D.C. Pauses Plans To Hike Minimum Wage for Tipped Workers
Washington, D.C. will pause the implementation of a measure that is set to eliminate the city's tipped wage system, as the yearslong debate over the law's adverse impacts continues to divide the District's left-leaning lawmakers.
The D.C. Council on Tuesday voted 8–4 to pump the brakes on Initiative 82, the 2022 ballot referendum that mandated employers pay service workers the full minimum wage, as opposed to the traditional lower base pay that employees supplement with gratuities. (Employers were already required to make up the difference if an employee's take-home pay with tips did not equal the minimum wage.) Initiative 82 requires yearly increases to the city's tipped wage—which was previously $5.35 per hour—until it meets D.C.'s full minimum base pay—set to increase next month to $17.95 per hour—in 2027.
July was supposed to see the tipped wage rise from $10 to $12. The Council's vote will delay that increase until October as Mayor Muriel Bowser, a Democrat, advocates for overturning the law entirely.
This saga has been ongoing. D.C. voters weighed in on the issue in June 2018 when a majority approved Initiative 77, a ballot referendum that also abolished the tipped wage. But the Council countermanded that in October of that same year by a vote of 8–5, leading to a public outcry from some who said the government was undoing the will of the people.
Indeed, the issue has long polarized a city that is dominated by liberal and progressive politics and politicians, some of whom have confronted that good intentions do not equal good outcomes. Restaurants often operate on thin profit margins; many simply cannot afford an explosive increase in labor costs. And a great deal of service workers themselves—who are in an industry that is not exactly known for being conservative politically—opposed the abolition of the tipped wage, knowing it could lead to a drop-off in job opportunities, hours, take-home pay, and viable restaurants.
That was the general message Bowser sought to convey in a press conference last month when she announced her FY26 budget would push to overturn Initiative 82. "DC restaurants are facing a perfect storm—from increased operating and supply costs, to higher rents, and unique labor challenges," her presentation said. It also cited an April article in The Washington Post that noted food establishments in the District have been "pushed to the brink."
That outcome should not have been a surprise. As I wrote in 2018 after Initiative 77 passed:
In the wake of Seattle's 2015 minimum wage hike, the University of Washington conducted a study to explore long-term effects. While the policy is still too young to definitively assess the total impact on restaurants, findings suggest that food-service establishments hit a proverbial fork in the road: switch to a counter-service model or make the place an extravagant dining experience. The former all but eliminates tipping, hampering staff opportunity to maximize income. The latter increases prices drastically for the consumer, turning a casual lunch outing into an elitist affair.
Somewhat puzzlingly, it also found that a significant portion of restaurant base wages surpassed $19 an hour, whereas positions paying the minimum plunged. That suggests an unfortunate trend: Many restauranteurs appear to be adapting to the higher wage requirements by prioritizing high-skill employees while kicking low-skill workers to the curb—the very people that Initiative 77 purports to help.
Meanwhile, over in San Francisco, researchers from Harvard analyzed the dining scene and found that for every additional dollar added to the tipped wage, there was an additional 14 percent chance that a median rated restaurant (3.5 stars on Yelp) would close. Those aren't great odds for mom-n-pop neighborhood staples—particularly of the hole-in-the-wall variety—many of which are located in the District's low-income areas.
Fast-forward to today, and those dire predictions are already becoming reality across D.C., even before the full minimum wage hits restaurants. "We're watching a beloved bar back, a beloved busser, a dishwasher have their jobs taken away," Valerie Graham, a D.C. restaurant worker, told Reason's Justin Zuckerman in his recent documentary about the fight to end the tipped wage. Chef Geoff Tracy, who owns two restaurants in D.C., meanwhile estimated that the law would add $400,000 to his payroll costs each year. There are countless more examples.
It is understandably jarring for some to wrap their heads around the fact that many workers would prefer a lower minimum wage. It may not pop on a poster or in a chant at a rally. But economic reality is often more complicated than a protest sign can pithily convey.
The post D.C. Pauses Plans To Hike Minimum Wage for Tipped Workers appeared first on Reason.com.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
3 hours ago
- Boston Globe
GOP's food stamp plan is found to violate Senate rules. It's the latest setback for Trump's big bill.
Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up 'We will keep fighting to protect families in need,' said Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, the top Democrat on the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee, which handles the SNAP program. Advertisement 'The Parliamentarian has made clear that Senate Republicans cannot use their partisan budget to shift major nutrition assistance costs to the states that would have inevitably led to major cuts,' she said. The committee chairman, Sen. John Boozman, R-Ark., said in a statement that his team is examining options that would comply with Senate rules to achieve savings and 'to ensure SNAP serves those who truly need it while being responsible stewards of taxpayer dollars.' Advertisement What's at stake in the big bill The parliamentarian's ruling is the latest in a series of setbacks as staff works through the weekend, often toward midnight, to assess the 1,000-page proposal. It all points to serious trouble ahead for the bill, which was approved by the House on a party-line vote last month over unified opposition from Democrats and is now undergoing revisions in the Senate. At its core, the goal of the multitrillion-dollar package is to extend tax cuts from Trump's first term that would otherwise expire if Congress fails to act. It also adds new ones, including no taxes on tips or overtime pay. To help offset the costs of lost tax revenue, the Republicans are proposing cutbacks to federal Medicaid, health care and food programs — some $1 trillion. Additionally, the package boosts national security spending by about $350 billion, including to pay for Trump's mass deportations, which are running into protests nationwide. Trump has implored Republicans, who have the majority in Congress, to deliver on his top domestic priority, but the details of the package, with its hodgepodge of priorities, is drawing deeper scrutiny. All told, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates the package, as approved by the House, would The Senate's strict 'Byrd Rule' The parliamentarian's office is tasked with scrutinizing the bill to ensure it complies with the so-called Byrd Rule, which is named after the late Sen. Robert C. Byrd, and bars many policy matters in the budget reconciliation process now being used. Advertisement Late Friday, the parliamentarian issued its latest findings. It determined that Senate Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee's proposal to have the states pick up more of the tab for covering food stamps — what Republicans call a new cost-sharing arrangement — would be in violation of the Byrd Rule. Many lawmakers said the states would not be able to absorb the new requirement on food aid, which has long been provided by the federal government. They warned many would lose access to SNAP benefits used by more than 40 million people. Initially, the CBO had estimated about $128 billion in savings under the House's proposal to shift SNAP food aid costs to the states. Cost estimates for the Senate's version, which made changes to the House approach, have not yet been made publicly available. More questions and decisions ahead The parliamentarian's office rulings leave GOP leaders with several options. They can revise the proposals to try to comply with Senate rules or strip them from the package altogether. They can also risk a challenge during floor voting, which would require the 60-vote threshold to overcome. That would be unlikely in the split chamber with Democrats opposing the overall package. The parliamentarian's latest advice also said the committee's provision to make certain immigrants ineligible for food stamps would violate the rule. It found several provisions from the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, which is led by Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, to be in violation. They include one to provide $250 million to Coast Guard stations damaged by fire in 2025, namely one on South Padre Island in Texas. Still to come are some of the most important rulings from the parliamentarian. One will assess the GOP's approach that relies on 'current policy' rather than 'current law' as the baseline for determining whether the bill will add to the nation's deficits. Advertisement Already, the parliamentarian delivered a serious setback Thursday, finding that the GOP plan to gut the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which was a core proposal coming from the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee, would be in violation of the Byrd Rule. The parliamentarian has also advised of violations over provisions from the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee that would rollback Environmental Protection Agency emissions standards on certain vehicles and from the Senate Armed Services Committee to require the defense secretary to provide a plan on how the Pentagon intends to spend the tens of billions of new funds. The new work requirements in the package would require many of those receiving SNAP or Medicaid benefits to work 80 hours a month or engage in other community or educational services. Associated Press writer Mary Clare Jalonick contributed to this report.
New York Post
4 hours ago
- New York Post
Padilla claims Noem clash wasn't planned stunt: ‘rhetoric compelled me'
California Democratic Sen. Alex Padilla insisted Saturday that he didn't pre-plan his heckling of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem in Los Angeles — claiming that the stunt that got him handcuffed was a spur of the moment attempt at congressional oversight. Padilla argued in an interview with MSNBC hosts Eugene Daniels and Jonathan Capehart that Noem's 'rhetoric compelled' him to approach her lectern at a press conference and interrupt. Padilla was removed from the June 12 event after he pushed against law enforcement officers who blocked him and shouted, 'I'm Senator Alex Padilla! I have questions for the secretary!' He appeared on MSNBC to respond to Vice President JD Vance, who last week referred to him as 'Jose' Padilla and accused him of 'pure political theater' in his protest of Trump administration immigration enforcement policies. 5 Sen. Alex Padilla was handcuffed June 12 after attempting to confront DHS Secretary Kristi Noem. AP 5 Padilla pushed back against law enforcement officers as he tried to reach Noem's lectern. AP The VP's office explained the first-name error by saying Vance 'must have mixed up two people who have broken the law.' 'He knows my name,' Padilla griped to MSNBC. 'Sadly, it's just an indicator of how petty and unserious this administration is.' 5 Noem was discussing an immigration crackdown and local protests against immigration officials. AP 5 Vice President JD Vance accused Padilla of staging 'political theater.' Getty Images Padilla claimed that he was merely attempting to exercise his congressional duties during his confrontation with Noem. 'Part of our job is oversight and accountability — exactly what this administration does not want, and so they will try to throw any hurdle, any roadblock, to keep us from our oversight and accountability role. That's all I was doing, right?' the Democrat said 'That press conference, as you know, I did not barge in. I was escorted in. I did not lunge at the secretary… I had the audacity of trying to ask a question,' he said. 5 Democrats have denounced Padilla's brief detention. via REUTERS 'I heard there was this press conference, asked to join, they opened the door for me and I sat quietly on the side until the rhetoric compelled me to speak up — not just as a senator, but as an American,' Padilla added. 'Just the notion that they're suggesting that it's their job to liberate Los Angeles from our duly elected mayor and governor. It is too much.' The previously little-known senator was appointed to his position in 2021 by Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-Calif.) to fill the vacancy created by Kamala Harris becoming vice president. He was elected to a full six-year term in 2022.
Time Magazine
4 hours ago
- Time Magazine
Trump's Public Rebuke of Tulsi Gabbard's Statement on Iran
President Donald Trump has said that his Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, was "wrong" to say that Iran is not currently building a nuclear weapon. When asked about the claims made by his intelligence community, specifically Gabbard, Trump was clear, telling reporters on Friday: 'She's wrong.' In March, Gabbard testified in front of Congress that the intelligence community [IC] 'continues to assess that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon, and Supreme Leader [Ali] Khamenei has not authorized the nuclear weapons program that he suspended in 2003. The IC continues to monitor, closely, if Tehran decides to reauthorize its nuclear weapons program." The testimony has resurfaced as Trump weighs his options regarding a potential U.S. involvement in the Israel-Iran conflict, as the Middle Eastern countries trade deadly missiles after Israel launched an operation against Iranian military targets and nuclear facilities on June 13. Read More: Iran Issues New Grave Warning, Says U.S. Involvement in Israel Conflict Would Be 'Very Dangerous for Everybody' Trump's latest comments echo those he made to reporters on Air Force One on June 17, when he said he did not 'care' about what Gabbard had testified earlier in the year. 'I don't care what she said, I think they were very close to having one,' Trump said of his belief that Iran was inching towards having a nuclear weapon. Central to Trump's stance regarding Israel's initial assault on Iran is his belief that Iran has been moving closer to nuclear capability. He has plainly said that 'Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon.' Trump's stance, bolstered by a May 31 International Atomic Energy Agency report (that stated Iran had accumulated roughly 120 kg of uranium enriched to 60%, dangerously close to weapons-grade levels of 90%), undermines previous reports by U.S. intelligence, including that of Gabbard, a former Democrat. Read More: How Netanyahu Pushed Trump Toward War In response to Trump's new assertion that she was 'wrong' in her previous testimony, Gabbard took to social media on Friday, stating that her words had been taken out of context by "dishonest media." Gabbard maintains that she and Trump are on the same page. "The dishonest media is intentionally taking my testimony out of context and spreading fake news as a way to manufacture division," Gabbard said. "America has intelligence that Iran is at the point that it can produce a nuclear weapon within weeks to months, if they decide to finalize the assembly. President Trump has been clear that can't happen, and I agree." Attached to the post was a longer video of her testimony, which also included her claims that 'Iran's enriched uranium stockpile is at its highest levels and is unprecedented for a state without nuclear weapons.' Read More: The 5 Groups Hoping to Sway Trump on Iran Trump reportedly still has 'full confidence' in his intelligence team, according to White House communications director Steven Cheung, but the open disagreements between Trump and members of his Administration signal splinters over the Israel-Iran conflict. The President is facing questions from both within and outside the Republican party, as he weighs up his options during a self-imposed two-week deadline about whether the U.S. will intervene, despite him campaigning on staying out of wars overseas. Republican lawmakers Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia and Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky have both openly disapproved of any potential U.S. military intervention. Read More: Breaking Down the Feud Between Trump and Tucker Carlson Amid Divide Over Israel-Iran Conflict Meanwhile, former Fox News host Tucker Carlson—a long-time ally of Trump, who even hit the campaign trail with him in 2024—has also spoken out against any U.S. involvement in the Israel-Iran conflict. Carlson's initial comments prompted a blistering response from Trump, and their disagreement soon took a personal turn as the feud escalated. While the situation appears to have since settled—Trump said Carlson called and apologized for his 'strong' words—it's clear that the subject of the Israel-Iran conflict and how the U.S. should move forward is proving to be a divisive one.
