PHOENIX — Legislation to allow employers to pay some young people less than the voter-mandated minimum wage cleared a crucial hurdle Thursday after its sponsor agreed it would not be tied to whether the worker was in school.
HB 2523 still would spell out that part-time employees who are younger than 22 would not be subject to the current requirement that they be paid $11 an hour. Instead, they could be paid as little as $7.25, which is the federal minimum.
But gone will be the provision sought by sponsor Rep. Travis Grantham, R-Gilbert, that the sub-minimum wage would apply only to those who are full-time students.
Sen. Tyler Pace, R-Mesa, the deciding vote on the Senate Commerce Committee, said that verbiage was unacceptable. In essence, he said, it would create a situation where someone actually could earn more by quitting school.
“I do not want to de-incentivize kids to try to better their life,” he said.
In fact, Grantham told Capitol Media Services that, at Pace’s behest, he will make an even bigger change: The sub-minimum wage would apply only to those who are not supporting themselves and their families.
That was enough to get Pace’s vote and have the measure clear the Commerce Committee on a 4-3 vote. It now goes to the full Senate. A version of the bill has already been approved by the House.
Thursday’s vote came after the Republicans who dominate the committee opted to ignore a legal memo prepared by Ken Behringer, general counsel of the nonpartisan Legislative Council, declaring that HB 2523 runs afoul of the state minimum-wage proposal approved by voters in 2016.
He wrote that the plain language of that measure applies to all employees, regardless of age. And that, Behringer said, means it is subject to a constitutional provision which forbids lawmakers from tinkering with anything voters have approved.
Grantham dismissed that memo, saying he has contrary advice from a House staff attorney.
The fight is over Proposition 206, which took the state minimum wage from $8.05 an hour at the time to the current $11. It is set to go to $12 next year, with future increases tied to inflation.
Despite opposition from the business community, it was approved by voters 58-42 percent.
Grantham said the problem is that an $11 minimum wage means that many employers can no longer afford to hire young people for basic jobs. In essence, he said, these inexperienced workers are being priced out of jobs.
Sen. J.D. Mesnard, R-Chandler, agreed.
“I’m voting for this bill because I want younger people to have more opportunities,” he said.
But Sen. Sean Bowie, D-Phoenix, said that’s telling only part of the story.
He said what also needs to be considered is what happens to a company that has a 23-year-old full-time worker, perhaps a new college graduate, who is earning the $11 minimum.
“If a business can hire two young people ... to work 20 hours a week to make up for that 40 hours, I could see a situation where that 23-year-old would lose their job,” Bowie said.
But a key sticking point for some foes has been the provision that says a full-time student working a part-time job could be paid $7.25 an hour even though someone the same age at that same job who is not in school would have to be paid $11.
Pace, however, said nothing in the measure requires employers to pay less than they do now.
Pace said an amendment being crafted, which would be added when the bill reaches the Senate floor, would say the exception to the state-mandated minimum wage would apply only to “those who are dependent, without children, who are not raising their own family, who are not heads of household,” allowing them to get an entry-level job.
Grantham told Capitol Media Services after the hearing that, philosophically, he disagrees with the idea of removing the link to a sub-minimum wage to whether someone is in school. But he said he promised Pace, whose vote he needed to get the bill out of committee, that he would support language limiting the applicability of that $7.25 minimum wage “to someone who is truly that single, young individual looking for that first part-time job.”
All that, however, still leaves the question of whether the legislation is constitutional.
