Pushing the debate ahead to where it will affect more workers is where the debate needs to go.
What, you won’t give us $10.10? OK, we’ll take $12.
Now, we’re talkin’!
At a time when progressive positions are compromised before they are given a chance to help the economy, boost family prosperity and lessen growing inequities, minimum-wage proponents have drawn the line at an unusual place in the sand: ahead of the one before.
It’s a bold stroke when the House and Senate leaders are against any increase in the current minimum of $7.25 an hour. The national minimum wage has been stuck there since July 2009 — and in Iowa even longer, since the state minimum rose and stopped there in January 2008.
Seven-plus years later, inflation has put minimum-wage workers in Iowa behind where they were in 2007 and 2008.
In 2013, Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa and Congressman George Miller of California teamed up to promote $10.10, calling $7.25 “unconscionably low.” But it has not happened.
Last week, Senator Patty Murray of Washington and Congressman Bobby Scott of Virginia introduced legislation to raise the minimum to $12 by 2020, in five steps. It also would eliminate the $2.13 tipped wage and index the new minimum to inflation.
Here’s an Iowa fact sheet, and here are reports from the Economic Policy Institute and National Employment Law Project.
For some a $12 minimum wage will still sound too low. For some it will sound too high — which is why the debate retreated to $8.75 in Iowa this year, and that cannot even get a vote in the Iowa House.
Pushing the debate ahead to a place where it will affect more workers — 436,000 in Iowa, or 42 percent more than the 306,000 affected with a minimum at $10.10 — is where this needs to go. It may increase pressure to the point where we see more candidates taking a stand and votes taken in Washington and more state capitols.
Posted by Mike Owen, executive director of the Iowa Policy Project
The Iowa Policy Project is a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization. IPP is a 501(c)3 organization and contributions to IPP are tax-deductible as permitted by law.
Rules need adequate enforcement. DNR does not appear to have enough staff.
The Iowa Department of Natural Resources (DNR) is currently seeking public comments on proposed rule changes required by the Iowa Legislature that would bring Iowa’s requirements for concentrated animal feeding operations into agreement with federal regulations.
The changes would also satisfy the terms of a work plan signed by the DNR and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Rules need enforcement and the agency — by its own admission — has not maintained enough inspectors. Even the recent changes since the agency was reprimanded by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in 2012 have not replaced enough employees to get the number of inspectors back to the level that existed in 2004.
Originally in answer to U.S. EPA complaints, the department envisioned a 13 staff-person increase that would only bring numbers back to approximately the 2004 staffing levels — before the addition of many more confinement operations. However, the Governor and General Assembly did not even authorize this number.
Let me repeat, rules need adequate enforcement. DNR does not appear to have enough staff.
See this passage from a DNR 2011 report on manure on frozen and snow-covered ground:
“The scope and complexity of confinement program work increased disproportionately beginning with legislation in the late ’90s. With this, public awareness of environmental issues also grew, resulting in a significant increase in local demand for education, compliance assistance and compliance assurance. To address these needs, animal feeding operations field staffing gradually increased to a high of 23 by SFY 2004.* In SFY 2008, four staff people were shifted into a newly established open feedlots program. Then in the fall of 2009, as General Fund expenditures declined, confinement staffing was reduced again. This reduced staff numbers from 19 to 11.5. Further reductions leave the total of field staff for confinement work at 8.75 full time equivalents. This reduction means that the DNR will not be able to maintain an adequate level of compliance and enforcement activity in confinements.”**
*State Fiscal Year 2004
Posted by David Osterberg, IPP Founding Director