House and Senate Democrats introduce legeslation to increase federal min. wage to $15/hr by 2025

[NRSKarenRN]

Hope this legislation gets passed. as $15.00/hr =  $ 31,200/ year  barely enough  to cover rent. heath insurance, food, clothing for a family --- as my one son has learned.

 

 

[NRSKarenRN, BSN, RN]

21 hours ago, Beerman said:

So, what is a acceptable wage?  Who and how is that determined?

Below are some resources re how wages determined. Last time minimum wages adjusted was 2009.

When I managed a  Home Health Central Intake Dept. with 9 RN's, identified that my staff  - mostly long term employees wages were not being  raised compared to field  staff making home visits. Our feeder hospital staff was unionized and they made 10hr more than our field staff too.  I had few applicants for 1 open position due to lowest wage in Philly area.  So in 2013,  I requested HR relook at the proposed salary for next year.   They contacted multiple agencies in  PA: new hire, new grad RN went to $30.00/hr,  current staff received  $2-$7 hr based on years worked.

Handy Reference Guide to the Fair Labor Standards Act

Quote

The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) establishes minimum wage, overtime pay, recordkeeping, and child labor standards affecting full-time and part-time workers in the private sector and in Federal, State, and local governments.

The Wage and Hour Division (WHD) of the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) administers and enforces the FLSA with respect to private employment, State and local government employment, and Federal employees of the Library of Congress, U.S. Postal Service, Postal Rate Commission, and the Tennessee Valley Authority. The FLSA is enforced by the U.S. Office of Personnel Management for employees of other Executive Branch agencies, and by the U.S. Congress for covered employees of the Legislative Branch.

Special rules apply to State and local government employment involving fire protection and law enforcement activities, volunteer services, and compensatory time off instead of cash overtime pay...

Who is Covered?

All employees of certain enterprises having workers engaged in interstate commerce, producing goods for interstate commerce, or handling, selling, or otherwise working on goods or materials that have been moved in or produced for such commerce by any person, are covered by the FLSA.

A covered enterprise is the related activities performed through unified operation or common control by any person or persons for a common business purpose and -whose annual gross volume of sales made or business done is not less than $500,000 (exclusive of excise taxes at the retail level that are separately stated); or

is engaged in the operation of a hospital, an institution primarily engaged in the care of the sick, the aged, or the mentally ill who reside on the premises; a school for mentally or physically disabled or gifted children; a preschool, an elementary or secondary school, or an institution of higher education (whether operated for profit or not for profit); or is an activity of a public agency. ...

 

How Does a Salary Range Work?

Quote

Salary range is the range of pay established by employers to pay to employees performing a particular job or function. The salary range generally has a minimum pay rate, a maximum pay rate, and a series of mid-range opportunities for pay increases.

The salary range is determined by market pay rates, established through market pay studies, for people doing similar work in similar industries in the same region of the country.

Pay rates and salary ranges are also set up by individual employers and recognize the level of education, knowledge, skill, and experience needed to perform each job....

 

Antitrust Agencies Watch for Labor Market Collusion in the Healthcare Industry
 

Quote

On April 13, 2020, the Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division (DOJ) and Federal Trade Commission (FTC) issued a joint statement declaring their commitment to protect healthcare workers on the front lines of the COVID-19 response from anticompetitive conduct in the labor market. The COVID-19 crisis has been acutely felt in healthcare labor markets, including shortages of frontline healthcare workers in certain practice and geographic areas and temporary surpluses of non-frontline medical professionals due to postponement or deferral of elective surgeries and other elective care. In the face of these changes, the agencies plan to increase oversight of “employers, staffing companies (including medical travel and locum agencies), and recruiters, among others, who engage in collusion or other anticompetitive conduct in labor markets, such as agreements to lower wages or to reduce salaries or hours worked.” Labor market collusion (including agreements not to hire and agreements to set compensation or benefits) has been an enforcement focus for the agencies since at least 2010, and the joint statement suggests that the agencies will remain vigilant against potential labor market collusion in the health care industry, including closely watching the industry for signs of anticompetitive employment practices.

For years, both the DOJ and FTC have challenged naked “no-poach” agreements and wage-fixing agreements, including in the healthcare industry. Most recently, in 2019, as discussed in our initial client alert on this joint statement, the DOJ filed a Statement of Interest in Seamen v. Duke University, et al., Civil No. 1:15-cv-462, urging the court to apply the per se rule to naked poaching agreements. In that case, the Duke University School of Medicine and University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Medicine had allegedly agreed not to compete for each other’s faculty and physicians. Similarly, in 2018, the FTC brought an enforcement action against a therapist staffing service, “Your Therapy Service,” for colluding to limit pay for therapists and asking competitors to do the same to prevent therapists from switching staffing companies due to pay. The resulting consent order prohibits the staffing services from colluding in this manner and inviting others to enter such agreements and exchange information. ..

 

[Beerman, BSN]

42 minutes ago, toomuchbaloney said:

It's not my fault that the sources you provide for us to read are biased and known for inaccuracies. 

My fault indeed.  I'm not aware of the bias, or more importantly,  the inaccuracies of the NBER.  

Please educate me.  Tell me how their conclusions are wrong.

Funny how perceived right leaning bias here is always wrong. But left leaning and left wing is always right.  LOL.

[Beerman, BSN]

8 minutes ago, NRSKarenRN said:

Below are some resources re how wages determined. Last time minimum wages adjusted was 2009.

When I managed a  Home Health Central Intake Dept. with 9 RN's, identified that my staff  - mostly long term employees wages were not being  raised compared to field  staff making home visits. Our feeder hospital staff was unionized and they made 10hr more than our field staff too.  I had few applicants for 1 open position due to lowest wage in Philly area.  So in 2013,  I requested HR relook at the proposed salary for next year.   They contacted multiple agencies in  PA: new hire, new grad RN went to $30.00/hr,  current staff received  $2-$7 hr based on years worked.

 

Handy Reference Guide to the Fair Labor Standards Act

 

How Does a Salary Range Work?

 

Antitrust Agencies Watch for Labor Market Collusion in the Healthcare Industry
 

 

I understand how the labor market sets wages.  The argument by some here is that the market is taken out of the equation in certain labor sectors, and that the government should set a wage based on what one's needs are? 

So, how is the government going to do that?  What's going to be one's "needs"?  Food and shelter?  About car, internet?  Entertainment too?  Oh, don't forget about paid time off for having a baby?  With a new cigarette tax here, packs are about $10 each.  Should their wage support that too?

How's this going to work?  One person here says that if a business cant support all the, they shouldn't be in business.  If that's the case, obviously jobs are going to be lost.

 

 

[toomuchbaloney]

8 minutes ago, Beerman said:

My fault indeed.  I'm not aware of the bias, or more importantly,  the inaccuracies of the NBER.  

Please educate me.  Tell me how their conclusions are wrong.

Funny how perceived right leaning bias here is always wrong. But left leaning and left wing is always right.  LOL.

LOL

This is your link... https://www.americanexperiment.org/2021/01/the-evidence-on-the-effects-of-minimum-wage/

 

This is a link to NBER... https://www.nber.org/papers/w28388

 

I'm glad that I could clarify that for you. 

2 minutes ago, Beerman said:

I understand how the labor market sets wages.  The argument by some here is that the market is taken out of the equation in certain labor sectors, and that the government should set a wage based on what one's needs are? 

So, how is the government going to do that?  What's going to be one's "needs"?  Food and shelter?  About car, internet?  Entertainment too?  Oh, don't forget about paid time off for having a baby?  With a new cigarette tax here, packs are about $10 each.  Should their wage support that too?

How's this going to work?  One person here says that if a business cant support all the, they shouldn't be in business.  If that's the case, obviously jobs are going to be lost.

 

 

Does your confusion mean that you didn't read the information that was offered?

[Beerman, BSN]

2 minutes ago, toomuchbaloney said:

LOL

This is your link... https://www.americanexperiment.org/2021/01/the-evidence-on-the-effects-of-minimum-wage/

 

This is a link to NBER... https://www.nber.org/papers/w28388

 

I'm glad that I could clarify that for you. 

Im not sure what it is you think you've clarified.  The link to the NBER is in the article.  What's your point, other then you don't have an argument except that you say the website is biased?

 

 

[toomuchbaloney]

2 minutes ago, Beerman said:

The link to the NBER is in the article.  What's your point, other then you don't have an argument except that you say the website is biased?

 

 

It was clear that the link was in the article...apparently you prefer for people to access that link after sifting through analysis and commentary from a biased and inaccurate source.  

Shrugs... your choice. 

[Beerman, BSN]

Just now, toomuchbaloney said:

It was clear that the link was in the article...apparently you prefer for people to access that link after sifting through analysis and commentary from a biased and inaccurate source.  

Shrugs... your choice. 

Still, you have no argument against what the analysis or paper says.  Only that you believe the source to be biased and inaccurate....with nothing to back up that opinion, either.

You're only interested in trolling and bullying.   So, carry on if you wish.  

[toomuchbaloney]

13 minutes ago, Beerman said:

Still, you have no argument against what the analysis or paper says.  Only that you believe the source to be biased and inaccurate....with nothing to back up that opinion, either.

You're only interested in trolling and bullying.   So, carry on if you wish.  

You can characterize my comments as you prefer.  That's not really the topic at hand.  The source offered is known for bias and inaccuracies.  

Are you specifically wanting to argue certain points? I'm open.  Where do you want to start? 

I say let's start with employee value to the employer versus value to the society.

[MunoRN, RN]

3 hours ago, Beerman said:

"Historically, researchers have used variations in state minimum wage laws to analyze the impact of minimum wage on employment. Generally, disagreements exist among researchers on their findings. While some researchers report little to no effect of minimum wage on employment, others report significant negative impacts. This is also true among studies that summarise studies detailing the effect of the minimum wage.

However, according to the authors of a new  NBER paper, this lack of consensus is largely due to studies “discarding” or “ignoring” most of the evidence on the negative effect of the minimum wage, and not about actual effects. The authors, David Neumark and Peter Shirley, who utilize preferred estimates instead of reported estimates, instead, find that most evidence largely supports a negative relationship between minimum wage and employment."

https://www.americanexperiment.org/2021/01/the-evidence-on-the-effects-of-minimum-wage/

They do a good job of not actually mentioning the specifics of what they are referring to as "negative impacts", which are primarily that many low-wage workers reduced their hours worked as a result of increased wages, which is one of the goals of increased wages rather than a "negative impact".  The studies / analyses / commentaries they are referring to described these voluntary reduction in hours worked as employees having had their hours cut or having lost hours.  When really, one of the reasons for requiring wages to reflect the true costs of employees (raising the minimum wage) is that a concerning proportion of those needing government assistance are working not only full-time, but more than full-time, if a better wage means someone trying to raise kids and also working two jobs can cut back to one job, that's not a bad thing.

[toomuchbaloney]

3 minutes ago, MunoRN said:

They do a good job of not actually mentioning the specifics of what they are referring to as "negative impacts", which are primarily that many low-wage workers reduced their hours worked as a result of increased wages, which is one of the goals of increased wages rather than a "negative impact".  The studies / analyses / commentaries they are referring to described these voluntary reduction in hours worked as employees having had their hours cut or having lost hours.  When really, one of the reasons for requiring wages to reflect the true costs of employees (raising the minimum wage) is that a concerning proportion of those needing government assistance are working not only full-time, but more than full-time, if a better wage means someone trying to raise kids and also working two jobs can cut back to one job, that's not a bad thing.

Thank you for highlighting this.

[MunoRN, RN]

On 2/3/2021 at 9:06 AM, Beerman said:

I guess since they cant afford to stay in business when the govt sets their wages, its for the best they go out of business.  I'm not sure, though, how the low wage workers who will be laid off are going to come out far ahead?

Maybe they can follow Kerry's advice and compete with the coal miners for a small number come solar energy tech jobs.

The government doesn't "set' the basic costs of an employee, the market determines that.  The basic costs of housing, food, access to healthcare, and basic necessities are determined by the market.  

The market determines what an employee costs, and since a free market relies on all of the participants in the market to exert influence on the market, which includes taxpayers who get stuck supplementing the costs of employees when employers choose not to pay those costs, taxpayers have a legitimate role in saying to employers that they need to cover their owns costs, in this case by requiring that they pay wages that cover those basic costs.

There is no evidence that the job market shrinks when a living wage is required.  The demand for hamburgers on a given day doesn't change, and if anything is helped by having a larger population of people who can afford to eat out or utilize other aspects of the economy.  What changes is that employers who can't compete with other businesses, and had only been able to compete by having their costs subsidized by taxpayers, will lose out to those businesses that are better run, which is how it's supposed to work.

There certainly are economies where the government rather than an employer provides the means for basic living to their employees, that's a common characteristic of oligarchical communist economies.

[MunoRN, RN]

On 2/3/2021 at 11:12 AM, chare said:

Yes, but this should all happen without government interference.

Exactly, the government (taxpayers) shouldn't have to get involved in supplementing a businesses cost of employees through food, housing, and other forms of assistance.  Those are part of the basic costs of an employee which should be the employers responsibility, not the taxpayers.