Go to the mobile version of this Web site.

Login | Contact Us | Site Map | Paid archives | Electronic edition | Subscription Questions | Extras

Home › News › Local News

Group of owners calls Amendment 42 unconstitutional

By David Milstead, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)

Published August 23, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.

Text size  

More Local News

More stories »

A group of rural restaurant owners is suing to declare the state's minimum wage unconstitutional, saying its inflation measure is unfairly high because it's tied to Denver, not their part of the state.

Voters in 2006 passed Amendment 42, which set the state's minimum wage above the federal level and provided for increases each year tied to inflation.

The plaintiffs' restaurants are in Pueblo, Gunnison, Yuma, Crested Butte, Salida, La Junta and Sedalia.

Comments

  • August 23, 2008

    2:44 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    jacka writes:

    Union controlled politics at their best have driven busienss costs for Colorado small business families through the roof.

    YES on 47, 49, and 54 to stop forced Union dues from influencing politics.

  • August 23, 2008

    4:15 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    SL10 writes:

    "The plaintiffs' restaurants are in Pueblo, Gunnison, Yuma, Crested Butte, Salida, La Junta and Sedalia."

    I guess these guys don't believe in a living wage?!?!?
    Keep the people payment poor, eh....

  • August 23, 2008

    4:37 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    mmannino writes:

    SL10,

    Why do you want to interfere with private contracts? Why should a business owner not be able to negotiate compensation with a potential employee?

    The concept of a living wage is a violation of private contracts. If the living wage (whatever that means) is above the market clearing price for labor, countering actions will occur. Investment in affected industries will be lower, business failures will occur, prices will increase, employment levels will decrease, and demand will decrease. It is not difficult to understand side effects from placing an artificial floor on prices.

    Practically speaking, I wonder if you have every contemplated running a small business such as a restaurant. The competition is fierce, demand uncertainty is high, and complexity of operations is high. These businesses are very sensitive to economic conditions.

    You are advocating welfare. Living wages are disguised welfare. The problem is not the wages. The problem is the marginal value of the labor. Some labor receives low rates because labor skills are common, profit margins are low, and competition for positions are strong. Living wage ordinances do not change the basic nature of marginal value of labor. Supporters of living wage ordinances are trying to increase welfare benefits without welfare programs and increased taxes.

  • August 23, 2008

    4:54 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Sundog writes:

    Laws cannot change the fundamental operative free market dynamic. If the wages are made to increase (i.e., the cost of doing business), then the number of employees kept on the payroll will decrease, and/or the price of the service or product will increase, passing along the cost to all of us. Who benefits then? Where do these clowns think the money comes from? Keep it up, and eventually the business simply closes down, leaving all of the employees in the lurch, but hey, it looks good politically, of course... at first blush.

  • August 23, 2008

    5:27 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    happymike44 writes:

    What is wrong with omeone getting a little more in their paycheck.
    These restaurant owners make a profit and can afford it.
    So they can't go to the spa and golf course as much as they want to.
    Learn to do what the rest of us have to do economize.
    Try living on the wages some employers pay.
    This is also the reason many businesses hire illegals.
    then say it is because the government interfees in my business.
    If business owners had their way it would be five dollars a day.
    make them obey the laws and if they do hire a illegal.
    Close them down and if they do it again seize and sell their business at auction.
    Also seize all asset and sell them as well.
    Then it will keep an American employed and keep the illegals in their homeland where they belong.

  • August 23, 2008

    5:44 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    B1 writes:

    What is wrong with a business owner trying to stay in business? I guess having no jobs because a business shuts down after being forced to pay wages tied to Denver's economy is better than having some jobs that pay the going rate according to their locale.

  • August 23, 2008

    6:36 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    SL10 writes:

    Believe it or not many business are shutting down because of the stupid no smoking law than from an increase in wages paid. We smokers had supported the economy with our money whereas non smokers do not. Many employers have the money to pay a decent wage set by law. The federal wage law has worked for many years, eh. Employers just are greedy and overwork workers without fair comp. The law at least evens the playing field.

  • August 23, 2008

    6:42 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Sundog writes:

    If the business owner is not entitled to make money, then how can the employee be entitled to make money? You have it bass-ackwards, my friend.

  • August 23, 2008

    7:02 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    SL10 writes:

    Sundog, here is a thought for ya. How about business owners fight the no smoking law instead of Amendment 42? I mean we smokers would start spending our money again in a nice evening setting. I would always tip the waitress/or waiter at least $5 whereas a non smoker would maybe leave a dollar or two. Even if the wage was $2 an hour business would still shut down if people do not spend money. So, maybe the actually enemy here is the no smoking law not Amendment 42. Hmmm.

  • August 23, 2008

    8:34 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Sundog writes:

    SL10
    I've never been against a workable alternative to allowing smoking in businesses. I'm not a smoker, but was for several years. I remember smoking in hospital lounges alongside doctors, on trains, aircraft, you name it. My relatives smoked heavily when I was a kid. Smokers pay their own individual prices in that final tally that eventually comes to us all. All that notwithstanding, I'm all for keeping it a free country smoke-wise, as long as it doesn't detract from asthmatics, and others not compatible with breathing the stuff. True that we all pay higher insurance costs, but that's one cost of freedom. I don't like making smokers pariahs, but they have to be separated from non-smokers, period.

  • August 23, 2008

    8:36 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Sundog writes:

    Guess I should have said "against a workable alternative to forbidding smoking in businesses."
    I should read the comment proof more carefully, I suppose.

  • August 23, 2008

    11 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    SL10 writes:

    hajk, I understand basic economics quite well, partner. My statement on the federal minimum wage was only a comparative note. My issue with this article is that some resturant owners are crying foul because they must pay people more money. My guess here is that these business owners would rather pay nothing or next to nothing for people's hard work. I say BS here. If people are not paid a decent living wage than welfare picks up the tab. Which is better welfare or a better wage to live on?

  • August 24, 2008

    1:58 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    happymike44 writes:

    What is wrong with the average person making a decent wage.
    The average employer makes sure he is living above the poverty level.
    All I have to say is pay a decent wage and get a decent employee.
    My parents married and ran a business gave their employees healthcare.
    Now the average person gets crap nothing from their employer.
    Also lets deport the illegals and give america back to the american taxpayers.

  • August 24, 2008

    5:53 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    B1 writes:

    It is not a business owner's responsibility to make sure an employee makes a "decent" wage. A business owner must pay whatever it takes to keep the employee. Slavery has been abolished. If an employee does not find his/her wage to be "decent," it is up to him/her to find another job, work two jobs, etc.

    In any case, unless other laws (safety, etc) are being broken, government should butt out.

  • August 24, 2008

    8:34 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    navymom writes:

    happymike44, SL10 et al - My husband and I are small business owners. We pay our employees very well. Not one of my employees makes less than $60,000 a year, because in our industry that is what we have to pay to keep employees. In fact, one young man who has worked 6 weeks, has grossed just under $10,000. My husband and I last year had to forego some of our wages, because of customers not paying us. We made less than the average wage of one of our employees, yet worked more hours between the two of us and had more headaches. We had employees, who could have cared less about our equipment and many repairs because of it.

    Yes, we provide insurance of just ourselves because in order to provide the insurance for our employees 75% of eligible employees would have to enroll. Guess what, they don't because we will not pay 100% of the cost which for one employee and his family is $1500 per month because of his age. For our younger employee with a family, we would have to pay $700 per month.

    Sorry, but I cannot afford that on top of $4000 or better a month wages per employee, workers compensation insurance of $1500 per month, unemployment costs, 1/2 of social security and medicare, $3000 per month in business insurance, $7000+ per month in fuel costs, $20,000 per month to the bank for equipment that I have to pay for, $700 per month license fees, and a myriad of other costs.

    I happen to be in a business that deals with larger amounts of money, but restaurants are no different. They still have expenses beside wages.

    Until you have stayed awake nights wondering if the money is going to come in to pay bills, if business is going to pick up, if you are going to be able to stay in business, don't get on your soapbox and tell us how much we are mistreating our employees. If we make a profit, guess what, we are also the one taking the risk and potentially suffering the loss. We are called "entrepreneurs", ones who organize, manage, and assume the risks of a business or enterprise.

  • August 25, 2008

    10:21 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    B1 writes:

    Right on NavyMom. I am not a business owner, but I greatly respect those that are able to stay in business. The whiners can't seem to grasp that behind every business, and especially every small business, is a person or group of people that is working to be successful. It is in their best interest to treat their employees well. Those that don't have a hard time keeping employees.

    It makes logical sense (which explains why the illogical have such a hard time) that government forced wage increases can lead to fewer jobs. An employer that is able to pay 4 people a lower wage is better for the economy than an employer that is able to pay 1 person a government forced higher wage. So, 1 person may be making money, but 3 are out of a job. That's okay, though, the hand wringers feel better because they've "stuck it to the man."

    With all of the taxes, ridiculous regulations, and nanny-istic meddling, it is no wonder that companies move out of the country. I don't blame them a bit.