Fair is fair; Independence Party gubernatorial candidate Tom Horner says I misrepresented his tip credit position in a Wednesday morning post, so I’ll give you his thoughts at length, with a wee bit of pushback from me.
Here was Horner’s original statement, emailed to me by deputy communications director Matt Lewis:
Rep. Emmer’s insensitivity to the many hospitality workers who are struggling to earn a decent living is how ideological politics are dividing Minnesotans. Tip credit is part of the solution needed to sustain jobs in the hospitality industry, but it shouldn’t be a rationale to pay less-than-minimum-wages.
As I noted in the original post, this was confusing — a tip credit is a tip credit because workers are paid less than the general minimum wage.
Because of my head-scratching, I went over this point with Horner in a subsequent phone conversation. I asked him specifically what the reduced pay rate should be — $3 an hour, $4 an hour, etc., naming rates under Minnesota’s $5.25 minimum. Horner said he didn’t have a specific figure in mind, but he didn’t explicitly rule out those figures. That’s the source of the problem.
In a subsequent email, Horner spelled out his position in more detail:
– A “go-forward” approach in which a tip credit is applied only to increases in the federal minimum wage ($7.25 an hour, which applies to many hospitality businesses, not Minnesota’s lower standard). Minnesota hospitality workers still would earn no less than the state’s minimum wage, and more with tips.
– A phased in tip credit based on a person’s income. Again, this would guarantee that hospitality workers earn no less than minimum wage.
In other words, Horner wouldn’t cut any tipped employee’s hourly pay, but he also wouldn’t raise the minimum-wage floor, at least not for everyone. Thus, a tip credit would be born the next time the feds raise the minimum.
By the way, between last night’s phone conversation and this afternoon’s email, GOP hopeful Tom Emmer — trying to scramble back from bad press over the issue — issued a follow-up statement detailing a floor, not a cut. It’s worth noting that Horner’s tip credit would be means-tested, while Emmer’s would not, and Horner’s floor is higher ($7.25 an hour versus the state’s $5.25/$6.15 minimum).
I can see a logical path from Horner’s first statement to the second, so I have to acknowledge the possibility that I misunderstood. Then again, Horner’s initial statement was vague on the details, as was his answer to my $3/$4/$5 scenario, and he says he might not have understood what I was driving at.
Horner adds, “There likely are other good policy solutions — none of which put me in the camp of wanting to pay less than the state’s minimum wage or ignoring the very real challenges facing hospitality employers operating with razor-thin margins.”
So there you have it — the most current, complete statements on the issue yet.
Someone should ask both Horner and Emmer how their proposals would help simplify the tax code.
Answered like a true politician.
Horner is advocating the same thing, just not so drastic a degree. Denying tipping jobs future minimum wage increases isn’t as bad as cutting their wages outright, but it’s essentially the same. I think David got Horner’s position correct, and Horner is trying to talk his way out of it.
By the way, can we please stop this nonsense that it’s a tip “credit”? It’s the opposite of a credit since the workers’ wages get cut. That’s a penalty, not a credit, so if we’re to be honest, we should call it a “tip penalty”.
David, did Horner actually tell you that you “misrepresented” his position? Because I don’t know how anyone could read his statement and what you wrote and reasonably say that you misrepresented him.
Given the vagueness of the discussion in the phone call and the specificity of the follow-up email, it seems pretty clear that Horner developed his position on the tip-credit after the fact. Which is fine – it is somewhat of an obscure issue – unless as part of developing a position on the fly you also accuse people of misrepresenting your position.
Meanwhile, Jon Tevlin over at the Strib got to the bottom of The Big Emmer Lie, and it turned out it was just that–another Big Emmer Lie. Now, will anyone have the balls to put that in a headline, or will be treated to “misspoke” or “misquoted” or “misrepresented” or some other euphemism. Let’s call a lie what it is–a lie. And let’s call Emmer what he is–a liar. Why is that so hard?
Karl–
Reread your Orwell.
Just so we are clear. A “tip credit” means the restaurant owner gets to keep part of customer’s tips – whether the customer likes it or not.
It’s referred to as a tip credit because the employer gets the credit toward payment of the minimum wage.
Neither Mr. Emmer nor Mr. Horner get any credit from me on this one.
The folks that vote party-line (DFL/GOP)
are in the minority. A higher percentage of folks vote candidate and not party. This particular election, Tom Horner represents an opportunity for the IP to win the governors office. If there is a tilt to the right this year in MN, Horner stands to benefit from it. Rep. Emmer might perceived as too conservative. Any DFL candidate might be perceived as too liberal. Horner stands to benefit from both of those characterizations.
Statistically, in off year election the out party gains and most polls currently reflect that. How much of that tilt towards the right will have a effect in MN, I’ll leave to the pundits to mull over.
I’d suggest a reading of ‘Nickel and Dimed’ for the reality of most people working for tips.