Opposition Constructive- Minimum Wage Increase With Tenure

Opposition Constructive

Minimum Wage Increase with Tenure

The case stated that it would propose we raise the minimum wage based on tenure of the employee.  I don’t believe this has merit.  We should not reward an employee based solely on how long they have worked.  I have had the opportunity to manage employees for more than 15 years and I can give personal account that often my best employees, the ones deserving of an increase, are not the ones that have been with the company the longest.  I don’t think you can make a generalized statement that “all employees who work more than 2 years are good.  Therefore, based on time worked, they are worth a $1.50 more per hour.”

It also stated in the case that an increase in the minimum wage would hurt small business. According to a national scientific opinion poll conducted for Small Business Majority, small business owners widely agree our federal minimum wage should increase so that small business employees and consumers have more money in their pockets. More than two-thirds of small business owners support increasing our federal minimum wage—up from the $7.25 an hour and adjusting it yearly to keep pace with inflation.  A sweeping 85% of small business owners surveyed do not pay any of their employees the federal minimum wage of $7.25.

There is a  minimum wage exception already in place for young employees.  The case addressed age 16 stating the expectation would be to pay them the increased minimum wage. Currently, according to the Federal Department of Labor, an employer is not required to pay greater than $4.25 for the first 90 days of employment to an employee under the age of 20. This law already addresses the young employee.

It was introduced in the first constructive that 34 percent of 18-24 year old still live with their parents. Should we look at why?  A recent article in the Boston Globe quoted a study that showed 85 percent of this age group is in school or working — albeit many in low-wage jobs. Instead of the Generation Y stereotype of “The New American Idle” perhaps we should consider paying a decent wage. This will give them a better chance of being self-sufficient while getting an education. 

The case stated that about half  of the total minimum wage workforce are workers under the age of 25.  I maintain that leaves about 50 percent of the total minimum wage workforce who are folks trying to support a family.  If you annualize the current $7.25 per hour, that’s $15,080.00 per year.  That’s just not enough to live on. It would be very difficult without some type of assistance.

Last fall there was a story in Forbes Magazine about a food drive at Walmart.  The appalling fact was that the drive was for the actual employee’s themselves. There were food donation bins set up in the break room of the Canton, Ohio store.  These employees are paid so poorly that they need donations to even have Thanksgiving dinner .

 The case based a portion of the proposal on the data reported regarding the cost to replace an employee.  It stated it is about $5,505.00 based on a poll done by Sasha Corporation.  I did more research on the Chron.com link he had quoted relating to the Sasha Corporation.  There was no direct link to Sasha listed in the article.  I tried numerous times to vet this source and am not confident of the reliability.  The only site I could find had a pdf.file with the report. Also, all members of the board listed for this company are the same person. I looked for some concrete data regarding this topic.  I was unable to find a trustworthy source related specifically to the cost of training a new hire who earns minimum wage.

The case proposed that if the minimum wage were tiered it would deter employers from unethical turnover of employees.  I propose it could be just the opposite. I called a small business owner who runs a company that assists in construction.  He has had anywhere from 10-50 employees over the past 5 years depending on the rate of construction in the St. George area.  I pitched the  tiered minimum wage proposal that was pitched to us last week.  After he thought about it for a few minutes he shared a concern.  He stated that he has a myriad of jobs within his company, some that can be taught proficiently in less than a week.  These jobs are very basic and would fit the typical minimum wage criteria.  He said that if he were going to be required to increase someone by $1.50 at two years based only on longevity, he would consider firing them and hiring new employees at the lower rate.  I can see how this could be a possibility in menial jobs. This could open Pandora’s box with labor laws and employee law suits.

According to the Labor Department ,  there are Twenty-one states and D.C. that have a minimum wage higher than the federal minimum wage of $7.25. That means that 42 percent of the States are independently managing payments higher than the  minimum wage. 

An article in  The Associated Press states, "In the 13 states that boosted their minimums at the beginning of the year, the number of jobs grew an average of 0.85 percent from January through June. The average for the other 37 states was 0.61 percent. Nine of the 13 states increased their minimum wages automatically in line with inflation: Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Missouri, Montana, Ohio, Oregon, Vermont and Washington. Four more states — Connecticut, New Jersey, New York and Rhode Island — approved legislation mandating the increases.” 

In conclusion, I believe the case is too generalized.  We can’t assume “longer tenured employees will help businesses to be more efficient”. We can’t increase someone’s pay based solely on longevity and not consider their performance. Most importantly, heads of household cannot sustain a family on $17,160 for two years while waiting for an increase.