What right is being enforced/protected by the state of Alabama's recent law barring cities and towns from increasing minimum wage?

the right of companies to shamelessly exploit their workers.

@ragingloli is correct.
The “lawmakers” in Alabama – and in most of the rest of the U.S. – are paid-off corporate shills.

The premise they appeal to is “states’ rights” but that is supposed to be exercised to grant that state’s citizens some benefit that the federal law doesn’t cover or doesn’t address the same way.
In these cases the states are acting only for the benefit of the elected officials’ biggest campaign donors$.

Once again the people willing to exercise their power to force others to have less than they need so that they can have more than they need. We need to feel the bern!

Interesting. I didn’t know that was the state law in AL. Maybe it is in other states too? I guess someone would need to challenge it in the courts if they want it changed.

If I lived in Alabama, it would be a message to me that it’s time to move.

@ibstubro You might want to suggest that the mods move this q to Social, because all of the “non specific” comments will be modded off.

@dabbler, exactly. The backers of these laws always throw a fit if the Ferderal Government dictates a requirement on their citizens. Always claiming “States Rights”. They certainly don’t see it as the same thing when they enforce a State requirement on a city or individual. These cities should take a play from the neocon playbook, and simply ignore the state ruling, at least for a short time to make a point.

@Inara27 @dabbler AL as far as we know is following federal law. What federal law prevents the state from doing it?

@JLeslie Federal law is our nations laws and will always trump state laws. State laws are permitted to expand Federal laws but not undercut them. The slippery slope is how far is the Fed willing to go to enforce Federal law and usurp a States intentions for breaking rank by passing laws that defy Federal law such as the current legalization of marijuana. Federal law states possession and use of pot is illegal yet some states have passed their own laws that say it is legal and in a sense thumbing their nose at Federal law and if you haven’t already noticed, the Fed has done nothing to enforce their own rule of law of pot being illegal.

As in this case of min wage in Alabama…. Alabama is the 4th poorest state in the nation and at a minimum….any increase in minimum wage will surely mean loss of precious jobs and then a higher cost of living many can ill afford. Bernie would say ”just pay them more and then they can afford these increased costs”. Perhaps, but businesses may not be able to afford this higher overhead and again could mean jobs and state income tax lost.

This is a very complex subject that goes way beyond the talking points on the campaign trail.

@Cruiser I know federal law trumps state law, how is AL not following the federal law in this case? They are paying the federal minimum. Is there a federal law saying any municipality can decide what their minimum wage will be and the state cannot nix it?

It’s not protecting any right, of course. In fact, it is restricting the rights of both municipal governments and their people.

@JLeslie Nobody said that Alabama isn’t following federal law. They might be going against the intent of the law, though.

@JLeslie Alabama has passed a law that prevents cities and towns within the state from passing local laws that would increase their minimum wage. This is injuring the intent and rule of Federal law that permits expansion of Federal laws.

Who would be the one to challenge that law? A citizen? A municipality?

@Uberwench I think what @Inara27 wrote implies it: The backers of these laws always throw a fit if the Ferderal Government dictates a requirement on their citizens. Always claiming “States Rights”.

Is the fed saying anything right now about AL? AL is paying the federal minimum.

@Cruiser Does it? The federal minimum wage law is a minimum that must be followed. Does the federal law protect municipalities against a state imposing other restrictions on the minimum?

@JLeslie I don’t think that implies it. What @Inara27 is talking about is hypocrisy: the states get mad when the federal government oversteps its bounds, but they are perfectly happy to overstep their own bounds.

@jca Any of the affected municipalities would be in the best position to challenge the law, though a citizen might be able to demonstrate standing if they could convincingly show how the law had affected their wages.

I understand what @Cruiser is saying, but on the other hand if there are more citizens who can’t pay their bills (the “working poor”), they’re going to continue to need social services like Medicaid, food stamps, housing, etc. When there are more people prospering economically, the economy is boosted by people shopping, people travelling, people eating in restaurants, etc.

There is no ‘Right’ involved here. The state simply limits the counties and municipalities from dictating their own minimum wage. Just like federal law supersedes state law, state law supersedes district law. All is right with the universe. Whether they should allow raising the minimum wage is an economic issue that many are arguing. Whether they are right or wrong the purpose is to keep Alabama’s economy from deteriorating further.

@Uberwrench The hypocrisy. Yeah, definitely some hypocrisy. I think I read it too fast originally. Thanks.

The right that the rich keep getting richer at the expence of the poor.

For those of you – @Cruiser and @Jaxk in particular – who state categorically that “federal law trumps state law”, that is true or “should be” true only in the case of Constitutionally valid federal laws in areas where the feds have jurisdiction. That is, the federal government has the duty and obligation to create laws based on and limited by the wording of the Constitution and its various Amendments. Nothing in the U.S. Constitution explicitly gives the federal government dominion over wage rates paid outside of Federal employment. That federal minimum wage laws have in the past survived constitutional challenge in the Supreme Court (U.S. v. Darby, 312 US 100 – 1940) doesn’t mean that the Supreme Court was right. They’ve often been wrong in the past. I think they’re wrong about this, too.

I don’t know what the Alabama Constitution says.

Cities may pay their own workers above minimum wage, just like any other employer. You are missing the issue here. Look at Seattle right now; they are behaving like a union. Businesses need to pay as they see fit. Workers can go somewhere else if they choose. This is how the market works. In any given city or metro area, wages are regulated by the market….........the more you pay your workers, the better workers you can demand. Government needs to stay out of the market and the business of business. Minimum wage is simply the lowest allowable by law. Those wages are for entry jobs and in a perfect world, no one would be satisfied to stay in a minimum wage job forever. We don’t want them to; we want them to better themselves and move into higher paying jobs opening the minimum wage jobs to the younger newer members of the work force.

@MollyMcGuire I think your missing a few things. First, what I had missed, which is a valid point, is the hypocrisy. States, especially former confederate states, don’t want to be told by the fed what minimum wage they have to pay, but here is a state telling a municipality they can’t do what they want regarding wages.

Second, waiting for employers to pay a fair wage can be a long wait sometimes. I don’t mean all employers, I just mean plenty abuse their power. The lowest paid people are often the ones who can’t miss a day of work, or they can’t pay a bill. How do they tell an employer I want more money or I quit? This is partly why unions form, but when employees strike it is still usually a hardship on a lot of the employees, and in my opinion having to deal with a union is way worse than paying a reasonable wage to begin with.

The lowest wages rise when the government interferes or a union; otherwise, if companies can get away with it, many pay as low as they can go.

I’m reading Jaxk & Cruiser and trying to think of an economy that tanked due to rising wages. It is absolutely stupefying to suppose that you might boost the economy in the more depressed regions of country by limiting the minimum wage. I mean I have a hard time understanding why anyone with a nickels worth of talent or ambition would consider settling in such a place. There is a mindset in our former slave states that has this macabre romantic attatchment to poverty. It seems there are no limits when it comes to perpetuating this standard at the forefront of Southern “traditions”

@JLeslie A fair wage is what an employer will pay and an employee will work for. There is no fair wage as a matter for a whole city or state. The minimum wage is just that. Employers pay what they decide to pay. Employees don’t have to work there. That is a free market. It works if left to work. Your statement is silly in saying business cannot survive without unions or governments telling them what they must pay employees. Please! Business does not need meddling to help it set its wage scales. If it’s too low, they will not attract workers, or workers with the skills needed. Adjustments are then made. Unions and business are not needed to that to happen. There are other states with this same kind of preemption legislation…..............like Michigan. Confederate state? I don’t think so.

@MollyMcGuire MI is full of unions. They are the kings along with states like OH and NY and some others.

I’m talking about states rights vs. federal. The south hates the federal government. You know, all those liberals in the central government trying to tell them to allow abortions, biracial marriages, gay marriages, abolish segregation, etc. I’m not saying all people in the south are against those things, I’m only saying those states constantly talk about the horrible federal government in chorus in a way you don’t hear as consistently in other states unless you’re entrenched in a peer group of right wing Republicans.

The free market doesn’t take care of it well enough if there is a surplus of workers. People can be abused.

Regulations do not negate a free market. Minimum wage is one of those areas which, if left to the market, would sink to its lowest level if not regulated. That would impact the economy in many negative ways, not the least of which would be lower spending by those working for minimum wage, resulting in lower profits in the local economy, as well as less tax revenue for local governments. This would, in turn, result in lower funding for things like education, or paying off debt, or utility infrastructure. This would then lead to municipal insolvency, leading to a contractor managing the debt recovery…need I go on?

There’s much talk about ‘living wage’ these days, as opposed to minimum wage.

I think the federal government has taken on the role of setting a minimum wage, largely to protect poor and immigrants from exploitation. I was a necessary evil, @MollyMcGuire.

Now, I don’t have a problem with a municipality setting a living wage, if it wants too. If that wage is too high, it’s easier for the business’ to seek redress/make changes than it is for people getting by on little.
How else are places like NYC going to guarantee non-exploitative wages?

@CWOTUS What exactly in the unanimously decided holding of US v. Darby do you think the court got wrong? I’ve downloaded the decision and I’m about to read it, so I’d be interested in your take on it. If nothing else, @ibstubro makes a good point about how a minimum wage might fall within the scope of the Commerce Clause: it enables the federal government to prevent employers from violating the rights of immigrants and the poor (e.g., rights against exploitation). Federal rights cross borders, and economic rights are subject to even conservative readings of the Commerce Clause.

@MollyMcGuire We don’t have a free market. And even if we ever did, we never will again. Free markets require an absence of coercion, which isn’t possible in a world where all property is already owned and we have to trade our labor to even get a foot into the door of survival. It’s not like we can go west and claim a bit of land for ourselves anymore. We are born into a world where from the beginning you need to have money, and you can only get money from other people.

If I had a legitimate option other than accepting the wage an employer will offer, then maybe I would be free of coercion. But in the absence of real options, I am stuck. Even if I could acquire a farm, I would have to pay taxes on it. Which means I’d have to sell some of my crop. Which means I’d have to adhere to federal regulations on agriculture goods. I can’t just run a subsistence farm anymore, which means I am coerced to be part of society.

And since this society guarantees me rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as part of an exchange for this coercion, society has a duty to make sure that I can make enough money to survive so long as it is forcing me to live within its confines. And the best part about that argument is that it is consistent with the principles behind conservative political theory (Burke), libertarian political theory (Nozick), and liberal political theory (Rawls).

@Uberwench: Yes, but nobody is forcing anybody to live in Alabama.

@jca But it even costs money to move out of there.

@jca yeah but some are stuck there because they don’t have the money to move out.

@jca nobody is indeed forcing anybody to live in Alabama. They tried that for a while, but the Civil Rights Act put a stop to that nonsense. But the fact that no one can be compelled to remain only means that those recognizing the stupidity of this legislation have fled the place in numbers sufficient to guarantee ever more obtuse absurdity from Montgomery.

@jca Like the others have said, it’s not like everyone is in a position to just up and leave. But it wouldn’t matter if they could. The same response works for every place in the United States. And the underlying conditions I described apply to the whole world. The only real difference is that not every society guarantees me rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

@stanleybmanly You only need to take a look at my own state of Illinois for a good example of higher wages hurting an economy. Our economy is one of the the worst in the country and also leads in shedding jobs and near last in job growth especially in comparison to our neighbor states

Why would this be you might ask? Because Illinois minimum wage is a dollar higher than it’s neighbors and because of this, the exodus of companies and jobs from Illinois to it’s neighbors has been of Biblical proportions.

True, but there’s only one reason that Illinois has that dollar difference & that is that Chicago is the only place in the state that matters. And life in Chicago is EXPENSIVE. It’s a mistake to believe that the conservative urge nationwide to depress wages to Mississippi levels results in an influx of business. I mean consider the argument. Then take a look at places where poverty wages are the norm.

Yes, and we know what generous allowances people living in poverty are given for relocation, @jca. ~

@stanleybmanly Your point about Chicago is taken but the jobs lost in Chicago is more due to the 10% sales tax. That said the jobs we have lost were not in solely Chicago…they were mostly in the collar counties and down state areas where the $7.25 per hour was sustainable and competitive and the dollar increase in hourly wages is what then made the job forces in Illinois noncompetitive and forced many large companies to move next door and more than a few to Mexico.

No I understand. But just as in the state of New York, the population of one gigantic city drives the politics as well as the economic bus. Chicago is the reason your govenors so consistently go to jail.