Nevada U.S. Rep. Steven Horsford - D-Las Vegas - has introduced legislation that would aim to eliminate the subminimum wage for tipped workers across the country, and also eliminate federal taxes on tips - a proposal both presidential nominees have said they would support.

It isn't the first such proposal in Congress.

Horsford noted that a disproportionate number of tipped workers across the country are women and people of color, whom he described as making "poverty wages."

He told his fellow House members the Tipped Income Protection and Support Act is about economic justice, and recognizing that service workers are "the backbone" of the U.S. economy.

"So, to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, we cannot delay this action any longer," said Horsford. "We must act to ensure that every worker, regardless of their job, can earn a fair wage and keep more of what they earn."

Critics of the idea point out that many tipped employees don't make enough to pay income taxes, so eliminating taxes on tips wouldn't affect them.

The minimum cash wage for tipped workers in the U.S. is just over $2 an hour. Nevada has already abolished the subminimum wage for tipped workers, who now make at least $12 an hour.

Relying on customers to pay the bulk of tipped workers' wages exposes these workers to "tremendous instability of income," according to the Economic Policy Institute.

Across the country, the Institute also found poverty rates for tipped workers are more than twice as high as for non-tipped workers. Horsford called that unacceptable.

"No one should have to depend on the whims of a good tip - which is not a guarantee," said Horsford, "in order to make ends meet."

Horsford said his plan, unlike other Republican-led initiatives which would solely exempt tips from federal taxes, would go a step further and eliminate the federal subminimum wage - which he called "the crux of the problem."




get more stories like this via email

Changes in leadership at the federal level are likely to have some effect on the labor movement.

In Minnesota, election results have spurred thoughts about topics like the future of OSHA's worker safety standards. It may be too early to get a firm read on what will happen under a second Trump administration.

Meanwhile, at the state level, Democrats still control the Minnesota Senate but the House is locked in a tie between both parties. Democrats bolstered labor laws in recent sessions.

Mike Wilde, executive director of the Fair Contracting Foundation of Minnesota, which he said has a nonpolitical stance, said moving forward, no matter the policy, enforcement is key.

"We can have all the laws we want on the books but unless they're enforced and meaningful, they don't do anybody any good," Wilde contended.

While campaigning, President-Elect Donald Trump made attempts to appeal to unions but his first term saw a big cut in the number of federal safety inspectors for job sites, and analysts expect his staff to curtail a proposed heat safety rule.

Wilde acknowledged OSHA is not the only tool available but noted it plays a big role in protecting rooftop construction teams. He argued more resources and flexible enforcement options are needed.

Wilde added Minnesota has a strong approach to helping carry out apprenticeship programs but pointed out it is not the case in all states.

"Some employers utilize substandard apprenticeship programs that aren't very well regulated," Wilde asserted.

He suggested a robust, coordinated approach could help more people find stable careers with strong pay, benefiting the economy. Another aspect labor leaders will monitor is appointments to the National Labor Relations Board and how they affect rules directly tied to workers' rights.

Roughly 30% of Minnesota's private-sector employees do not have a work-sponsored retirement plan but some business owners and consumer advocates hope a soon-to-launch state program will improve access.

In mid-to-late 2025, Minnesota is expected to roll out its Secure Choice Retirement Program. For employers who are not in a position to provide a savings plan for their staff, they will be required to ensure a portion of a worker's paycheck is transferred to a state-sponsored retirement account.

Erik Forsberg owns a handful of restaurants in the Twin Cities area and said for hospitality workers, the benefit usually is not in their orbit when they are first hired.

"When you start a typical corporate position, you sit down with HR and they explain your benefits package," Forsberg noted. "Most of our employees just don't have access to that."

Economic data show wage growth has been strong for service workers, and Forsberg emphasized tacking on a retirement plan could convince more of them to stay longer. He added it helps small-business owners reduce hiring costs. Employers do not have to contribute to the fund and Forsberg hopes the program maintains a mission of not overburdening businesses as they prepare for other mandates, such as Minnesota's Paid Leave Law.

Next Wednesday, AARP Minnesota will host a webinar to provide more details to business owners about the new retirement program.

Mary Jo George, associate state director of advocacy for the organization, said those involved in shaping the effort want to keep this simple for employers.

"One of the things we keep hearing is that small employers, all employers, they really do want to offer a reinterment plan," George pointed out. "But it's been very costly, it's been an administrative burden."

In addition to not having a match requirement, legislative researchers said there are no fees for employers, except for any incidental costs in modifying payroll systems.

Similar programs have taken shape in nearly 20 states and Oregon officials said early success resulted in strong public backing via polling data. George stressed in Minnesota, they hope to give more people the chance to retire with dignity if they start saving much earlier in their working career.

"We know that when you can do it automatically out of your paycheck, workers are 20 times more like to save," George reported.

California political analysts say inflation and voter confusion contributed to the failure of propositions to raise the minimum wage and allow stronger rent control.

Proposition 33 would have allowed local governments to pass strict new rent-control ordinances.

Christian Grose, professor of political science and public policy at the University of Southern California's Dornsife College and Price School of Public Policy, said voters may have found the measure to be overly complex.

"We did some polling on this back in September, and we found a lot of people were undecided," Grose said. "I think it's a confusing initiative for a lot of voters, and so often when people aren't certain what the effects are going to be, they'll just vote no."

Opponents of Prop. 33 argued that more rent control would discourage construction of new rental units, thus thwarting attempts to increase the supply of housing.

Proposition 32 would have raised the minimum wage to $18 an hour for companies that have 26 or more employees, and to $17 for smaller companies.

Grose called the defeat surprising, as California recently raised the minimum wage -- but only for fast-food workers.

"With inflation, there's some concerns about raising minimum wage will then lead to increased costs. So people who traditionally would support minimum wage maybe are opposed," he said.

Opponents of Prop. 32 warned it would have hurt California businesses and led to an increase in the cost of goods and services.

Keely O'Brien, policy advocate with the Western Center on Law and Poverty, said Prop. 32 would have helped the working poor at a time when poverty is the highest it has been in years.

"In early 2023, 31% of California residents were either poor or near poor, and nearly 76% of poor Californians lived in families with at least one working adult. So these are not, these are families who are working. They're often working really hard, and they're still not. They still don't have the resources that they need," O'Brien said.