Apparently Nancy Pelosi thinks a minimum wage can hurt business. Why else would she have exempted American Samoa (main business: Starkist Tuna) from the legislation? Starkist is also a fairly big company. If it would hurt them, why wouldn't it hurt small businesses? http://washingtontimes.com/national/20070112-120720-2734r.htm GOP hits Pelosi's 'hypocrisy' on wage bill By Charles Hurt THE WASHINGTON TIMES January 12, 2007 House Republicans yesterday declared "something fishy" about the major tuna company in House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's San Francisco district being exempted from the minimum-wage increase that Democrats approved this week. "I am shocked," said Rep. Eric Cantor, Virginia Republican and his party's chief deputy whip, noting that Mrs. Pelosi campaigned heavily on promises of honest government. "Now we find out that she is exempting hometown companies from minimum wage. This is exactly the hypocrisy and double talk that we have come to expect from the Democrats." On Wednesday, the House voted to raise the minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25 per hour. The bill also extends for the first time the federal minimum wage to the U.S. territory of the Northern Mariana Islands. However, it exempts American Samoa, another Pacific island territory that would become the only U.S. territory not subject to federal minimum-wage laws. One of the biggest opponents of the federal minimum wage in Samoa is StarKist Tuna, which owns one of the two packing plants that together employ more than 5,000 Samoans, or nearly 75 percent of the island's work force. StarKist's parent company, Del Monte Corp., has headquarters in San Francisco, which is represented by Mrs. Pelosi. The other plant belongs to California-based Chicken of the Sea. "There's something fishy going on here," said Rep. Patrick T. McHenry, North Carolina Republican. During the House debate yesterday on stem-cell research, Mr. McHenry raised a parliamentary inquiry as to whether an amendment could be offered that would exempt American Samoa from stem-cell research, "just as it was for the minimum-wage bill." A clearly perturbed Rep. Barney Frank, the Massachusetts Democrat who was presiding, cut off Mr. McHenry and shouted, "No, it would not be." "So, the chair is saying I may not offer an amendment exempting American Samoa?" Mr. McHenry pressed. "The gentleman is making a speech and will sustain," Mr. Frank shouted as he slammed his large wooden gavel against the rostrum. Some Republicans who voted in favor of the minimum-wage bill were particularly irritated to learn yesterday -- after their vote -- that the legislation did not include American Samoa. "I was troubled to learn of this exemption," said Rep. Mark Steven Kirk, Illinois Republican. "My intention was to raise the minimum wage for everyone. We shouldn't permit any special favors or exemptions that are not widely discussed in Congress. This is the problem with rushing legislation through without full debate." A spokeswoman for Mrs. Pelosi said Wednesday that the speaker has not been lobbied in any way by StarKist or Del Monte. Before you talk about American Samoa being a "territory" it would be the only territory not subject to federal minimum wage laws.
No, I was trying to mock those who will defend to the death everything Nancy Pelosi does. And for some reason you can't put words between these <>, and have it show up on clutch.
i don't think it is unconstitutional either. congress has the power to regulate commerce which extends to businesses doesn't it?
Your link connects to a placeholder. Try this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Darby The deal with alot of things having to do with the Commerce clause is that I think they only are generally brought into effect if you deal across states - so I guess if you are dealing with a business incorporated in a state who does no business outside of the state, the Commerce clause shouldn't apply?
That's an extremely conservative interpretation of the commerce clause. It states that congress can regulate an activity that affects interstate commerce. The Supreme Court has generally allowed a lot of leeway as to what affects interstate commerce. Until the 90s, the court basically gave Congress unlimited authority under the commerce clause. The Rehnquist Court eventually started limiting commerce clause authority under Lopez v. US and US v. Morrison but even those still give Congress tremendous leeway. (Lopez forced Congress to start giving larger justifications and reasonings as to why the activity regulated affected interstate commerce while Morrison required that the activity regulated must be "economic in nature.") Also, the test for the commerce clause is that it must "substantially affect interstate commerce" which is a qualitative measure so there's no real way to determine what does and doesn't affect interstate commerce. So for example, Congress just has to prove when writing the law that the activity (in this cases wages) affects interstate commerce. Thus one could argue that wages affect the purchasing choices of a person who could buy items across state lines. These vague and seemingly large leaps in logic are the norm for commerce clause cases. If the courts actually started getting totally strict about the commerce clause, then environmental statutes would be ruled illegal, anti-terrorism statutes (that put mandates on state and local law enforcement) would be illegal, and a whole host of laws would be unconstitutional as well. In fact, one could argue that the Morrison decision is at odds with environmental and terrorism statues since those aren't "economic in nature."
Originally, the commerce clause was interpreted very strictly on the word interstate and generally on the word commerce. Congress and the EPA dance a narrow line in making environmental laws and standards. Essentially, the federal environmental laws are very generalized mandates that states must flesh out and enforce or lose some kind of federal funding. The EPA has little monitoring power and virtually no enforcement power within the States. Individual State environmental agencies make the more specific standards and define the enforcement. So far as I know, the "air is interstate" and "water is interstate" arguments have not been used. I don't know anything about the Constitutionality of the anti-terrorism laws, because I don't know many of the details and I haven't heard of any being challenged.
US Senate Republicans block minimum wage hike WASHINGTON, Jan 24 (Reuters) - U.S. Senate Republicans on Wednesday blocked a Democratic bill to increase the federal minimum wage for the first time in a decade, demanding it first include small-business tax relief. Democrats fell short of the 60 needed to end debate and go to passage of the House-passed measure, which would raise the minimum wage to $7.25 per hour from $5.15 per hour over two years. Republicans demanded tax breaks be added to the legislation to help small business cover the proposed pay hike for millions of America's lowest paid workers. Senate Democratic leaders have indicated they would be willing to go along with some sort of tax relief if necessary to win approval. (snip/) http://today.reuters.com/news/articleinvesting.aspx?typ...
Ya see - government is all fixed and working again. Dems watching out for the little people. Repubs watching out for the little businesses. And look, the find a way to make it work for both sides. Finally we have a congress working together - where both sides think Bush is an idiot. Ah - almost brings a smile to your face, only if there was something we could do about that far away war now.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20070122-111120-5465r.htm Senate's wage bill still exempts Samoa By Charles Hurt THE WASHINGTON TIMES January 23, 2007 The Democrat-controlled Senate took up a bill yesterday that would raise the minimum wage across the United States and its territories but exempt American Samoa, where tuna canneries pay workers $3.26 an hour. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told reporters less than two weeks ago that she would close the loophole after coming under criticism from Republicans for what they termed a "fishy favor" to StarKist Tuna. StarKist has lobbied for years against raising the minimum wage in American Samoa, and its parent, Del Monte Corp., is based in Mrs. Pelosi's San Francisco district. "I have asked the education and labor committee as they go forward with the legislation to make sure that all of the territories have to comply with U.S. law on the minimum wage," Mrs. Pelosi said earlier this month. The House, however, passed the minimum-wage bill with the American Samoa exemption. And yesterday, Senate Democrats were moving ahead with the original legislation, which for the first time would enforce the minimum wage on the Northern Mariana Islands, another territory in the Pacific with a similarly low minimum wage. That bill is co-sponsored by several dozen Democrats, including Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer of California. In addition to San Francisco-based StarKist, San Diego-based Chicken of the Sea also has a cannery in American Samoa. Together, the California companies employ about 75 percent of the Samoan work force. Democrats said they are imposing the wage increase on the Northern Marianas -- a proposal long blocked by former Majority Leader Tom DeLay, Texas Republican -- because of the harsh labor conditions there. Delegate Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, a nonvoting Democrat representing American Samoa, opposes extending the minimum wage to that territory. A "decrease in production or departure of one or both of the two canneries in American Samoa could devastate the local economy, resulting in massive layoffs and insurmountable financial difficulties," he said, echoing the arguments of conservatives against applying the wage to poorer regions of the U.S. "The truth is the global tuna industry is so competitive that it is no longer possible for the federal government to demand mainland minimum-wage rates for American Samoa without causing the collapse of our economy and making us welfare wards of the federal government," Mr. Faleomavaega said. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Also important to note is that Nancy Pelosi's husband has a sizeable number of shares of stock in Del Monte. After all the Halliburton posts on here, I would have expected a bigger outrage.
That's basically saying there's some work out there, mostly unskilled, that needs to pay 2 workers $3.50 an hour to make production go. Instead of $7.00 to one worker and the worker doing more hours. Buying workers in bulk I guess you can say. My thought is: if everything in the working world can be analyzed and labeled and given a numeric value, couldnt there be the distinction of what unskilled labor is and what is just a low paying job? Have a minimum or no wage for those those unskilled jobs (a distinction just like they allowed for those tuna factories) and a mininum wage for other low skilled jobs. It sounds like its a compromise meet-in-the-middle idea but its those companies with the unskilled labor who complain the most about wage increases. Waiters at a restaurant who don't get tipped for the day surely make WELL BELOW minimum wage. Exceptions like that are made, so why not have exceptions like that more often for others jobs? Another thing, minimum wage is a one number fits-all thing works but its government saying that minimum wage at the clothing store is the same as minimum wage at Burger King. It may or may not be but government dictates that it is. Whats wrong with letting the people decide where it should be? They're the one's making the decision on how lousy they want their own pay to be (another subject for another time, personal responsibility). I guess I'm saying the minimum wage figure is kind of broad and "lazy" in a way. Since the above article clearly shows there's benefits to either not having it, or it shows government is able to differentiate between different labor. Oddly enough I'm for a level of minimum wage. I know they used their own professional studies to figure out the wage rate. But if their was never a minimum wage and they accumulated data for what all the lowest paid bottom of the barrel workers were paid and averaged it out to a certain number, just don't see how detrimental that would be on the economy (cuz its MINIMUM). That'd a true minimum wage, what minimum work is paying, and increase it every few years to meet inflation. Not what number gets a person at the poverty line, the giving an unskilled worker the "automatic raise" for nothing. Maybe they're doing that already, just some thoughts I always had on it though... And something to get me tired and drowsy and off to bed now...
Why not get rid of safety standards too? I mean, they work the same way. Workers can always choose not to work in unsafe conditions. And they are an extra cost to the company. Why have any minimum standards for anything?
Waitresses/waiters do make minimum wage. If they don't make it based on tips, their employer is required to make up the difference.
