Florida minimum wage: Lawmakers move forward with bill to lower pay for trainees
The Brief
Florida lawmakers are advancing bills that would allow employers to pay certain workers in training below the minimum wage for up to 12 months.
Supporters argue it will help small businesses attract skilled workers, while opponents warn it could lead to exploitation.
The bills are still under review in both the House and Senate.
TALLAHASSEE, Fla. - Florida lawmakers are advancing bills that would allow employers to pay certain workers in training below the minimum wage for up to 12 months.
What we know
On Tuesday, both the Florida House and Senate advanced bills that would exempt certain workers in on-the-job training from the state's voter-approved minimum wage law.
he House Careers & Workforce Subcommittee voted 12-4 along party lines to support HB 541, while the Senate Governmental Oversight and Accountability Committee approved a similar measure, SB 676. The bills would allow employers to pay workers involved in work-study, internships, or other training programs below the minimum wage, but only for up to 12 months.
What we don't know
The specifics of how the exemption would be implemented in various industries remain unclear. It's also uncertain how widespread the program could become if the bills pass, especially if business owners were to take advantage of the exemption by categorizing many employees as "interns" or "work-study" participants.
The overall impact on workers' income and the number of workers who would voluntarily accept sub-minimum wage pay for training is also uncertain.
The backstory
The proposal is a response to concerns that the state's current minimum wage law, which gradually increases to $15 an hour by 2026, makes it difficult for employers to provide adequate job training. Under current law, certain exemptions already exist, such as allowing employers to pay sub-minimum wages to workers under age 20 during their first 90 days of employment and students in vocational programs. This new proposal seeks to extend these exceptions for employees involved in work-based learning opportunities, such as internships and apprenticeships.
Big picture view
The proposal reflects ongoing tensions between workers' rights and the needs of businesses in a post-pandemic economy. Supporters argue that the ability to pay below the minimum wage would help small businesses attract and train skilled workers, while opponents fear it could lead to widespread exploitation of workers. The larger debate centers on how to balance fair compensation with opportunities for job training, especially for younger and entry-level workers in a competitive labor market.
What they're saying
House bill sponsor Ryan Chamberlin, R-Belleview, argued, "The answer to why people would choose this is if they see value outside of the pay. They see an opportunity to gain some experience that they otherwise would not be able to gain."
Florida AFL-CIO lobbyist Rich Templin voiced concerns: "You literally would be allowing business owners to make all of their employees an intern or a work-study... and anybody that wants to work there would have to sign this (minimum wage) waiver."
Rep. Mike Caruso, R-Delray Beach, defended the bill. "It's not open to the McDonald's of the world, as I see it... And we still have the baseline of the federal minimum wage. So they won't be working for nothing."
Tim Nungesser, legislative director for the National Federation of Independent Business in Florida, explained, "States are looking for ways to get more skilled workers, and one of the ways that we can do that is with this voluntary program."
STAY CONNECTED WITH FOX 35 ORLANDO:
Download the FOX Local app for breaking news alerts, the latest news headlines
Download the FOX 35 Storm Team Weather app for weather alerts & radar
Sign up for FOX 35's daily newsletter for the latest morning headlines
FOX Local:Stream FOX 35 newscasts, FOX 35 News+, Central Florida Eats on your smart TV
The Source
This story was written based on information shared by The News Service of Florida.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
an hour ago
- Boston Globe
Lean budget threatens to spark public college turf war
Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up At this May's meeting, after a presentation about an upcoming advertising campaign for state financial aid programs, Pedraja expressed concern that helping low-income students attend four-year schools would take money away from free community college. Advertisement 'We are very concerned that shouting from the treetops that our public four-year institutions are free for certain students based on income will further deplete very limited financial aid for the whole system,' Pedraja said. Advertisement Pedraja said that financial aid money is expected to be tight next year, and free community college is codified in statute, while the MASSGrant Plus expansion is not. 'Not to take away from the importance of marketing toward these students and making education available for all, which I do believe, we ought to be cautious about over-promising to students who are most in need of support,' Pedraja said. In a follow-up interview, Pedraja doubled down on his concern that the state is 'over-promising' by advertising free four-year college for low-income students. He again emphasized the distinction between free community college, which is codified in law, and other financial aid, which comes from a pot of money that can run out. Practically, however, this is a distinction without a difference — at least legally, if not politically. Pedraja is correct that free community college is codified in the Department of Higher Education spokesperson Nicole Giambusso confirmed that free community college and the MASSGrant Plus expansion are both subject to annual appropriations. The House and Senate budget proposals for fiscal 2026 both include money for all these programs, although the Senate's funding level is somewhat higher. State Senator Jo Comerford, Senate chair of the Joint Committee on Higher Education, said lawmakers see these programs as coming from different pockets of money. 'One does not cannibalize each other,' Comerford told me. Advertisement When free community college was established, expanding aid for all low-income students was seen as key to ensuring that students who are qualified to attend a four-year university won't be channeled into community college just because it's free. After all, according to There are potential funding sources — like money collected from the surtax on income over $1 million — that could be tapped to keep both programs running. 'I don't think it should be either/or,' Bridgewater State University President Frederick Clark told me. 'I don't think the segments should be working at cross purposes. We should be leaning in to make sure funding is adequate for financial aid for all students.' It is true that in a tight budget year, lawmakers have to make choices. Policy makers should be honest in crafting their budget around what can realistically be funded. In our interview, Pedraja said he 'would love for everybody to have more access to higher education.' But the troubling implication of his statement is that if there is a Sophie's choice to be made, Massachusetts should prioritize aid for community college students, regardless of income, over low-income students at four-year schools. If the state wants to help the most students achieve their academic potential, that is the wrong approach. Instead, the guiding principle should be helping each student attend the college that's right for them. Advertisement As these financial aid programs continue, state policy makers should collect data to determine their impact. Which aid programs are boosting college enrollment and also college completion rates and postgraduation employment? Are other ways of improving college success working, like If hard choices have to be made about funding, they should be based on which programs most help students succeed. Shira Schoenberg can be reached at
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Trump's ‘big beautiful bill' to make wealthy even richer and punish poor
Donald Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' will hand thousands of dollars to the rich and leave poorer Americans worse off, a US spending watchdog has warned. The top 10pc of households will get a windfall of $12,000 (£8,800) per year from the Bill's tax cuts, while the bottom 10pc will see a net loss of $1,600 per year because of benefits cuts, according to analysis by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). This means the richest people in America will get a cash boost worth 2.3pc of income while the poorest households will see losses worth 3.9pc. Mr Trump's 'One Big, Beautiful Bill Act', as the legislation is known, was narrowly passed by House Republicans last month and is currently under scrutiny by the Senate. The president has set a July 4 deadline for a final version of the Bill. The Bill has come under heavy fire for driving up America's debt burden just as economists are sounding alarm bells over the sustainability of the US debt pile. Earlier this month, Mr Trump's former 'first buddy' Elon Musk slammed the Bill as a 'disgusting abomination' that he said would saddle America with 'crushing' debt. The US lost its last triple-A credit rating in May after a downgrade from influential credit agency Moody's. According to the CBO, the measures outlined in the Bill will add $2.4 trillion to the US deficit over the next decade. The Bill includes tax cuts worth $3.7 trillion over the next 10 years – primarily through extending the income tax cuts Mr Trump introduced in 2017 which are due to expire at the end of this year – alongside $1.3 trillion in spending cuts. The bulk of the spending cuts will come through reductions in Medicaid, which funds health insurance for low-income families, and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (Snap), which provides food stamps for the poorest in America. This means that although households will technically benefit from the tax cuts, the benefits for the lowest earners will be far-outweighed by the cost of their lost benefits. Around 16m Americans are expected to lose their health insurance as a result of the Bill. In a letter to Democrat lawmakers, who had requested the analysis, Phillip Swagel, the CBO director, said: 'The changes would not be evenly distributed among households. 'The agency estimates that in general, resources would decrease for households toward the bottom of the income distribution, whereas resources would increase for households in the middle and top of the income distribution.' Households in the middle of the income distribution would gain just $500 per year, or 0.5pc of their annual income. Speaking on Thursday, Mr Trump said the Bill was 'one of the most important pieces of legislation ever signed, ever approved, so it's going to be something very special.' Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
With Baumgartner in audience, Trump signs bill blocking Washington's electric vehicle mandate; state sues in response
Jun. 12—WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump on Thursday signed legislation into law that blocks Washington and other states from following California's lead in phasing out gas-powered vehicles. Rep. Michael Baumgartner of Spokane was among dozens of Republican lawmakers invited to the White House for the occasion, which the president used to riff on a variety of topics in addition to the bill. Between calling Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell "a numbskull" and highlighting his own popularity on TikTok, Trump celebrated the revocation of Biden-era waivers from the Environmental Protection Agency that let California impose stricter vehicle emissions standards than the federal government. After the Biden administration allowed California to ban the sale of gas-powered cars starting in 2035, Washington followed suit in 2022, requiring that all new cars sold in the state be either fully electric or plug-in hybrids. A total of 17 states has adopted similar rules that the newly signed law revokes. "The automakers didn't know what to do, because they're really building cars for two countries," Trump said. "When you have 17 states, you're building cars for two countries." In an interview before the bill-signing ceremony, Baumgartner said the California regulation and its progeny would have been devastating to the U.S. economy. "There does not exist the ability to magically create electric semi-trucks that move nearly 70% of the goods that Americans consume, so it would have been crippling to our economy if this rule was left in place," he said. "You can't run semi-trucks across America on unicorn laughter and aspirational dreams of environmental extremists." To revoke the waivers, the EPA issued under a previous administration, lawmakers invoked the Congressional Review Act, which allowed them to skirt the 60-vote supermajority required to pass most bills in the Senate. They did so despite the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office and the Senate parliamentarian, the chamber's neutral adviser on rules, both informing senators that the EPA waivers didn't count as the executive-branch rules for which the act applies. Despite near-unanimous opposition from Democratic senators, the bill revoking California's waivers received significant bipartisan support in the House, plus a single Democratic senator, Michigan's Elissa Slotkin. Trump was surprised on Thursday when a GOP lawmaker in the room told him 35 House Democrats had voted in favor. One of them was Rep. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez of southwest Washington, who runs an auto repair shop with her husband and has been a frequent critic of her party's push to speed a transition to electric vehicles. Shortly after Thursday's ceremony concluded, Washington state Attorney General Nick Brown and California Attorney General Rob Bonta announced a joint lawsuit with nine other states challenging the elimination of California's waiver. The suit alleges that the resolution violates the separation of powers, the Take Care Clause and multiple federal statutes, including the Congressional Review Act and Administrative Procedure Act. In the lawsuit, the plaintiff states allege that the Congressional Review Act has "never before been used in any context that resembles this one. It has certainly never been used, as it was here, to negate particular state laws." The lawsuit seeks to have the resolution declared unlawful and to require the federal government to implement the Clean Air Act consistent with the granted waivers. "Transportation is the single greatest contributor to greenhouse gas pollution in Washington, and our residents understand the transition to zero-emission vehicles is critical in the fight against climate change," Brown said in a statement Thursday. "This is the Trump administration's latest unlawful attempt to derail Washington's and the nation's transition to a clean future." At the White House, Trump railed against Democrats' efforts to use state and federal laws to phase out gas-powered vehicles — the country's biggest single source of greenhouse gas emissions — and speed the adoption of wind, solar and other low-carbon energy sources. "They're making you buy stuff that doesn't work," the president said. "You should be given the option to buy the electric car, by a gasoline-powered car, buy a hybrid. Probably not hydrogen, because hydrogen has the tendency that when it blows up, you're gonzo. It's over." After the room broke out in laughter at that line, Trump turned to Rep. Steve Scalise and said, "It'll make your accident look like peanuts," apparently referring to the 2017 shooting that left the Louisiana Republican in critical condition. Washington state officials have taken steps in recent days to prepare for the new federal law. In a June 6 memo, the Washington State Department of Ecology notified vehicle manufacturers that it would temporarily pause compliance requirements for some vehicle categories. "This recent federal action introduces new uncertainty for states, manufacturers, and consumers at a time when both businesses and consumers are making real progress in reducing the transportation sector's greenhouse gas emissions," Ecology Director Casey Sixkiller said in a statement June 6. "It undermines states' rights, negatively impacts public health, and puts U.S. automakers at a competitive disadvantage in a global market that is rapidly transitioning to zero-emission vehicle technology." Sixkiller added that the agency would work with legislators, industry partners, local governments and other states to "stay on track and ensure continued progress toward our climate and public health goals." After the federal bill cleared the Senate in late May, Gov. Bob Ferguson said in a statement that the action was "brazenly out of step with the law, science, and public will." "For more than 50 years, states have possessed the ability to adopt stronger vehicle emissions standards to protect public health. Washington has exercised that right, along with 17 other states, resulting in cleaner air and healthier communities," Ferguson said. "Despite this retreat from public health by the federal government, I'm committed to ensuring Washington moves forward on building a healthier, cleaner future." Thursday's bill signing drew praise of the Washington Trucking Association, which said it remains committed to working with Washington lawmakers and the Department of Ecology on a "workable path to electrification." "California's EV trucking mandates have been a disaster for states like Washington, and have caused real harm to the trucking industry, a key link in our trade-dependent state's supply chain network," the association's president and CEO, Sheri Call, said in a statement. "Washington state does not have the infrastructure in place to properly institute such a sweeping mandate like this, and the technology has not advanced enough yet to support the trucking industry's rapid transition to clean energy. Our neighbors in Oregon recently opted out of these mandates for these same reasons." Vicki Giles Fabré, vice president of the Washington State Auto Dealers Association, said that Washington's franchised new car and truck dealers have "made substantial investments in electrification and remain committed to selling electric and hybrid vehicles." "The Washington State Auto Dealers Association intends to work with state policymakers to find solutions that incentivize increased adoption of these vehicles, while also supporting the needs of franchised dealers, their employees, and the customers they serve," Fabré said in a statement Wednesday. According to Sixkiller, one in five new vehicles sold today runs on zero-emission technology. "We're not going to slow down that progress. Washingtonians already experience the impacts of climate change every year, from drought and wildfire to flooding and sea-level rise," Sixkiller said in a statement following the Attorney General's lawsuit. "As our Attorney General's Office fights to protect our state's rights, we'll continue working with the Legislature, industry partners, local governments, and other states to continue our progress on clean transportation. At a time of great uncertainty, that's a promise we can keep." Orion Donovan Smith's work is funded in part by members of the Spokane community via the Community Journalism and Civic Engagement Fund. This story can be republished by other organizations for free under a Creative Commons license. For more information on this, please contact our newspaper's managing editor.
