There is an interesting back and forth in the comments section over at Wage Law Blog on the recently published Dunbar case.

I had always read Sav-On to be a pro-discretion of the trial court case more than simply a pro-certification case. This opinion seems to bear that out. Otherwise, it’s not (yet) earth shattering. Despite that, in my experience, judges have seen Sav-On simply as pro-certification.

Anyway, here comes my trademarked reserve: Sav-On is a supreme court case, so this one still has to stand up in that forum. What’s more, one case doesn’t make a trend. Stand by. In the meantime, don’t assume this means anything.

P.S. Check out Sheppard Mullin’s write up, taking a victory lap for instigating this “trend,” even though Akin Gump was the Appellee’s counsel. (Apparently, they filed a request for publication.)

The LA Times reports a deal has been struck in Sacramento raising the minimum wage to $8.00 per hour, but first to $7.50 on 1/1/07. As I’ve mentioned, this will impact other workers besides minimum wage workers, because it will raise the threshhold for the salary test for non-hourly exemptions.

This one appears to be real. The GOP promises a fight, but without the Governor, they don’t have the numbers to do anything.

Just as had been widely predicted, the minimum wage bill died in the senate. Not enough votes for cloture. 42 against.

So, now we’re back to the IWC in California.

Title IV of the so-called "Estate Tax and Extension of Tax Relief Act of 2006"  (as passed by the House) would increase the federal minimum wage on this schedule:

`(A) $5.15 an hour beginning September 1, 1997;

`(B) $5.85 an hour, beginning on January 1, 2007;

`(C) $6.55 an hour, beginning June 1, 2008; and

`(D) $7.25 an hour, beginning June 1, 2009;’.

So, California employers wouldn’t be affected until June 1, 2009, assuming there’s no further state action, right?

Wrong.

For tipped employees, it would override California law with respect to the minimum wage:

`(2) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, any State or
political subdivision of a State which on or after the date of
enactment of the Estate Tax and Extension of Tax Relief Act of 2006
excludes all of a tipped employee’s tips from being considered as wages
in determining if such tipped employee has been paid the applicable
minimum wage rate, may not establish or enforce the minimum wage rate
provisions of such law, ordinance, regulation, or order in such State
or political subdivision thereof with respect to tipped employees
unless such law, ordinance, regulation, or order is revised or amended
to permit such employee to be paid a wage by the employee’s employer in
an amount not less than an amount equal to–

`(A) the cash wage paid such employee which is required
under such law, ordinance, regulation, or order on the date of
enactment of the Estate Tax and Extension of Tax Relief Act of 2006; and
`(B) an additional amount on account of tips received
by such employee which amount is equal to the difference between the
cash wage described in subparagraph (A) and the minimum wage rate in
effect under such law, ordinance, regulation, or order, or the minimum
wage rate in effect under section 6(a), whichever is higher.’

So, the minimum wage for regular employees would be $6.75 per state law, but tipped employees would be paid $2.13 an hour plus tips, because California Wage Orders would be void with respect to them.

The Legislature would be forced to act on or about the day of the change to avoid this, and I could see both sides using the urgency to their advantage.

Rocky waters ahead.

(Personally, I give this bill about a 25% chance of passing, so maybe it’s not worth the worry)

UPDATE: This would have the same effect in Alaska, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington.  See a theme here? Only Nevada poses a meaningful electoral loss to the GOP. The others are solid blue.