. 1, starting in 2027, based on a calculation of inflation for the Midwest region from the prior August.
Nebraska's minimum wage will rise to $15 on Jan. 1 regardless of LB 258.
LB 258 would increase the state's training wage for teen workers and limit it to workers aged 16 to 19 at 75% of the state minimum wage this September, rather than 75% of the federal wage (which is $7.25 and hasn't changed since 2009). That wage can be paid for up to the first 90 days of employment.
As a result, workers aged 14 or 15 would get a new youth minimum wage beginning at $13.50 next January and increasing every five years by 1.5%. The training wage would rise by 1.5% each year.
Under LB 258, the new youth wage would not get above $15 until 2065, according to a Nebraska Examiner analysis.
LB 258 heads to a third and final round of debate. It advanced again with Raybould, a Democrat, joining 32 of 33 Republicans to advance the bill. State Sen. Dave Wordekemper of Fremont, a Republican, again opposed the measure.
Raybould said her bill provides predictability and that Clouse's suggestion was a 'reasonable compromise.'
Average inflation for the past five years, as provided under the voter-approved language, was 4.18%, according to data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics for the Midwest. Over the past 10 years, it was 2.63%. And over the past 25 years, it was 2.39%.
Of those 25 years, inflation was less than 1.75% a total of 11 times. The Midwest region faced deflation twice, in 2009 and 2015.
Clouse said the amended LB 258 would give wage earners and businesses 'certainty,' rather than 'rolling the dice' on whether there would be a wage adjustment.
State Sen. Danielle Conrad of Lincoln again led opposition to the measure she said would 'undercut the will of the people' and prevent hard working Nebraskans, particularly those who would be subject to the new 'youth minimum wage,' from fully realizing the 'intent' of voters just a few years ago.
Conrad said the 'heart' of the debate is economic justice and that senators needed to 'see the poor' who help keep the economy abuzz and 'not look down our nose at them.'
'This isn't a few kids working for bubble gum,' Conrad said. 'These are our neighbors who deserve us to hear them and see them, to provide them with an opportunity to keep their head above water.'
State Sen. Paul Strommen of Sidney, who supported Raybould's measure, said lawmakers and workers faced a 'never-ending chase' between mandated cost increases on businesses and increased prices on consumers. He predicted more lost jobs and automation.
Strommen also is lead sponsor of a bill amended into LB 415, from State Sen. Beau Ballard of Lincoln, to weaken paid sick leave protections that voters approved just last fall.
'We're never going to be satisfied,' Strommen said of the minimum wage cycle. 'We have to come up with a better way to handle this.'
State Sens. Mike Moser of Columbus and Kathleen Kauth of the Millard area said that if workers wanted a higher wage, they needed to work for it.
Moser said the debate surrounded 'class warfare' when he said the minimum wage was not a 'living' wage. Kauth said it was a 'safeguard against people being abused too much.'
'If you're struggling in your family, do your best to get a different job, get an education,' Moser said. 'See what you can do to improve your outlook.'
Kauth agreed, adding: 'Change yourself rather than asking the government to do it for you.'
State Sens. Dan Quick of Grand Island and Ashlei Spivey of Omaha said that inflation affected all Nebraskans and that the best way to support youths is to invest in them and their families.
State Sen. John Fredrickson of Omaha said Raybould's bill was a 'setback,' not a 'stepping stone' to getting more young workers hired, as Raybould has suggested.
Fredrickson said young people aren't working just for a 'slush fund' or 'extra cash' but instead work to help with household expenses, college savings, gas, food and to 'make ends meet.'
'We cannot tell them that their efforts are less valuable or that fairness and equality of wages can wait another year until they're a year older,' said Fredrickson, asking if industry-specific wages were next.
State Sen. Victor Rountree of Bellevue said that when he was young, and before he went into the U.S. Air Force, he saved wages he earned as a teen to help his mother, including from a low-wage construction job.
'I put a lot of money up in the left back corner of my top drawer in the dresser,' Rountree said, telling his mom that if she ever needed it, it was there.
Federal minimum wage: Created in 1938, now $7.25.
Nebraska minimum wage: Created in 1967, now $13.50.
Nebraska tipped employees minimum wage: Created in 1970, now $2.13. Wages plus gratuities must equal or exceed the Nebraska minimum wage under state law.
Nebraska training wage: Created in 1991, now $5.44 (75% of the federal minimum wage) for up to the first 90 days of employment for a worker younger than 20 years old.
Nebraska student-learners minimum wage: Created in 1987, now $11.25 (75% of the Nebraska minimum wage) for workers who are part of a vocational training program.
Nebraska youth minimum wage: Does not currently exist.
Much of the debate surrounded the 'will of the voters' that opponents said Raybould and supporters of the changes were undercutting.
'If we pass this bill, we are telling Nebraskans that their vote only counts when it's convenient for us,' said State Sen. Megan Hunt of Omaha. 'That's not a democracy. It's not a public service, and it's not the role of a citizen's Legislature.'
State Sen. Bob Hallstrom of Syracuse said that was flat wrong and that supporters were 'free and well within our authority' to amend the language, so long as they had at least 33 votes under the Nebraska Constitution.
'I guess if you say things long enough, you might begin to believe it yourself,' Hallstrom said. 'Maybe some other people will believe you, but that doesn't make it any more true.'
This round of debate was less personal than the first for Raybould, a longtime grocery store executive whose family owns and operates Super Saver and Russ's Market. Raybould continues to serve as vice chair of the company's board. She filed a conflict of interest statement on LB 258.
The change came in part because Raybould urged lawmakers Wednesday to move away from 'personal attacks.'
'Even when it's couched with words like 'my dear friend,' it gives permission for others to direct their anger and their hatred toward that person, and that can have very unfortunate consequences,' Raybould said, citing recent political violence in Pennsylvania.
During the debate, Raybould and Hallstrom walked through LB 31 of 2007, from Conrad during her first year as a lawmaker. As introduced, Conrad's bill, her first in 11 years of legislative service so far, would have increased the minimum wage over time for all workers 17 years old or older, while younger workers would have been subject to the federal minimum wage.
Hallstrom, as a paid lobbyist 18 years ago, opposed LB 31.
Raybould asked Hallstrom if the Conrad of 2025 would have supported LB 31 of 2007, which Raybould and Hallstrom said seemed an odd position.
'I don't think I'm qualified to speculate or define as to what now Senator Conrad, formerly Senator Nantkes, might have done differently,' Hallstrom said. 'What I do know is that I do not criticize her for having a change of heart or a change of mind on the issue.'
A version of Conrad's bill passed later in 2007, in line with federal minimum wage bumps. Conrad helped lead the successful 2014 ballot initiative that raised the state wage.
State Sen. John Cavanaugh of Omaha called out the 'tone deafness' of LB 258's debate, such as the exchange on the floor of the Legislature between Raybould and Hallstrom, a former paid lobbyist, being used as justification for the measure's necessity.
Conrad said the heart of her work has always been to put more money in people's pockets.
'If you'd like to ask me about my intentions,' Conrad responded, 'I'm happy to yield for questions so that other senators don't have to guess as to my intentions from 15 years ago.'
The federal minimum wage did not apply to most workers until 1978:
In October 1938, the wage went into effect for employees engaged in interstate commerce or in producing goods for interstate commerce.
Beginning September 1961, at a slightly lower rate than interstate commerce employees, the wage extended to workers of large retail or service enterprises, as well as those in local transit, construction or gas stations.
By February 1967, state or local government employees in hospitals, nursing homes and schools, as well as workers in laundries, dry cleaners and large hotels, motels, restaurants or farms were covered. Between 1970 and 1978, farm workers were paid at a lower rate.
Beginning January 1978, the federal minimum wage extended to most nonexempt workers at one minimum wage, $2.65 at the time.
Nebraska created a state minimum wage in 1967, applying in that case to workers not covered by the federal minimum wage until 1978. The Nebraska minimum wage has now surpassed the federal minimum wage and must be paid to all workers in businesses employing four or more employees. For smaller businesses, the federal minimum wage must be paid.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

House to vote on repealing DC local laws on noncitizen voting, policing, immigration enforcement
House to vote on repealing DC local laws on noncitizen voting, policing, immigration enforcement

Yahoo

time10 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

House to vote on repealing DC local laws on noncitizen voting, policing, immigration enforcement

The Brief House Republicans are voting on three bills that would override D.C. laws on noncitizen voting rights, limiting police powers, and restricting immigration enforcement cooperation. One bill, HR 884, repeals D.C.'s 2022 law allowing noncitizens to vote in local elections. HR 2056 would dismantle D.C.'s sanctuary city protections by mandating cooperation with federal immigration authorities. WASHINGTON - The House of Representatives are voting Tuesday on three Republican-backed bills that would override several local D.C. laws. The bills would roll back D.C. efforts expand voting rights for non-citizens, restrict police and force the District to work with immigration enforcement efforts on a federal level. D.C. passed the Local Resident Voting Rights Amendment Act in 2022, granting noncitizens in D.C. the right to vote in local elections. That includes mayoral races, D.C. Council positions, attorney general, ANC members, attorney general and D.C. ballot measures. Noncitizens can also run for elected office in the D.C. government. HR 884 would repeal the act, removing voting powers from noncitizens. Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton released a statement, pushing back at Congress' power of local D.C. matters. "Last Congress, Republicans introduced 14 bills or amendments to prohibit noncitizens from voting in D.C. or to repeal, nullify or prohibit the carrying out of D.C.'s law that permits noncitizens to vote," said Norton. "Yet, Republicans refuse to make the only election law change D.C. residents have asked Congress to make, which is the right to hold elections for voting members of the House and Senate." The Protecting Our Nation's Capital Emergency Act, would dismantle parts of D.C.'s Comprehensive Policing and Justice Reform Amendment Act of 2022. HR 2096 would allow D.C. police officers to negotiate disciplinary matters through collective bargaining. It would also restore a statute of limitation for claims against the Metropolitan Police Department. "This bill was introduced three days after House Republicans passed a continuing resolution that cut D.C.'s local budget by one billion dollars. That act of fiscal sabotage, which did not save the federal government any money, has led to a freeze on overtime, hiring and pay raises, and furloughs or layoffs may be next," said Norton. "Nine weeks ago today, the Senate passed the D.C. Local Funds Act to reverse the cut. The D.C. Local Funds Act is just sitting in the House. Like President Trump and the National Fraternal Order of Police, I call on the House to pass immediately the D.C. Local Funds Act." READ MORE: Congress' spending bill error leaves DC scrambling to cut $400M from budget HR 2056 would strike down D.C. policies that limit cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. It would prohibit DC officials from "sending, receiving, maintaining, or exchanging with any Federal, State, or local government entity information regarding the citizenship or immigration status (lawful or unlawful) of any individual." The bill would effectively dismantle D.C.'s sanctuary city policies. D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser made moves to quietly overturn a law that prevents local police from cooperating with ICE, including it in a provision of her 2026 budget proposal. Big picture view The D.C. Home Rule Act of 1973 allows the city to elect its own mayor and council. It's also allowed for D.C. to choose Advisory Neighborhood Commissioners to handle community concerns. Congress still maintains control over D.C., including the ability to review all local legislation and appoint the city's judges. D.C. has no voting member in Congress, though it has a nonvoting Delegate. In February, legislators from Utah and Tennessee introduced a bill to strip D.C. of its ability to govern itself. The bill is named after D.C.'s Mayor Muriel Bowser – the "Bringing Oversight to Washington and Safety to Every Resident (BOWSER) Act." The bill would eliminate D.C. Home Rule Act of 1973 and would place D.C. under the full control of Congress. The Source This story includes information from the US House of Representatives, Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton, and previous FOX 5 DC reporting.

Legislature tweaks paid family leave and sick time in minor concessions to businesses
Legislature tweaks paid family leave and sick time in minor concessions to businesses

Yahoo

time24 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Legislature tweaks paid family leave and sick time in minor concessions to businesses

Supporters of paid family and medical leave rally in front of the House Chamber on May 2, 2023. Photo by Andrew VonBank/Minnesota House Info. The narrowly divided Minnesota Legislature passed the smallest of changes to the state's paid family leave program and paid sick leave mandate, rejecting more significant reversals sought by Republicans and some moderate Democrats. House Speaker Lisa Demuth, R-Cold Spring, said failing to make larger changes to the two laws was one of her party's most significant disappointments of the session. 'Those are things that we really wanted to get done … We couldn't find bipartisan agreement,' Demuth said following a marathon one-day special session on Monday. Democrats were largely able to protect their progressive agenda from 2023 even while passing a smaller budget in the face of a gloomy economic forecast. The notable exception is repealing MinnesotaCare for undocumented adults at the end of the year, a key priority for Republicans. Employers and workers may never even notice the change passed to the paid family leave program, which reduces the maximum payroll tax from 1.2% to 1.1%. The program is slated to start next year with a payroll tax of .88%, with employers paying at least half of the cost, and may never rise to meet the cap, depending on demand. The program is slated to start on Jan. 1 with workers eligible to take up to 12 weeks of family leave and 12 weeks of medical leave — or 20 weeks total in a single year. To qualify, workers must have earned at least $3,700 in the past year, with benefits based on a workers' wages up to about $1,400 a week. The changes to the earned sick and safe time law may similarly go unnoticed by the vast majority of workers. The law, which took effect in 2024, will continue to require employers to provide one hour of paid sick leave for every 30 hours worked up to 48 hours a year — i.e., six paid sick days a year for full-time employees. Under the bill, an employer may require an employee to provide documentation — such as a doctor's note — that their earned sick or safe leave is covered after two days, down from three days in current law. The bill adds that a worker may voluntarily find a replacement for a missed shift, but the law will continue to bar employers from requiring workers to find a replacement. The bill also explicitly authorizes a practice that was already permitted but caused some confusion, allowing employers to advance earned sick and safe time to an employee based on the number of hours an employee is expected to work, providing additional time if that estimate falls short. The laws made it through the legislative session mostly unchanged despite a push by moderate Democrats in the Senate to reduce the total number of paid family leave weeks to 14 in a year and carve-out small employers. Moderate Senate Democrats also supported carving out small businesses and farms from the sick time mandate. House Democrats were unified in their opposition to those changes. Rep. Dave Pinto, DFL-St. Paul, said the small changes go further than most Democrats wanted but still maintain the integrity of paid family leave and sick time. 'These are programs that make Minnesotans stronger,' Pinto, co-chair of the House labor committee, said on the floor before passage of the omnibus jobs and workforce bill, which the governor is expected to sign.

Trump's aggressive moves on immigration protests put Democrats in a political bind
Trump's aggressive moves on immigration protests put Democrats in a political bind

Yahoo

time24 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Trump's aggressive moves on immigration protests put Democrats in a political bind

President Donald Trump's deployment of military troops to California is forcing Democrats back onto politically perilous turf, as they look for ways to condemn his actions without being drawn into a broad debate over immigration or tying themselves to the chaotic scenes emerging from Los Angeles. Republicans are relishing a fight that directs attention away from their monthslong, intraparty debate over tax and spending legislation, and the messy political breakup of Trump and Elon Musk, and toward what they view as Democrats' biggest vulnerabilities: immigration, law enforcement and public disorder. Pennsylvania Sen. John Fetterman warned his fellow Democrats about the images emerging from California, where protests erupted Friday after Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids and escalated into outbreaks of violence. Some protesters have thrown objects at law enforcement, looted businesses, blocked a major freeway and set self-driving cars ablaze — while police in riot gear fired rubber bullets to disperse crowds. While much of the protest activity has been peaceful, images of burning cars and chaos have been widespread across social media and traditional news coverage. 'You can't defend when people start setting things on fire or they start damaging buildings or going after members of law enforcement. That's not free speech. That is not peaceful protest,' Fetterman said Tuesday. Fetterman, who was lieutenant governor of Pennsylvania during racial justice protests around the country in 2020, said Democrats 'should have learned the lesson back in 2020. Absolutely, there was righteous outrage over what happened to George Floyd, but that never means that you can support or be quiet if there's destruction or rioting and destroying and looting and those kinds of things.' He said he was 'not judging any of my other colleagues in my party,' but warned: 'You can't be quiet on those things. You have to just call it really what it is.' Some Democrats privately agree with Fetterman, saying their party's leaders must be more forceful in condemning the rioters' behavior. Lawmakers in competitive swing districts also worry about the political ramifications down the road, particularly if party activists resurrect a years-old battle cry for abolishing ICE. And in the meantime, they believe Democrats will be forced to grapple with an existential question: Do they support federal law enforcement officials actually enforcing federal immigration law? In a clear sign of the fraught political moment, lawmakers from across the Democratic Party's ideological spectrum issued warnings Tuesday against violence. Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, a progressive independent who caucuses with Democrats, urged protesters to exhibit the same 'disciplined non-violent resistance' to Trump that civil rights leaders used to end segregation. 'Violent protests are counterproductive and play right into Trump's playbook,' he said on X. Texas Rep. Henry Cuellar, a conservative Democrat who has long represented a Rio Grande Valley district, said in a statement that 'when people start throwing bricks and hammers at law enforcement, that's no longer protest — that's criminal.' 'We can debate policy without attacking the people who wear the badge and work to keep us safe,' Cuellar said. Trump, for his part, has blamed Democrats broadly and California Gov. Gavin Newsom and Los Angeles Karen Bass specifically for mishandling the situation, saying on Truth Social the city 'would be burning to the ground right now' had he not deployed troops there. And Republicans have delighted in pitting Trump against Newsom. House Speaker Mike Johnson told reporters Tuesday that Newsom — who has aggressively criticized the Trump administration's moves — 'ought to be tarred and feathered.' 'He's standing in the way of the administration carrying out the federal law. He is applauding the bad guys and standing in the way of good guys,' Johnson said. Trump's actions have put Democrats in a complicated political spot. The party has struggled to navigate the issue of immigration since the president's victory in November — split between the moral outrage of the Democratic base over Trump's unprecedented deportation efforts, and polls that have largely reflected public support for the president on the issue overall. In particular, surveys have shown that most voters want tougher border security than the Biden administration put in place for much of the previous four years. But the politics get murkier when Americans are asked about the details of how Trump is carrying out his campaign promise to conduct the largest deportation effort in the nation's history. In the past — particularly when federal law enforcement cleared Lafayette Square, near the White House, amid 2020 protests — polls found that Americans opposed the use of rubber bullets and tear gas, and opposed deploying the US military in response to protests within the country. A CBS News/YouGov survey conducted before the protests in Los Angeles broke out found somewhat contradictory results: Fifty-four percent of Americans support Trump's deportation program, and 55% like its 'goals.' However, 56% said they dislike 'the way you think [Trump] is going about' the deportations. unknown content item - Democrats this week argued that Trump's actions have only worsened tensions in California. Arizona Sen. Mark Kelly said the president's deployment of the National Guard and Marines to Los Angeles is 'like throwing the match onto the kindling.' 'He took some actions that escalated an issue — a problem, but it was under control. And now the problem is bigger because of the actions he took,' Kelly told CNN. Democrats also accused Trump of hypocrisy, pointing out that he was slow to deploy the National Guard on January 6, 2021, when his supporters were rioting and attacking police officers at the US Capitol. 'We begged the president of the United States to send in the National Guard. He would not do it,' California Rep. Nancy Pelosi, who was the House speaker at the time, said Tuesday. California Rep. Ro Khanna told CNN outside the Capitol on Monday that Democrats 'need to continue to unequivocally condemn the violence, the threats or attacks on law enforcement agents — I mean, that has no place.' But, the progressive congressman added, Trump's actions are unconstitutional. 'One can hold two thoughts — that political violence should be absolutely condemned, vandalism needs to be condemned, but that the appropriate remedy are state and local police — that you can't deploy the military against our own people, unless there's a real crisis,' Khanna said. Massachusetts Rep. Seth Moulton similarly said that 'there's no excuse for violence.' 'If you're protesting the fact that ICE officers are sometimes too violent, doing that with violence doesn't make the point,' he said. However, Moulton also said Trump is using the US military to achieve political aims at home. 'This is not an opportunity to turn active-duty Marines against the American people. And that's what Trump is doing,' Moulton said. Trump has used Newsom as a foil as he deploys troops to the Los Angeles area — even suggesting Monday that border czar Tom Homan should arrest the governor. Newsom, a potential 2028 presidential contender, has embraced the clash and publicly dared Homan to arrest him. Newsom himself has been in regular touch with lawmakers on the Hill, and held a briefing with his state's delegation and the leader of the California National Guard on Monday to update them on Trump's actions, according to two people familiar with the call. Newsom's office has also been distributing copies of some of attacks on him, including Trump's calls to arrest him, to House Democrats' offices, those people said. The scenes unfolding in California are also leading Democrats elsewhere to grapple with what they would do if Trump took similar actions in their states. And they fear they'd be powerless to stop it. Rep. Mikie Sherrill, one of the Democratic candidates in Tuesday's New Jersey gubernatorial primary, said Trump's move 'shows the further incompetence coming from Washington and the constant level of chaos that is almost intentionally generated there.' Sherrill also warned that military missions are much different from those of law enforcement in the United States. Another New Jersey gubernatorial candidate, Rep. Josh Gottheimer, highlighted Trump's actions in a speech. He said the scenes in California make clear 'just what's on the line in this election and why it's so important that we have a governor who's willing to stand up and fight.' The Democratic Governors Association, in a statement signed by 22 governors, called Trump's deployment of troops to California 'an alarming abuse of power.' But the statement did not address the president's handling of his deportation program. 'It's important we respect the executive authority of our country's governors to manage their National Guards — and we stand with Governor Newsom who has made it clear that violence is unacceptable and that local authorities should be able to do their jobs without the chaos of this federal interference and intimidation,' the Democratic governors' statement said. CNN's Arlette Saenz, Ted Barrett, David Wright and Manu Raju contributed to this report.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store