Vermont House lawmakers voted 100-49 Tuesday to override Gov. Phil Scott’s veto of a minimum wage increase, handing Democratic leaders a razor-thin and much-needed legislative win.
With the Senate voting last week to override the Republican governor’s veto, the bill now becomes law, having achieved the two-thirds majority necessary in the 150-member House. It will hike the current minimum wage of $10.96 per hour to $11.75 in 2021 and to $12.55 in 2022 before increases will again be tied to inflation.
“Today’s vote reaffirms the legislature’s commitment to Vermont’s working families,” said House Speaker Mitzi Johnson (D-South Hero) in a statement. House Majority Leader Jill Krowinski (D-Burlington) shared that sentiment.
“This is a really good day for hardworking Vermonters who deserve and need a raise in their wages,” she said.
Scott was far less enthused. In a statement after the vote, he said the legislature had overlooked concerns that he and many lawmakers have expressed about the bill’s potential impact.
He added that it’s “more important than ever” to now focus on policies that will “actually grow the economy.”
Tuesday’s vote marks the first time in more than a decade that the legislature has managed to override a governor’s veto. It wasn’t an easy task.
House leaders passed the minimum wage bill last month with only 93 votes — seven short of the 100 needed to ensure an override. Two lawmakers who missed the first vote had long been expected to support the increase. But a new wrinkle emerged when Rep. Chris Bates (D-Bennington), who initially supported the legislation, shared newfound reservations with VTDigger.org last week.
House leaders looked to the eight members of their own party who had opposed the measure the first time around.
“To not have negative effects on employment, we need to make sure minimum wage increases are moderate and cautious,” Browning said from the House floor. The current proposal, she said, is “too much too soon.”
Bates, meanwhile, did not vote when his name was first called. Instead, he waited until the end, at which point it was clear that his no vote would not change the outcome.
The six other Democrats who flipped in favor of the override offered a range of reasons.
“Frankly, I took significant heat at home for voting no on this bill,” said Rep. Theresa Wood (D-Waterbury), who initially feared it would negatively impact providers who care for elderly Vermonters and those with disabilities. But citing statistics that show more than 16,000 Vermont children live in poverty, Wood said she “changed her mind” about the bill.
Rep. Charles Kimbell (D-Woodstock), who has said he doesn’t believe the bill would raise the state’s average annual income, explained that he, too, heard from constituents who support the measure. But he also conceded that the paid leave debacle also factored into his decision.
“Certainly, there was, I think, a deeper interest in making sure that at least one of the priorities of the House made it across the finish line,” he said.
Rep. Lucy Rogers (D-Waterville) said despite her concerns with how the bill would impact small businesses in her area, she wanted to support other rural lawmakers who fought to strike a compromise with those who wanted a higher increase.
But while most House and Senate lawmakers indeed view the bill as a compromise from past proposals to raise the minimum wage to $15 per hour, Scott has challenged that narrative.
Earlier this month, he argued that the bill follows the “same trajectory” as the $15 an hour bill he vetoed in 2018. “Next year, I’m sure those same folks that say it’s a compromise are probably writing the bill right now to raise it to $15 in two more years,” he said at a press conference earlier this month.
Krowinski, the majority leader, brushed off that charge. She said it’s too early to know what priorities Democrats will have next biennium given that every lawmaker is up for reelection this year. What was important, she said, was getting this particular bill passed.
“We’re a body that is providing checks and balances on the governor, and I think this issue is one of great importance to a majority of Vermonters,” she said.
Related Stories
Has Phil Scott Made Vermont More Affordable?
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
Well you really can’t hire anybody that is worth hiring for less than $12 right now hence this law is largely symbolic. Currently unemployment is very low and wages are relatively high; including wages at the entry level. Good workers can get $15+ once they prove themselves . If the economy tanks then low productivity workers will be the first to be fired; they will be let go quicker if the minimum wage is artificially high. At best minimum wage laws are symbolic; a tool for political propaganda; at worst they exacerbate the socio economic damage wrought by recessions. Progressives deny these obvious facts.
I guess I support this, I really hope it helps some folks, but because there is no hint of a real, coherent economic development plan for the State, it just seems like overriding vetoes and slamming through legislation is a hugely dangerous precedent. It is not a way to govern. The people elected Phil Scott and the legislature should not ignore this. If they, the House and Senate, are not careful, Vermonters might actually start paying much closer attention to local races…
To force the entire state to the same minimum wage will be a crushing blow to rural Vermont farms and small businesses.
The standard answer that “increasing the lower tier workers to $15 will increase their spending as well to help local small businesses” is just a silly response. If that is the case, why stop at $15/hr. Lets pay everyone $25/hr and small businesses will Thrive!
The truth is it hurts small business and rural communities the most. Larger business and farms find ways to automate and just eliminate those jobs.
Congratulations. Our legislature just raised the cost of childcare again, and as a result, the number of available private child care slots in poorer rural areas will fall.
Not sure who we’re helping here.
People need to be able to afford their rent. Minimum wage is not a bad idea. We even need maximum wage (not my idea – it’s from Steve Ben-Israel – RIP).
I truly wonder about Mike’s statement: “you really can’t hire anybody that is worth hiring for less than $12 right now” – if someone is worth hiring, and they can’t get the $12 right now, what will they do? They’ll take less…as they are doing now. “Worth hiring” is an interesting idea…how can we make people “worth hiring”? Education? Training? Are there too many people around? More people than jobs?
I’m glad they passed the law; let’s see what happens.
They should have tried to raise the minimum wage to $15 dollars again. I don’t see what a small increase will do for helping people. They aren’t thinking about people who have to pay high rents, food and other daily necessities. No wonder people are moving out of Vermont to better paying states and jobs! Vermont is one of the highest taxed states.. I would like to see Scott and people who work for the government survive on the minimum wage, they couldn’t!
What we need is not legislative victories for one party or another but what is best for Vermont. Hopefully the legislative economists who did the study on minimum wage and cliff benefits will be mistaken and the thousands of jobs lost each year as well as the loss of small business they predicted if the minimum wage increased on this trajectory will not be that severe. Nor will there be quite as many anticipated problems for the working poor finding themselves going over the benefit cliff.
Unfortunately, from Act 46 to making promises on pensions that are unsustainable, there are many instances of well intended ideologically driven legislation having unintended consequences for our state, our communities and our people.
I hate that comment “worth hiring.” What does it mean? Are our lives measured in what we’re worth to someone economically? Because that’s what that phrase is saying.
One commenter complains that “Vermont is one of the highest taxed states” but in the very same post he also complains that the legislature did not increase the new minimum wage high enough. Guess what? That minimum wage increase will absolutely be passed through to the consumer as an increase in the price of your milk, bread, gas, and everything else, i.e., as a new surtax. And it’s a regressive tax since it’s not income-adjusted, i.e., it will hit low-income people the hardest. So . . . taxes are too high but you want them to go higher?
The real minimum wage is always zero.
So the higher minimum wage means higher taxes? Oh my. Well, as long as people can make enough to live.