A campaign to increase the minimum wage for the first time since 1981 began with such fanfare this year that it seemed certain to sweep through an election-conscious Congress by early summer.
But that was before lawmakers were confronted by a confusing jumble of statistics, heavy lobbying by business and a stream of higher-priority labor and social issues crowding the legislative agenda.
As a result, votes repeatedly have been delayed on an already watered-down plan to raise the hourly wage to $4.55 from $3.35 over three years. And those delays have created fears among supporters and optimism among opponents that on the 50th anniversary of the wage floor created in 1938, Congress will opt to stall or reject future increases.
Even if supporters can pull off a congressional victory, an almost-certain veto by President Reagan and far too few votes to override appear to make enactment impossible before 1989.
”The minimum wage has lost its oomph, the momentum it had early this year,” said Jay Butler, a top House aide working on the bill.
”They`ve delayed it three times already. If they had the votes they would have moved the bill,” said Robert L. Martin, a lobbyist with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which created an anti-increase coalition of more than 3,000 businesses.
Supporters most recently had planned a vote before the Aug. 15 start of the Republican National Convention in New Orleans, but they acknowledged last week it will not happen before September. Even then it could prove difficult: The congressional term is scheduled to end Oct. 7, and legislative leaders still must resolve a dispute over which chamber will vote first.
”I don`t minimize the work that`s still to be done,” said Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D., Mass.), the bill`s Senate sponsor. ”We`ll get a good bill up and then just see where we are.”
The likelihood of a stalemate has made both sides more aware of a contrast between the presidential contenders. Vice President George Bush opposes a higher wage, although apparently not as strongly as does Reagan, while Massachusetts Gov. Michael S. Dukakis is running on a platform that calls for yearly increases tied to rising inflation.
With that as a backdrop, supporters already have begun looking toward January in the hope that a Bush administration would soften the GOP stance or a Dukakis administration would champion an increase.
”I`d like to see it this year, but there is an argument to be made for gambling that Mr. Dukakis will win and waiting until next year,” said Leon Shull, director of the Citizens Committee for a Just Minimum Wage.
But Jay Power, minimum wage lobbyist for the AFL-CIO, said he will press forward this year regardless of veto prospects. ”We`re not going to allow the agenda of progressive legislation to be held hostage by the fact that Ronald Reagan is still President,” he said.
The central dispute revolves around whether the proposed wage hikes would eliminate hundreds of thousands of jobs and sharply increase business costs. Each side has come up with emotional arguments and mountains of studies to make its case.
”Harry Truman said he wanted a one-armed economist in the White House because it would prevent him from saying, `On the other hand . . .` That`s what it`s been like for members of Congress looking at statistics on the minimum wage,” said Power, the union lobbyist.
Results of the two latest studies, released in the last two weeks, illustrate the confusing pattern of projections.
A report by University of Chicago economist Ronald Krumm, funded by the anti-increase Minimum Wage Coalition to Save Jobs, predicts that raising the wage to $4.55 in 1991 would add $48 billion to U.S. business costs. Krumm says a higher wage would create a ”ripple effect” that ultimately would raise pay even for workers making $10 an hour.
Meanwhile, supporters are promoting a study by University of Michigan researcher Alison Wellington that says a $4.55 minimum wage in 1991 would eliminate only 70,000 job openings, not the 800,000 to 1.9 million projected by opponents. Moreover, proponents say Labor Department data show there will be about 700,000 more new jobs than available workers that year, so the loss of job openings would be almost meaningless.
If the minimum wage were the only major social issue facing Congress, lawmakers might have had time to digest the studies. But instead they have been occupied by a major trade bill, a drawn-out fight over plant-closing notification and the sudden emergence of child-care, long-term care and parental leave as hot election-year issues.
Anti-increase forces have seized on the opportunity to pressure Southern and Western Democrats who are expected to hold the determining votes. For example, a spokesman for Sen. Lawton Chiles (D., Fla.) said the senator in the last few weeks has been flooded with mail overwhelmingly against a minimum-wage hike.
In a concession to such efforts, the bill would exempt shops with gross revenues of less than $500,000 a year, up from the current $362,000. Kennedy and others also dropped plans for higher increases and for tying raises to inflation.
Supporters of the bill acknowledge that the anti-increase groups have done a more thorough lobbying job. ”Minimum-wage workers don`t have high-powered spokesmen,” said Butler, the House staffer. ”They have the AFL-CIO, but the unions are juggling the other issues-trade, plant closings, parental leave.”
But proponents insist the fight is not over. ”This legislation will not be decided on how many phony bags of mail the Chamber can pump out. . . ,” said Power.
Meanwhile, a leading alternative to the Kennedy bill is being offered by Sen. Dan Quayle (R., Ind.) and Rep. Thomas E. Petri (R., Wis.), who envision a much smaller increase but advocate expanding the earned-income tax credit program to give money directly to the working poor. Also, an amendment expected to be offered on the House and Senate floors would create a below-minimum ”training wage” for teens.
In the meantime, lobbyists and congressional leaders on both sides continue taking head counts and predicting victory.
”I don`t really know what`s going to happen,” said Shull, the pro-increase lobbyist.
”We`ll be making a good faith, all-out effort, but I know our opponents will be doing the same.”
