The governor had until midnight Monday to take action on S.23, which calls for hiking the state’s minimum wage from $10.96 per hour to $12.55 by 2022. He released a statement at 8:30 p.m. announcing the veto, his second in as many weeks.
The boost would have been more modest than the $15 minimum wage that many lawmakers had sought to have in place by 2024. But it still proved too much for the Republican governor, who said the increase would raise the cost of goods, harm economic growth and disproportionately affect rural areas.
“It’s critical to recognize that we share the goal of Vermonters making more money. I also believe Vermonters should keep more of what they earn, which is why I can’t support policies that increase the costs of living,” Scott said. “I believe this legislation would end up hurting the very people it aims to help.”
Scott gave similar explanations for his 2018 veto of a $15 minimum wage bill.
Seeking to address concerns about the impact on rural parts of the state, House and Senate lawmakers struck a compromise last month that limited the increases to two years and tied future increases to inflation.
“Today Governor Scott prevented 40,000 Vermonters who earn less than $12.55 an hour from getting a much-needed raise,” Senate President Pro Tempore Tim Ashe (D/P-Chittenden) said in a statement. “For those working full-time at the current minimum wage, the vast majority of whom are over the age of 22, the Governor’s veto just wiped out nearly $5,000 of income.”
Ashe called Scott’s stated concerns about affordability “hollow.”
Attention will now turn to whether lawmakers can force the bill into law over the governor’s objections.
The compromise bill passed the Senate with 23 yes votes, comfortably above the 20 votes needed in that chamber to override a veto. But it received just 93 “yes” votes in the House, short of the 100 needed to override.
Scott may be calculating that Democratic House leaders won’t be able to muster 100 votes, just like they failed last week to override his veto of a mandatory paid family and medical leave bill.
A coalition of Democrats and Progressives could only manage 99 “yes” votes, an embarrassing miscalculation and crushing defeat for Democrats’ signature legislation.
Democrats who opposed the minimum wage bill last month will now have to decide whether they will again allow Scott to dictate the outcome of a key party priority.
Sen. Michael Sirotkin (D-Chittenden) hopes that doesn’t happen, and called it “very wrong” to veto a 50-cent hourly raise for Vermont’s lowest earners. The governor’s action “is in direct conflict with addressing the universally recognized problem of income inequality, and is also inconsistent with his repeated mantra of protecting Vermont’s most vulnerable citizens,” Sirotkin said in a statement.
He added: “With strong majorities in both the public and the legislature, I hope and believe this will not be the final word on increasing Vermont’s minimum wage this year.”
Disclosure: Tim Ashe is the domestic partner of Seven Days publisher and coeditor Paula Routly. Find our conflict-of-interest policy here: sevendaysvt.com/disclosure.
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
You have to compromise with the governor. What has Ashe or Johnson given the governor?
A lower student to staff ratio? No
Eliminating taxes on social security for all Vermonters? No
Eliminating taxes for retired military personnel? No
The governor (to his detriment) compromised and passed gun legislation that wasn’t very popular with his constituents because he thought it was the right thing to do.
Compromise is a two way street, not a dead end road with a Cul de sac.
I’m very confused – I’m middle-aged. I make just over minimum wage, and so this bill is apparently going to hurt me. Is that because the business for which I work will not be able to afford the increase? It would then close and I would be thusly hurt? I can think broadly, since I went to school in a time when critical thinking was in fact taught, but it seems inescapable that the one proposal to address not only income inequality but also the increasing need to leave the state is not acceptable to whomever in Montpelier. Well, okay. I can understand that. But someone needs to come up with something other than a financial incentive to live here offered to those who don’t, currently, live here.
I’m very confused – I’m middle-aged. I make just over minimum wage, and so this bill is apparently going to hurt me. Is that because the business for which I work will not be able to afford the increase? It would then close and I would be thusly hurt? I can think broadly, since I went to school in a time when critical thinking was in fact taught, but it seems inescapable that the one proposal to address not only income inequality but also the increasing need to leave the state is not acceptable to whomever in Montpelier. Well, okay. I can work to understand that. But someone needs to come up with something other than a financial incentive to live here offered to those who don’t, currently, live here.
The issue is not income inequality, but how much Vermont on its own can do about it. We already have one of the highest and most progressive ( adjusted by inflation each year) minimum wages in the nation and are at a competitive disadvantage with New Hampshire whose minimum wage is the paltry national minimum wage of $7.25/hour.
The legislative study on minimum wage and benefit cliff found the increase being considered would result in the loss of thousands of low wage jobs each year and the loss of small businesses. While the increase is well intended, the Governor is right to veto what would cause more harm for our state and her people than good.
Shameful. It’s time for this do-nothing status quo governor to go.
Before you cast out Governor Scott remember who is running against him and realize we don’t need that train wreck.
Phil Scott seems to be campaigning for Dave Zuckerman with his refusal to work with the legislature, His continued “my way or the highway” attitude is Trumpian in its belief that he is the king, spitting in the face of the legally elected majority in the legislature. His “likeability” is not enough to insure his re-election when people are cold and hungry this winter because of his negativity and vetoes. Does anyone remember how he uselessly brought the legislature back two years in a row with his veto nonsense with no gain to himself and great cost to the state?