VLWC Legislative Priorities 2006
The VLWC steering committee approved the following priorities for the 2006 legislative session in December. We always welcome your feedback on our legislative work and your involvement in lobbying our state representatives and senators to support our economic justice initiatives.

PRIORITY #1: Increase the Tipped Minimum Wage 
Our priority was to eliminate the tipped worker minimum wage so Vermont would have one minimum wage rate like seven other states (AK, CA, MN, MT, NV, OR, and WA). Another option we explored was redefining tipped workers who are defined as any worker who earns “$30 or more in tips per month” to “$200 or more.” This would reclassify workers who receive a minimal amount of tips per month into the higher paid minimum wage category. A last option we considered was increasing the tipped worker base minimum wage to catch up to the rate of increase to the general minimum wage in the past five years and then attaching a COLA to the base rate as was passed in 2005 for the general minimum wage rate. For reference, between 2000 and 2007 the general minimum wage increased from $5.27 to $7.44 (assuming 2.6% inflation rate for increase from 2006 to 2007) ($1.69 increase) vs. the tipped minimum wage increased from $3.16 to $3.65 (49 cent increase).

Eliminating the tipped employee minimum wage or redefining who is a tipped worker would subject all employers to one minimum wage rate. Currently, employers who have tipped workers are exempted from paying the higher minimum wage. Allowing a tipped credit means the public subsidizes wages of tipped workers for certain industries (restaurant, tourism).

At the beginning of the session, Sen. Richard Sears from Bennington County introduced S. 245 A Bill to Increase the Tipped Minimum Wage. On Feb 2^nd, the Senate Economic Development Committee heard testimony from several tipped workers and supporters. It appeared that the Committee was receptive to supporting some level of increase to the current minimum wage rate of $3.65/hour. Unfortunately, S. 245 “died” in committee because a vote was never called before Town Meeting Day (i.e. crossover deadline). There was little momentum in the Senate Committee (Illuzzi, MacDonald, Dunne, Miller, Mullin, or Gander) to usher this bill through the committee process in order to get it to the floor of the Senate for a full vote. Sen. Sears attempted to amended another bill at the end of the session, but it was ruled non-germane to the bill.

PRIORITY #2: Tracking the Impact of Low-Wage Employers Subsidizes via Public Assistance for Employees & Impact of Large Retailers on the Vermont Economy
Many workers qualify and utilize Vermont’s various public assistance programs due to low wages. A section of a bill under consideration in 2006 would have mandated that the State track the names of employers with 25 or more employees, whose workers utilize public assistance programs (numbers of recipients and expense to state) and the cost. The bill only mentioned health care programs such as VHAP and Dr. Dynosaur. We suggested an amendment to include ALL public assistance programs (heating assistance, food stamps, Section 8 housing, etc) in order to get a full picture of the total subsidy to low-wage employers.

In 2004, MA enacted a requirement in the 2005 budget to compile a list of employers (50 or more employees) with workers or dependents participating in public healthcare programs.  CA is currently considering a similar bill AB 89 “Healthcare Disclosure Act”. Also regionally other municipalities (Suffolk County in New York and New York City) have mandated that employers with workers or dependents on public healthcare programs pay for the total cost being needed to pay for these recipients’ benefits.

This bill was not voted out of committee.

VLWC worked in coalition with the Vermont Natural Resources Council and Vermont Workers’ Center on a bill as part of our “Higher Standards for Big Box Campaign.” The bill (S. 175) required a community impact study for large-scale retailers (75,000 sq. feet or more) in order to better assess and respond to the potential impact of large retailers in Vermont communities. In mid-March, many environmental groups and anti-sprawl organizations testified in support of the bill. VLWC also testified along with High-Road Vermont on the economic importance of the bill in terms of better understanding the impact of low-wage large retailers on existing wages and benefits within a community.

The bill also included a small aspect of another bill VLWC was trying to advance—a bill to create an impact study on the total cost of public assistance programs used by employees who are employed at low-wage employers in Vermont. The bill would mandate a state study to be competed in Jan 2007 to show the impact of large retailers on state public assistance programs such as VHAP, food stamps, etc. Much has been written about the millions of dollars in in-direct subsidizes that Wal-Mart has received in many states by having their workers qualify and use state funded health and food security programs. This study would give us a small glimpse into the cost in Vermont. The Senate approved S. 175, “Community Impact Studies for Large-Scale Retail Operations Bill” by a vote of 20 to 5. The bill moved to the House but then did not move out of committee (House Natural Resources).

BACKGROUND: Often when large-scale retail stores like Wal-Mart come to town they drive out local businesses, spur sprawl, and cost taxpayers significantly in higher health care, police, fire and emergency, roads, water, and other hidden infrastructure costs. Communities can avoid these high prices by adequately preparing for large-scale retail development.

One important tool towns can use to welcome development without it harming their downtowns, community character, and natural resources is to undertake a community impact study. An independent community impact study, currently under discussion in the Legislature, could help identify and quantify the impacts to the local and regional economy. By building off the tools communities already use and helping to synthesize these existing efforts, this legislation would facilitate more control in where and how new large-scale retail development is built. It would help towns get the community and economic impact information they need to make the most informed, unbiased decisions for how and where large-scale retail development occurs.

The proposed large-scale retail legislation, would:

1.      Require an applicant for a large-scale retail use to provide the community with funding necessary to complete a community and regional impact study of the proposed costs and benefits associate with the project.

2.      Require that large scale retail uses be subject to conditional use review. 

3.      Instruct the Joint Fiscal Office and the Legislative Council  to conduct an analysis of the fiscal impacts to the state from large-scale retail stores. This research would provide clear numbers on the taxpayer dollars large-scale retailers are drawing from public coffers to do business in Vermont. 

Why Is This Important?

Large-scale retailers often rely on public subsidies to cover their costs, from health care programs to roads, water, and sewer lines. These and other potentially unforeseen costs can have a high price for communities. For example:

·         $1.00 of public revenue generated by Wal-Mart costs taxpayers $2.50.

·         A 1994 independent economic study showed that Wal-Mart in St. Albans would result in a net loss of 167 jobs in Franklin County.

·         After the development of large-scale retails stores in Williston, the town had to increase its sales tax by 1 percent to support the additional costs the boxes generated (such as police, fire, roads, etc).

·         In the mid-1990s and again in 2004, the National Trust for Historic Preservation listed the whole state of Vermont as endangered specifically because Wal-Mart’s plans for expansion threaten the state’s downtowns, rural character and quality of life.

PRIORITY #3: Support Vermont Commission on Women with Mandatory Sick Day Legislation
VLWC supported the Vermont Commission on Women’s work to pass a bill to require all employers to provide each employee who works 30 or more hours a week five paid sick days. If a worker worked fewer than 30 hours per week, sick days would be pro-rated. The bill was drafted during the 2006 session and was co-sponsored by Rep. Helen Head and Rep. Sarah Edwards. The bill did not move out of committee.

PRIORITY #4: Support promotion of fairer budget and tax priorities by Vermont Fairness Alliance
The Vermont Fairness Alliance is a broad coalition of human service, religious, civic, labor, business, low-income, political, environmental, and other groups which has been organized to promote fairer budget and tax priorities for Vermont in 2006. Specifically, the Vermont Fairness Alliance calls for raising taxes--but only on the top 5% of Vermonters earning over $115,000/yr--to raise revenue to help balance the budget, while maintaining or even increasing funding for essential public services such as health care, housing, education and child care, public safety, and environmental protection. Rep. Bob Kiss proposed H. 428 which proposed to raise state revenue through a similar tax option to the one the Alliance proposes. VLWC supported the Vermont Fairness Alliance. The bill did not move out of committee.