Lynch Vetoes Elimination of State Minimum Wage

HB 133 repeals the New Hampshire minimum wage law, which has been on the books since 1949.

One line that the dishonest GOP spin doctors are using is, “A state minimum wage creates the possibility of having a state standard higher than the federal minimum wage, and that would kill jobs.” This is dishonest because the GOP majority in the US Congress has voted to eliminate the federal minimum wage, too.

Republicans simply want to ensure that bosses can cut wages as low as possible.

I’m interested in Lynch’s veto strategy. This bill passed the House by 239-106, the Senate by 19-5. That means the Republicans may have enough votes to override the veto.

But, among other things, this forces O’Brien to use up some chits on another vote.

, , ,

16 Responses to Lynch Vetoes Elimination of State Minimum Wage

  1. TimothyHorrigan June 10, 2011 at 3:24 am #

    The Republicans can’t override the HB133 veto until they put it on the Speaker’s agenda and vote on it. They is a dumbfoundingly obvious point, but it is worth making in light of recent events.

    Interestingly, the HB133 veto message made it into the very next calendar.  The HB474 veto message was held back a week.

  2. Dean Barker June 10, 2011 at 3:27 am #

    states’ rights?

    One day it’s pro-nullification, the next it’s stick with the Feds all the way.

    Men of high constitutional principles they are.

    And thus concludes another chapter of “The Constitution Means Whatever I Want It To Mean for the Purposes of My Radical Right-Wing Agenda.”

    • JonnyBBad June 10, 2011 at 8:18 am #
    • dooper June 10, 2011 at 8:22 am #

      ..with how the “liberty” crowd are all in favor of limited government and local control when it benefits the employer, but when the benefit of those ideals go in favor of workers, it’s government mandates all the way, just like Forsythe’s amendment to SB 196 that would have the legislature mandating terms and conditions of teacher layoffs and override locally negotiated binding arbitration clauses. See also HB 474.

      • hannah June 10, 2011 at 4:58 pm #

        workers who actually produce value.  In a sense, employers are middlemen, between the capital assets and the labor.  Whether the employer adds value is debatable.  That the commercial man adds no value in the age of easy access to information and rapid transport seems obvious, once you think about it. “Free enterprise” is the metier of the commercial person who inserts himself into a transaction and pries out profit for himself. The market is the source of free, effortless income. Of course there’s resistance to any change in that process. That the middleman should be accountable for the quality of what he’s peddling violates his dearest expectations.

        In the two-sided system of accounting for our economy, there’s no column for the commercial class — parasites if ever there were such. The Chamber of Commerce is right to be concerned.  The prospect of a transaction tax levied against the middlemen must be terrifying.

  3. Dean Barker June 10, 2011 at 3:46 am #

    Sununu Junior and Gregg voted to abolish the federal minimum wage, so really this is a joint effort by GOPers to play Abolition Hot Potato with yet another safety net.

  4. dooper June 10, 2011 at 8:29 am #

    I’m interested to see how the Governor plays this one out.

    Regardless of how the veto goes, minimum wage remains at $7.25 for the short-term – so what’s the endgame?

    • Kathy Sullivan 2 June 10, 2011 at 3:27 pm #
    • TimothyHorrigan June 10, 2011 at 3:59 pm #

      Will Infantine, a Republican (of the pre-O’Brien school) from Manchester, introduced HB-494-FN-A, “relative to tipped employees who deal card and table games at games of chance venues.”  The purpose of this bill is to lower the minimum wage of poker dealers, etc. to the level currently enjoyed by waiters and hotel maids.  Ironically, if passed, it also brings back the state minimum wage.

      The bill has been retained in committee.  The Republican majority has been placed in a quandary.  If they don’t pass HB-494, a small but growing group of working-class families would make more money, which is (from the Republicans’ perspective) not desirable at all.  If they do pass it, they reinstate the minimum wage, which effectively means every worker makes a little more money, which is even more undesirable.

      I haven’t followed this bill that closely, but I did pop in on a hearing earlier this week, where the Republicans were talking earnestly about how it would be beneficial for a gaming establishments to only pay their table-game dealers $3.25/hour.  I was thinking, do you really want a subminimum wage worker in a complicated job (with plenty of scope for pulling scams) where he or she is facing the public and handling huge sums of money?

  5. SethCohn June 10, 2011 at 11:13 pm #

    This legislation [is] … effectively ceding state control and authority to the federal government.

         This legislation would make New Hampshire … completely defer to the federal government …  I do not support turning over complete authority to the federal government to determine what makes sense for our citizens or our businesses.

         There is no need to … cede our state authority to the federal government.  Therefore I am vetoing this legislation.

    Governor Lynch is right… and I plan on quoting him often on plenty of other issues where his statement makes perfect sense.

    • FrankLloydMike June 13, 2011 at 2:51 am #

      Gov. Lynch is not saying that New Hampshire should have the power to ignore or supersede the federal minimum wage law; he is saying that the state should maintain the power to mandate a higher minimum wage than the federal law when the legislature sees fit to do so.  This makes perfect sense given the state’s high cost-of-living, and understands that like so many things, the federal minimum is precisely that.  He is by no means saying–and you know this–that the federal government does not have a role in setting a minimum standard.

    • elwood June 13, 2011 at 2:57 am #

      Seth  voted to eliminate the state minimum wage.

    • Douglas E. Lindner June 13, 2011 at 8:46 pm #

      A legislator should know the difference between nullification and minimum standard preemption.

  6. susanthe June 11, 2011 at 12:02 am #

    that the O’Brien junta is interested in overturning every bill passed during the Democrat’s tenure in control of the state house, whether it makes any sense or not to do so. It’s petty, vindictive, and small; but those are some of the defining characteristics of this Teabaglican legislature.  

  7. tchair June 12, 2011 at 1:58 am #

    Wonder what they think a good wage will be?

    • GreyMike June 13, 2011 at 2:57 am #

Site maintenance and hosting by Hoeferweb