Committee backs ag worker minimum wage bill that mirrors Mills' proposal last year
Lawmakers have endorsed a bill this session that would grant farmworkers in Maine the right to minimum wage and has the potential to finally make it off the governor's desk.
The Legislature's Labor Committee voted 6-1 with multiple members absent to endorse LD 589, which would give agricultural workers the right to state minimum wage and mirrors the proposal Gov. Janet Mills put forward last session.
Before committee members broke to caucus ahead of the vote, Senate co-chair Mike Tipping (D-Penobscot) said, 'This is the closest we have come and I hope we're in a good place here to finally pass a basic minimum wage for agricultural workers.'
There were two bills before the committee this session seeking to guarantee farmworkers the right to state minimum wage, since they are currently excluded from the section of law that provides a wage floor and overtime protections. Legally, they are only entitled to the $7.25 federal minimum wage; however, many farm owners say they pay workers even more than Maine's minimum wage of $14.65 an hour.
Earlier this session, the Labor Committee also supported a bill that would allow agricultural employees to talk about wages, working conditions and other employment matters with other employees or the employer. That bill has received initial approval from the Senate, but was tabled in the House of Representatives Tuesday, pending a vote.
Farmworker rights have been an ongoing discussion in the state as Mills has vetoed multiple pieces of legislation over her tenure seeking to secure labor protections, including her own bill last session. She said she could no longer support that proposal after the committee reworked the bill to allow farmworkers to bring their own private action against employers for violations.
House co-chair Rep. Amy Roeder (D-Bangor) said Tuesday that as a self-described 'idealist,' the legislation doesn't go as far as she would have liked, though ultimately supported the bill.
'I realize in legislation that we have to crawl before we can walk sometimes, but we've been crawling for an awful long time,' Roeder said.
When introducing LD 357 this session, Sen. Rick Bennett (R-Oxford) said he was appalled by the governor's actions last year. His bill was identical to the one the Labor Committee supported last year, but this time bolstered with a Republican as the lead sponsor.
Though the committee voted unanimously not to support Bennett's bill, Tipping thanked him for following the committee's work last session by introducing this measure.
Sen. Rachel Talbot Ross (D-Cumberland) originally took a different approach from Bennett with LD 589, which initially removed language that exempted farmworkers from current statute, rather than create a new section of law. However, this was a sticking point for the agricultural industry who worried that any future changes to that section of law could overlook the unique qualities of farming.
After amending LD 589 to address those concerns, the proposals had just two key differences. The legislation from Talbot Ross does not include a private right of action, leaving it up to the Department of Labor and the Office of the Maine Attorney General to handle any wage violations.
Additionally, the amended version of LD 589 includes language clarifying that the changes that would result from this legislation could not be construed to mean that agricultural workers were losing any existing rights.
Tipping highlighted this language before casting his vote in support of the bill, saying that he interprets it to mean that farmworkers won't lose their right to bring private action against an employer for other violations, such as not being paid any wages.
Labor Commissioner Laura Fortman said that based on conversations she has had with the governor, Mills seems to be on board with the amended version of LD 589.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
23 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Pitney Bowes Inc (PBI) Q2 2025 Earnings Call Highlights: Strategic Moves and Financial ...
Share Repurchase Authorization: Increased to $400 million. Dividend Increase: $0.01 increase for the third consecutive quarter. Free Cash Flow Guidance: Reiterated for the full year. Revenue Guidance: Reduced by $50 million. EBIT Margin Guidance: Tightened by reducing the high end of the range. EPS Guidance: Increased by $0.10. Adjusted Leverage Ratio: Now below 3x. Warning! GuruFocus has detected 4 Warning Sign with PBI. Release Date: July 30, 2025 For the complete transcript of the earnings call, please refer to the full earnings call transcript. Positive Points Pitney Bowes Inc (NYSE:PBI) reported significant earnings and cash flow growth on a year-over-year basis. The company nearly exhausted its $150 million share repurchase authorization and increased its dividend for the third consecutive quarter. The Board increased the share repurchase authorization to $400 million, reflecting confidence in the company's financial position. The company has a strong free cash flow and liquidity position, with an adjusted leverage ratio now below 3x. The SaaS business within SendTech showed strong performance, with a 17% year-over-year growth for the quarter. Negative Points Pitney Bowes Inc (NYSE:PBI) reduced its revenue guidance range by $50 million due to customer losses in the Presort business. The company tightened its EBIT margin range by bringing down the high end of the range. The reduction in revenue guidance was attributed to previous management decisions not to offer price concessions to at-risk Presort customers. The Presort business has not yet reversed customer losses, impacting revenue and EBIT guidance. The overall shipping revenue was down 2.5% year-over-year for the quarter due to declines in the non-core part of the business. Q & A Highlights Q: With the new share repurchase authorization, do you intend to continue buybacks in 2025, or will you wait to see how the business performs? A: Kurt Wolf, CEO: We can't comment on future market activities, but our historical share purchases reflect where we see value in the company. Our incentive structure, with options at strike prices of $12, $14, and $16, indicates our valuation perspective. With our leverage ratio below 3.0, we have increased access to restricted payments, providing flexibility for future buybacks. Q: Does the appointment of a new CFO change the timing of the strategic review? A: Kurt Wolf, CEO: The new CFO, Paul Evans, accelerates rather than delays the review. We are conducting a thorough internal review, identifying numerous opportunities for shareholder value creation. The internal review will likely continue through 2025, with a more comprehensive review starting in 2026. Q: How is the shipping subsegment within SendTech performing, and what is the outlook for the rest of the year? A: Kurt Wolf, CEO: The overall shipping revenue was down 2.5% year-over-year due to declines in non-core business. However, core shipping grew by 6%. The SaaS business within shipping grew by 17% year-over-year, and we expect it to continue outpacing core shipping revenue. Q: Are there any structural weaknesses in the Presort business following recent customer losses? A: Kurt Wolf, CEO: The reduction in revenue guidance is largely due to competitive losses in Presort, which were avoidable. We believe Presort and SendTech are strong businesses with high profitability and competitive capabilities. We are working to regain lost customers and capture new ones, leveraging our position as a low-cost provider. Q: How do you view the potential for refinancing bonds, given the current high-yield market conditions? A: Paul Evans, CFO: We are considering refinancing options, balancing our debt's average life and coupon rates. We have the liquidity to pay off the 2027 notes, but we will evaluate the best timing and approach based on market conditions and our strategic needs. For the complete transcript of the earnings call, please refer to the full earnings call transcript. This article first appeared on GuruFocus. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
23 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Factbox-Trump tariffs threaten India's export edge; key sectors brace for impact
By Vivek Kumar M and Bharath Rajeswaran (Reuters) -U.S. President Donald Trump on Wednesday slapped 25% tariffs on Indian goods, along with an unspecified penalty tied to energy and defence purchases from Russia — a move that, if enforced, could erode India's export competitiveness and weigh on investor sentiment. India's trade surplus with the U.S. — its largest export market — stood at 1.2% of GDP in 2024. Analysts warn halving that surplus could shave 25–40 basis points off GDP, undermining India's 'safe haven' narrative amid a global slowdown. The relative appeal of Indian markets has also faded, with local equities underperforming peers like Vietnam and Indonesia, which have secured trade pacts with Washington. CLSA said the tariff threat adds to uncertainty in an already expensive market. With negotiations set to resume in mid-August, markets expect the final tariff rate to be lower than 25%. But until clarity emerges, export-linked sectors face significant near-term headwinds. See below for a sector snapshot on who is exposed: PHARMACEUTICALS The U.S. accounts for nearly one-third of India's pharma exports (about $9 billion in FY24). Jefferies estimates a 2–8% EPS hit for Biocon, Sun Pharma and Dr. Reddy's, if generics are included. HSBC warns of an up to 17% downside to FY26 earnings forecasts. TEXTILES Exporters like Welspun Living, Gokaldas Exports, Indo Count and Trident derive 40–70% of sales from the U.S. Higher tariffs could shift market share to Vietnam, which benefits from lower U.S. duties. OIL REFINING A proposed penalty on Russian oil imports could hit Reliance Industries and state-run refiners Bharat Petroleum and Hindustan Petroleum. Companies may face higher costs if forced to diversify crude sourcing. AUTO COMPONENTS Automakers have limited U.S. exposure, but parts makers including Bharat Forge and Sona BLW are Motors' Jaguar Land Rover unit is shielded under U.S.-UK/EU trade arrangements. CAPITAL GOODS & CHEMICALS Cummins India, Thermax and KEI Industries have 5–15% U.S. exposure. Chemical exporters such as Navin Fluorine, PI Industries and SRF may face margin pressure, especially on refrigerant gas exports. SOLAR EQUIPMENT Waaree Energies and Premier Energies count the U.S. as a key market. Nearly 20% of Waaree's FY24 revenue came from the U.S., which also accounts for a major chunk of its 59% overseas current order book. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
23 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Editorial: Hands off — Trump's off-base attack on NYC's sanctuary immigration policy
Intentionally misstating New York City's sanctuary immigration policy as thwarting the prosecution of violent criminals, the Trump administration continued its war on local government by filing suit in federal court last week, one of a number of similar lawsuits across the country that conflate civil noncooperation with active criminal interference and attempt to conscript local officials into President Donald Trump's destructive crackdown. This should prove to Mayor Mayor Adams and other state and city leaders that no amount of appeasement is going to forestall the targeting from Trump. Adams met multiple times with immigration coordinator Tom Homan, insisting that the two men had 'the same goal,' making concessions like signing off on the opening up of an ICE office on Rikers Island years after a city sanctuary law had kicked them out. It's clear that Trump and Homan were not and probably could not be placated to the extent that they would leave Adams and New York City alone. The reality is that this is a totalizing project; Stephen Miller and the rest of the White House want to rid the country almost entirely of immigrants, with or without legal status, and regardless of where they are or what effect that will have on our economy and society. They've been routinely violating the law to do so. It's worth noting once more that Trump's is a political movement that often proclaimed itself a defender of state rights and local control, but apparently that only extended to allowing local officials to detain immigrants, pull books from school shelves, limit access to abortion, curb labor and environmental protections and drive LGBTQ people from public life. When it comes to a refusal to participate in federal operations that have so far involved masked and unidentified agents shoving people into unmarked vehicles — just the sort of thing that we would call authoritarianism and tyranny anywhere else — then states and localities get no say beyond being extensions of a central government. We're not particularly worried that any competent judge would accept these nonsensical claims. A day after the New York case was filed, a federal judge in Chicago dismissed the Trump lawsuit against that city's sanctuary immigration policy. We just want to remind readers that sanctuary is not immunity from prosecution, especially prosecution for violent crimes. What it is however is that when someone is treated at a city health clinic for TB or enrolls a child in school or reports a crime to the police as a victim or a witness, the person's civil immigration status is irrelevant. We want everyone in the city to get treated when sick, we want all children to be in school, we want all crime victims and witnesses to come forward to the cops. The idea of anti-commandeering — the notion that the federal government can't force state and local governments to carry out its own agenda and enforcement functions — has been foundational from the genesis of our country's federalized system. The right of jurisdictions to enact sanctuary provisions that block the use of local resources for this federal function has been litigated over and over again, and always found to be on solid legal footing. We are, however, more worried about the U.S. Supreme Court, which has in the past several months taken it upon itself to sign off on Trump's expansive power grabs. It has allowed among other things Trump to fire federal employees and independent agency members in direct contravention of statute, allowed the limiting of a nationwide order blocking Trump's attempt to overturn the 14th Amendment's birthright citizenship provisions and allowed parents to impose religious beliefs on whole school curricula. If these questions get up to that high court level, we hope that the justices will exercise some of their independent power, as they did on other absolutely egregious instances like Trump's efforts to remove people without due process under the Alien Enemies Act proclamation. Anything else will destroy the trust of people in their own local officials and governments and strike at the very foundation of this country's system of government. _____