R.I. General Assembly backs hourly minimum wage hike to $16 in 2026, then $17 in 2027
The parade of annual increases in Rhode Island's hourly minimum wage is poised to march on for two more years under companion bills approved by the Rhode Island General Assembly Tuesday.
The legislation sponsored by Democratic Rep. David Bennett, of Warwick, and Sen. John Burke, of West Warwick, increase the existing, $15 hourly minimum wage to $16 starting Jan. 1, 2026, rising to $17 on Jan. 1, 2027.
Both chambers approved the wage hike in separate votes divided mostly along party lines — 55-10 in the House, and 33-4 in the Senate. All four Senate Republicans voted against the bill while nine of 10 House Republicans opposed it; the final House Republican, Rep. Robert Quattrocchi, of Scituate, was absent.
Democratic Rep. Jacquelyn Baginski of Cranston also voted against the wage increase.
Each chamber must rubber stamp the other's bill under a process known as concurrence before the proposal can be signed into law. Gov. Dan McKee's office did not immediately return inquiries for comment Thursday.
Originally, an annual $1-per-year increase in base pay would have continued through the end of the decade, culminating in $20-an-hour in 2030.
But backlash from business groups and economic uncertainty led to what Rep. Arthur Corvese, a North Providence Democrat and chair of the House Committee on Labor, termed a 'more measured approach' — only prescribing annual wage hikes for the next two years rather than five.
'I would urge my colleagues to vote for this very common sense, measured response regarding increasing the minimum wage,' Corvese said.
His plea did not persuade Republican lawmakers, who echoed business owners concerns' that higher wages would cut into small business bottom lines, and, potentially, force layoffs.
'The real minimum wage is $0,' said House Minority Whip David Place, a Burrillville Republican. 'That's what they make when they get fired because business can't afford to keep them.'
Consumers could suffer, too, warned Rep. Paul Santucci, a Smithfield Republican. Santucci took an informal survey of owners of four local restaurants, a farm, a nursing home and a repair shop. All told him they would likely have to raise their prices if base wages increase, Santucci said Thursday.
'For small business owners, policies that continually increase labor costs will force them to make difficult decisions,' the Rhode Island Business Coalition wrote in a March 5 letter to lawmakers. 'They may be forced to cut jobs and/or reduce their employees' hours, if they are not forced to close entirely. Rising labor costs may also increase the speed at which employers decide to invest in technology to replace lower-wage workers. This means fewer jobs for Rhode Island workers, and ultimately undermines the progress our economy needs to make.'
The coalition in its letter also pointed out that Rhode Island already has the seventh highest hourly minimum wage in the country — accompanied by Massachusetts — having hiked the base pay for hourly workers in eight of the last nine years.
Sen. Leonidas Raptakis framed Rhode Island's high ranking as a benefit, rather than a detriment, noting that the Ocean State's hourly base pay ranked 14th in 2013, before lawmakers began a series of regular minimum wage hikes.
'If we do this today, we're going to be number 6, then maybe in 2017, we'll be number 5,' said Raptakis, a Coventry Democrat and former small business owner.
Raptakis unsuccessfully proposed two amendments on the Senate floor Thursday: one to raise the minimum wage to $17 immediately, with subsequent increases based upon the consumer price index, and a second to create a legislative study panel on the topic. Both amendments failed.
Earlier in the session, progressive Democratic Rep. Enrique Sanchez also suggested an alternative, proposing a $22 hourly minimum starting Jan. 1, which failed to gain enough traction to advance out of committee. Addressing colleagues Thursday, Sanchez backed the less-severe $1 boost to hourly wages as 'good progress.'
'This is common sense legislation,' Sanchez said. 'The reality is that inflation is still high, and we need to make sure our Rhode Islanders are getting paid sufficient wages in order to maintain their lifestyles and support their families at home.'
Majority Whip Katherine Kazarian, an East Providence Democrat, also noted that business owners routinely implore lawmakers to make policies that are predictable and standardized.
'This does exactly that,' Kazarian said.
Union groups, medical professionals and advocates for child and family wellbeing previously expressed support for raising the state's minimum wage, which they said would boost purchasing power, reduce poverty and lead to better health outcomes.
Lawmakers last updated the state's minimum wage rate in 2021, approving a set of annual increases that increased hourly rates by $3.50 over a four-year period.
Separate proposals to increase the tipped minimum wage for servers and other hospitality workers — either a one-year bump to $6.75 an hour or gradually to reach $15 hourly by 2031 — remained held for review in committee in each chamber as of Thursday afternoon. Rhode Island has not updated its $3.89 hourly minimum wage for workers who receive tips since 2017.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Hill
22 minutes ago
- The Hill
Nearly two-thirds disapprove of Trump's handling of inflation: Survey
Nearly two-thirds of Americans disapprove of how President Trump has handled inflation — one of his key campaign promises, a new poll has found six months into Trump's second term. The CBS News/YouGov poll released Sunday also found that half of U.S. adults think that the Trump administration's policies have made them 'financially worse off' and 62 percent think the White House's policies have driven food and grocery costs up. Inflation rose by 2.7 percent in June, as businesses passed the costs of Trump's tariff hikes onto consumers. Trump has insisted, though, that inflation has settled as he has pressed Federal Reserve chair Jerome Powell to lower interest rates. The White House has cited 'core inflation,' which excludes energy and food prices, as an indicator of positive movement on the issue. Core inflation hit 2.9 percent in June, below the expected 3 percent but up from 2.8 percent the month earlier. 'The USA is Rockin', there is VERY LOW INFLATION,' Trump wrote in a Truth Social post on Friday. More than three-fourths of Republicans surveyed in the new poll said they approve of Trump's handling of inflation, while Democrats and independents overwhelmingly disapproved at 95 percent and 72 percent, respectively. The White House didn't immediately provide comment for this story, but it touted Trump's inflation record in a news release last week. 'Every month since President Trump took office, core inflation — the best measure of inflation — has beat or matched expectations,' White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said in a statement Tuesday. 'The data proves that President Trump is stabilizing inflation and the Panicans continue to be wrong about tariffs raising prices.' The president has pressed for lower interest rates, but economists warn that such a move could drive inflation higher. The CBS News/YouGov poll found people were split on the issue: 39 percent said that the White House's priority should be keeping interest rates where they are to try to control inflation; 34 percent said interest rates should be cut; and 27 percent said they were not sure. The CBS News/YouGov poll surveyed 2,343 adults nationwide Wednesday through Friday. The margin of error is 2.5 percentage points.


The Hill
22 minutes ago
- The Hill
Over half of Americans say ‘big, beautiful bill' going to raise health care costs: Poll
More than half of Americans — 57 percent — said in a new survey that they think the GOP's sweeping package extending tax cuts and slashing welfare services will increase their health-care costs. Thirteen percent in the CBS/YouGov poll released Sunday said that the 'big, beautiful bill' will lower their health-care costs and 33 percent said there will be no impact. While the Congressional Budget Office has not yet released a final estimate for the measure as enacted, it projected that 16 million people would lose their health insurance by 2034 under an earlier House-passed version of the bill. This analysis has been the basis for many Democrats' messaging around health care, and health-care advocates have still warned that the final version could be devastating to communities relying on Medicaid. The sprawling package permanently extends many of the temporary tax cuts passed by Republicans during President Trump's first term, alongside making deep spending reductions to Medicaid, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), and other welfare programs. The measure would primarily benefit wealthy Americans, an analysis by the Yale Budget Lab found last month. Democrats have assailed the legislation as a historic transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich and are looking to message around its cuts to health care for the 2026 midterms — even if some of the package's most significant changes don't kick in until 2028. Overall, six in 10 questioned in the CBS/YouGov survey disapprove of the GOP megabill. A similar percentage said that it will help wealthy people and hurt poor people. A separate AP-NORC poll released Saturday found that nearly two-thirds of Americans think the legislation will do more to help wealthy people. In the CBS/YouGov poll, 40 percent of respondents said they thought the measure will increase their taxes. Another 32 percent said they thought their taxes will not be impacted either way. A majority — 56 percent — said that they tied issues regarding the megabill significantly to how they evaluate President Trump's second term. A plurality of Americans, 44 percent, said they had a 'general sense' of the content of the legislation alongside some specifics. Meanwhile, roughly two in 10 — 22 percent — said they had a general idea of it but lacked specifics. The CBS/YouGov poll was conducted between July 16 and July 18, with a sample of 2,343 and a margin of error of 2.5 percentage points.


San Francisco Chronicle
22 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
New Hampshire's new law protecting gunmakers faces first test in court over Sig Sauer lawsuit
CONCORD, N.H. (AP) — A new state law in New Hampshire that makes it harder to take gunmaker Sig Sauer to court is getting its first test before a judge on Monday. The 2-month-old law was created by the Republican-led Legislature in response to mounting lawsuits faced by the Newington-based manufacturer over its popular P320 pistol. The lawsuits say that the gun can go off without the trigger being pulled, an allegation Sig Sauer denies. Sig Sauer, which employs over 2,000 people in New Hampshire, said the gun is safe and the problem is user error. Several large, multi-plaintiff cases filed since 2022 in New Hampshire's federal court representing nearly 80 people accuse Sig Sauer of defective product design, marketing, and negligence, in addition to lawsuits filed in other states. Many of the plaintiffs are current and former law enforcement officers who say they were wounded by the gun. They say the P320 design requires an external mechanical safety, a feature that is optional. The most recent New Hampshire case, representing 22 plaintiffs in 16 states, was filed in March. It's the focus of Monday's hearing. The new law on product liability claims against Sig Sauer and other gun manufacturers covers the 'absence or presence' of the external safety and several other optional features. Claims can still be filed over manufacturing defects. Attorneys for Sig Sauer argue it should apply to the March case, even though the law didn't exist at the time. 'New Hampshire has a clearly articulated position against such claims being cognizable in this state,' they argue in court documents for breaking up the cases and transferring them to court districts where the plaintiffs live. Lawyers from a Philadelphia-based firm representing the plaintiffs, disagree, saying the law 'has zero implication' on the case and only applies to future lawsuits. New Hampshire was the chosen location because federal rules allow lawsuits against a company in its home state, the plaintiff's attorneys say. Those lawsuits have been assigned to one federal judge in Concord. Sig Sauer is trying to decentralize the case, they say. Sig Sauer has prevailed in some cases. It has appealed two recent multimillion-dollar verdicts against it, in Pennsylvania and Georgia. A judge recently allowed the Pennsylvania verdict to stand, but vacated $10 million in punitive damages awarded to the plaintiff.