Missouri bill proposes lower minimum wage for teens
Per the bill, teens would make 75 percent of state minimum wage.
Published Feb. 23, 2010
-
Freshman Robert Partyka passes a finished plate to a co-worker during his shift Sunday at Noodles and Company. If a bill, proposed by Sen. Tom Dempsey, R-St. Charles, passes through the Missouri Senate, state minimum wage for teenagers could be cut up to 25 percent.
-
Every two weeks, freshman Robert Partyka gets his paycheck from his part-time job at Noodles and Company. With a $7.49 per hour wage, 24 cents greater than Missouri's minimum wage, Partyka's checks average between $200 and $250.
But a bill in the Missouri Senate, sponsored by Sen. Tom Dempsey, R-St. Charles, would lower the minimum wage for teenage employees like 18-year-old Partyka. Although the bill is still in the Small Business, Insurance and Industry Committee, its passing would lower the minimum wage for teenage workers to 75 percent of the state minimum wage as long as the state minimum wage is not lower than the federal wage.
It would be effective Aug. 28 and expire three years later. Rep. Mike Parson, R-Bolivar, proposed a similar bill in the House. If the bill went into effect today, the minimum wage for those younger than 20 would be about $5.44 per hour. Employers would not be able to displace their workers to hire teens at the lower wage, according to the bill.
After several attempts, Dempsey and Parson could not be reached for comment.
Partyka's parents cover his tuition and room and board, but he works so he can pay for food and social expenses. Two years ago, his mom was laid off and she hasn't been able to find work since.
"We're scraping for college," Partyka said.
Don Laird, vice president of the Columbia Chamber of Commerce, said though Columbia is full of student workers, there are other hospitals and law firms less dependent on students.
"We are certainly a college-oriented community, but you have to remember, there are a lot of jobs not tied to college," he said.
As minimum wage increases, Laird said, businesses might have to make the decision to cut jobs.
"I would hope that it (the bill) would give more students jobs and opportunities," he said. "I don't know if it would support that."
The Missouri Budget Project, a low-income advocacy group that aims to improve economic conditions in Missouri, opposes the bill.
"We're concerned that there are a number of people over the age of 20 who depend on these jobs for their full-time employment," said Ruth Ehresman, director of health and budget policy at the organization. "We don't want to undermine the employment of adults."
The Missouri Department of Labor and Industrial Relations does not support Dempsey's bill.
"We definitely support the current law in place," said department spokeswoman Amy Susán about the 2006 proposition, which Missouri voters passed with 76 percent.
This law raised the state minimum wage to $6.50 per hour or equal to the federal minimum wage, whichever is higher.
Looking to the future, Partyka knows that a lower minimum wage would change his plans.
"If I want to live on my own, which I plan to do, I couldn't do it on $5.45," he said. "I would have to pick up a lot more hours. I'd probably have to take less credits."
Partyka, from Gaithersburg, Md., is trying to earn the suggested income of $2,000 to be considered by MU for in-state residency and allowing him to pay in-state tuition. Paying in-state tuition would save Partyka more than $10,000.
As for his incentive to work at a lower minimum wage, "I would need a job, but it wouldn't be worth it," he said.
Comments (9)
11:29 p.m., Feb. 23, 2010
melissa pamperien said:
If someone is old enough to work they should be paid the same amount as any one else. This bill will only subject some teens to being taken advantage of and remember not everyone is born with a silver spoon in their mouth. Most of us need to work our way through college. Also don't act like employers won't get rid of older workers so they can pay a younger wage earner less. It will happen. This is stupid.
12:49 p.m., Feb. 24, 2010
G Cole said:
I don't know what your issue with regulation and the establishment of the minimum wage is, Mister Bylund, but there is a reason that there are classes to take after introductory economics - we do not live in the simple and ideal marketplace that your beliefs stem from. It is rather unlikely (to say the least) that minimum wage laws will be reduced or eliminated in the near future - irregardless of the political slant of a student-run newspaper - and it is simply fallacious to assume that lowering the wages of young workers will do anything to help people who are unable to get jobs due to state and federally mandated minimum wages. What it will do is undermine a demographic that, by and large, already suffers from low job security and reimbursement rates that are very low relative to financial burden, even after state and federal financial aid come into play. You say that this is a piece of "story-telling based on a single individual's financial situation", as though Mister Partyka is a member of a small and unique group. This isn't nearly the case - every out of state student attending Mizzou next year will already be facing rising tuition year without any prospect of relief. This bill would not only make the lives of those students - whose rising tuitions are offsetting the financial burden that would otherwise be placed on in-state students - much more difficult by reducing their income while increasing the hours they need to invest in order to qualify for residency, but it would also give those students one of the lowest - if not THE lowest - minimum hourly wage rates in America. Hopefully, this misguided attempt at job creation will die in committee and we won't need to examine the horrific consequences that scenario would have for the competitiveness of secondary education in Missouri - let alone for the adults that stand to have their employment compromised as a result of the same. -G.C.
1:23 p.m., Feb. 24, 2010
G Cole said:
Also, for what it's worth, the numbers presented in the second and third paragraph of this article seem a bit questionable. If you'll consult: http://www.senate.mo.gov/10info/pdf-bill/intro/SB875.pdf http://www.dol.gov/whd/regs/compliance/whdfs32.pdf
7:49 a.m., Feb. 25, 2010
Per Bylund said:
G Cole seems to be the common wannabe political talking head: lots of opinions without supplying others with reasons for those opinions - and refusing to actually address the issues brought up. Instead, G Cole interprets as narrowly as s/he can to make it easier to eat his/her straw men. I did not suggest the author take a couple of introductory courses in economics because I have only taken introductory courses. On the contrary, I'm pretty well versed in economics (a simple Google search would give you that piece of info). However, introductory economics courses should give you a sense of economic analysis, which is totally missing from this article. I'm not referring to using overly simplistic models and apply them on the real world, but to gain understanding for fundamental laws of economics. The former can easily be criticized, the latter cannot (unless one relies on ignorance). In fact, the very purpose of my previous comment was to point to the fact that this article is written in direct conflict with laws of economics. With that in mind, maybe the story-telling phrase quoted by G Cole makes more sense. (It would of course make even more sense if G Cole had quoted the following sentence, which clarifies the phrase.) I guess I shouldn't be upset that an ignoramus whole-heartedly supports the ignorance in an article. I also should not be upset that, at the same time, sound logic and scientific knowledge is readily thrown out of the window.
noon, March 2, 2010
krystal said:
ugh. all i can think is that not every teenager gets help with money, i support myself at the age of 19 And lowering wages just because of age and not effort is not at all fair...
11:15 a.m., April 10, 2010
Craig said:
I personally hope that this bill doesn't go thought. I myself am a 17 year old with two jobs and pay for everything that I want, this includes my car, phone, ect. I am also trying to save for college so I wouldn't have to take out loans and go into debt, much. If this bill went through, then I feel, I would have a more difficult time doing this and I think that employers WOULD hire teens over adults because it would cost them less.
8:27 a.m., Oct. 25, 2010
shane lawson said:
I personally hope that this is merely a thought and is not actually gone through with. I am currently looking for a job and i was hoping to look forward to INCREASED minimum wage soon rather than this. I fear my financial future may be at stake were this to go through
11:26 a.m., April 17, 2011
steve martin said:
Lawmakers are always trying to pass bills for raises for themselves,but when it comes to wages for not only our younger workforce, but for the workforce in general they really don't understand or don't really care how hard it is to make a living in todays economy. If lawmakers really wanted to work for the people they would take a real close look at the fuel prices and it's effect on the workforce. I really don't know how people that are making anyless than $15.00 per hour can make ends meat in todays economy.
11:06 a.m., Feb. 23, 2010
Per Bylund said:
May I suggest the author of this article take a couple of classes in introductory economics? This article is not the product of journalism; it is but empathy-building story-telling based on a single individual's financial situation. What about all those unable to get jobs thanks to the minimum wage laws? They certainly cannot pay tuition _at all_.