By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The Legislature has passed LB258, amending the state’s minimum wage law. This new legislation revises the previously approved increase, setting a lower minimum wage of $13.50 per hour for 14- and 15-year-olds. Additionally, 16- to 19-year-olds can be paid this reduced rate for an initial 90-day training period, a move intended to encourage youth employment.
Read the original article here
The Nebraska Legislature has recently passed a bill that will effectively lower wages for children, a move that has sparked considerable controversy and concern. This legislation directly contradicts the will of the people, as Nebraskans overwhelmingly approved a ballot initiative in 2022 that gradually raised the state’s minimum wage, culminating in $15 an hour by January 1st of this year. The new bill, however, seeks to undermine this voter-approved increase, particularly for younger workers.
One of the primary arguments put forth by proponents of the wage reduction centers on the idea of a “training wage,” suggesting that minimum wage was never intended to be a living wage and was more appropriately suited for teenagers performing entry-level tasks. This perspective is often articulated by small business owners who claim that paying the full minimum wage to young, inexperienced workers, such as those tasked with emptying trash, is economically unfeasible. They argue that a lower “training wage” is necessary to encourage hiring and provide opportunities for young people to gain work experience.
However, critics vehemently reject this notion, labeling it as a disingenuous rationalization for exploiting a vulnerable segment of the workforce. They point out that the idea of a “training wage” was not the narrative presented when the minimum wage increase was put to voters. Instead, the proposed legislation is seen as an attempt to circumvent democratic processes and prioritize business profits over fair compensation for young workers. This is further exemplified by the argument that a minimum wage increase is fundamentally a “tax on small businesses,” a sentiment that many find alarming, bordering on a desire for legalized low-wage labor akin to slavery.
The legislative action is viewed by many as a betrayal of the democratic process itself. The initiative system, through which the minimum wage increase was originally passed, is dismissed by some legislators as a mere “opinion poll” rather than a legitimate method for lawmaking. This stance is interpreted by critics as a profound hostility towards democratic principles, suggesting a willingness to disregard public sentiment when it clashes with the interests of certain business sectors. The fact that this bill was passed in the first legislative session of the year, immediately after voters approved wage increases, underscores this perception of defiance.
Furthermore, the bill’s sponsor, a Democrat who owns grocery stores that typically employ young people, highlights a complex dynamic where economic interests can transcend party lines. This situation raises questions about the motivations behind such legislation, with some suggesting that it ultimately serves to benefit corporations and businesses at the expense of hardworking individuals, particularly children who are often seen as more easily exploited. The argument that businesses are exploiting children instead of potentially higher-cost immigrant labor also surfaces, painting a grim picture of the economic landscape.
The rationale that a minimum wage increase acts as a tax on businesses is particularly contentious. For many, this framing ignores the broader economic benefits of higher wages, such as increased consumer spending and reduced reliance on public assistance. The idea that employers should be legally permitted to pay less simply because a worker is young is met with strong opposition, drawing parallels to historical exploitation and raising concerns about a return to practices reminiscent of child labor.
The experience of some former managers of businesses that hire young people contradicts the claims made by proponents of the wage reduction. These individuals often report that many underage employees are motivated, hardworking, and reliable, sometimes even more so than their adult counterparts. The notion that young workers are inherently less productive or that their output requires a lower wage is challenged by these firsthand accounts. The argument is made that mistreating or underpaying young workers is counterproductive, leading to decreased morale and motivation, rather than encouraging them to work harder.
The potential consequences of this legislation are a significant concern. It is feared that these changes will discourage young people from seeking employment, leading to a future shortage of workers when these individuals decide to seek opportunities elsewhere. This cycle of businesses complaining about a lack of workers while simultaneously implementing policies that disincentivize employment is seen as a flawed business model. The sentiment that this legislation is inherently “evil” and “tone-deaf” to the economic realities faced by many families is prevalent.
There is a strong belief that this legislation directly targets the hard work and aspirations of young Nebraskans. The idea that employers dump the most undesirable tasks onto younger employees and then expect them to perform these duties for less pay is a recurring criticism. The call for young workers to “know their worth” and refuse to accept insulting wages is a message of empowerment being communicated in response to this legislative action. The potential for children to be forced into work to support their families, only to be compensated at rates far below what is considered fair, highlights the ethical quandaries presented by this bill.
Ultimately, this bill is viewed by many as a step backward, a move that prioritizes the financial gain of businesses over the fair treatment and economic well-being of children. The passage of this legislation, in direct opposition to the outcome of a voter-approved ballot initiative, has fueled anger and disillusionment, with many questioning the integrity of the legislative process and the values that underpin such decisions. It leaves many wondering if the goal is simply to make people’s lives more miserable and to benefit the wealthy at the expense of the most vulnerable members of society.