Michigan Republicans Just Repealed a Minimum Wage Increase During a Lame-Duck Session

They also rolled back paid sick leave before a Democrat becomes governor in January.

On Monday, Danielle Atkinson, center, co-chair of MI Time to Care, announced the ballot committee's plan to organize a 2020 paid sick leave initiative.AP Photo/David Eggert

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

Late this summer, it seemed almost inevitable that Michigan would be one of a handful of states this election cycle to pass ballot initiatives to increase the minimum wage and require paid sick leave. Both proposals received more than the required number of signatures to get on the ballot. But in early September, the state Legislature preempted the ballot measures and adopted the proposals. What would have seemed like a win for organizers quickly brought concern. Advocates feared that the Republican-controlled state Legislature had only made the decision so it could gut those new laws in the lame-duck session following the election.

And they were right. With just weeks before their majority dwindles in the state’s House and Senate and Michigan’s Republican Gov. Rick Snyder is replaced by Democrat Gretchen Whitmer, the GOP-stacked Legislature is rushing to rewrite the laws it previously adopted. Less than a week after a set of weakened versions of the minimum wage and paid sick leave laws passed the Senate, the House passed them late Tuesday evening as protests from the gallery echoed through the chamber. The bills now just await Snyder’s signature.

“We’re incredibly disappointed in the Legislature,” Danielle Atkinson, co-chair of MI Time to Care, the group behind the paid sick leave ballot initiative, tells Mother Jones. “The atrocity of the lame duck is that people who are not in office in January are making decisions that will make an impact for decades.”

The original paid sick leave proposal adopted by the state Legislature before the election would have given employees an hour of paid sick leave for every 30 hours worked from their start date, with leave capped at 72 hours a year. Under the new bill from the lame-duck session, workers are only guaranteed 36 hours of all forms of paid leave. The bill also went from covering all Michiganders to excluding 55 percent of the state’s workers, according to the Michigan League for Public Policy. “It’s really not an earned sick time bill,” says Atkinson. “It’s a poor imitation of one.”

The same can be said about the rewriting of a proposal to raise the minimum wage. In the original proposal, the minimum wage would have been raised to $12 an hour by 2020, then indexed to costs of living increases. It also included a tipped minimum wage, which has been struck from the new bill. Now, non-tipped workers will only be guaranteed a $12 per hour minimum wage by 2030. In 2018, the living wage required to meet basic needs, such as food and rent, in Michigan for a working parent is already over $23 an hour.

The change to minimum wage laws will leave Michiganders like Tracy Pease, a One Fair Wage Michigan organizer who has spent the last 30 years working as a waitress, in the lurch. Pease, who testified in front of the state Senate last week, says her salary has only gone up $1 an hour over those three decades. “When you go into that restaurant, you are obligated to pay your food bill. You are not obligated to tip me,” she told lawmakers. “But I’m obligated to pay my rent. I’m obligated to pay [for electricity]. I would like to know why I’m only worth $3.53 an hour.”

While the lame-duck behavior didn’t come as a huge surprise, the swiftness with which the bills were pushed through still earned the ire of Democrats and advocates. “We may not have agreement exactly, but I’d be willing to compromise. They chose to go this route,” said Democratic Senate Minority Leader Jim Ananich. “They want to ram things through in the dark of night, eleventh hour, right before session ends. I think that’s the wrong approach.”

Peter Ruark, a senior policy analyst at the Michigan League for Public Policy who testified on the paid sick leave legislation in front of the Senate last Wednesday, said this is the worst lame-duck behavior the state has seen in years. “When I stepped up to the microphone to testify, I was not made aware fully of the changes, and had just learned minutes before that they made eligibility for the bill confirm with [the Family and Medical Leave Act] instead of covering all full-time and part-time workers,” Ruark tells Mother Jones.

Michigan has a history of pushing through anti-worker legislation during lame-duck sessions. In 2012, the outgoing Republican Legislature passed three right-to-work bills banning unions from collecting money from non-members. Despite having previously said right-to-work was “not an appropriate subject” for the Legislature and was not on his agenda, Snyder signed the bills into law.

Minimum wage and paid medical leave protections haven’t been the only laws Republicans have attacked this year—Republican lawmakers have also worked to roll back a new law that would allow for Election Day voter registration.

Mark Brewer, former Michigan Democratic Party chairman and an attorney for the committees that circulated the sick leave and minimum wage initiatives, says Michigan One Fair Wage intends to sue over the legislation. Michigan One Fair Wage is also planning on trying to get its initiatives on the 2020 ballot. Governor-elect Gretchen Whitmer has expressed support of both ballot initiatives, and previously criticized Republicans for blocking a ballot vote.

“Gutting this proposal after adopting it is a cynical ploy to undermine the will of the 400,000 Michiganders who signed the One Fair Wage petition to support increasing the minimum wage,” Alicia Renee Farris, chair of Michigan One Fair Wage’s steering committee, told news station WLIX. “We followed the laws and rules of the state and collected enough signatures, only to have lawmakers adopt the proposal with the aim of gutting it in lame duck. This illegal move subverts the democratic process and is just plain wrong.”

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate