Thu, Dec 04, 2008
ez access
Subscriber services | Subscribe now
Custom clipper icon
Opponents of Proposition 202, which would boost Arizona's minimum wage past the federal standard and add cost-of-living raises, contend its passage may spur identity theft by opening employers' records.
benjie sanders / arizona daily star
Proposition 202
● The "Raise the Minimum Wage for Working Arizonans Act" would establish a statewide minimum wage with an annual cost-of-living raise.
l Core facts: Proposition 202 would repeal the state prohibition on minimum wages. Employers would be required to pay $6.75 an hour, or $3.75 an hour to employees who make up the difference in tips, beginning Jan. 1, and then give inflation-based raises each year. The Industrial Commission of Arizona would enforce the law and investigate possible violations under a set of rules listed in the proposition. Cities and towns would be allowed to set higher minimum wages.
l For and against: Supporters include the Arizona AFL-CIO, the Arizona Dem-ocratic Party and Arizona Business and Professional Women. Opponents include the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry, the National Federation of Independent Business and the Arizona Retailers Association.
l Real-world impact: Advocates say raising the minimum wage is a first step in helping low-wage workers get out of poverty. Critics say the rising cost of labor will force businesses to cut jobs and increase prices for products and services.

Business

Proposition 202 opponents cite privacy concerns

By Eric Swedlund
arizona daily star
Tucson, Arizona | Published: 10.19.2006
Opponents of a proposition to raise Arizona's minimum wage are shifting their criticism, saying the measure would increase the threat of identity theft by opening employers' records.
Proposition 202, the "Raise the Minimum Wage for Working Arizonans Act," would set the minimum hourly wage at $6.75, up from the federal limit of $5.15. The initiative also outlines how the law would be enforced, vesting oversight in the Industrial Commission of Arizona unless the governor designates another commission.
Michelle Bolton, co-chair of the No On 202 campaign, said the initiative would create an open window to personal and confidential information by giving the commission access to business records.
"There are no parameters guiding this commission," she said. "We don't know how many people will be on this commission, what the qualifications will be. Is it going to be the Industrial Commission? Is it going to be a brand-new commission?"
Without clear direction, the initiative leaves the risk that a "rogue agency" could harm commerce in the state, Bolton said.
"There's no oversight whatsoever by the Legislature or the voters. We're being asked as voters to vote on something and trust government to hash it out after it's passed."
The No On 202 campaign is also worried about frivolous complaints, since the initiative would allow anybody to file a complaint on an accuser's behalf, Bolton said.
"It's almost like this initiative was thrown together, with all due respect to the drafters," she said. "It's poorly defined, it's poorly written and I don't blanketly trust government and I don't think anyone should."
Larry Etchechury, director of the Industrial Commission, said nobody has raised privacy or identity-theft issues with him.
"In terms of dealing with confidential information, we do it all the time," he said.
The commission investigates worker-compensation claims and wage disputes, dealing with medical and proprietary information regularly. The commission handles up to 150,000 workers' compensation cases a year, in addition to about 5,000 wage disputes.
Overseeing minimum-wage claims would take more involvement but is in line with the commission's work historically, Etchechury said.
"We're going to have issues to lay out and deal with so we're upfront with everybody about how we do it," he said. "Obviously we would be making sure if we were to get into that we would handle it in a responsible way."
Formed in 1925, the commission now has about 300 employees, headed by five commissioners serving staggered five-year terms, appointed by the governor and confirmed by the Senate.
Rebekah Friend, president of the Arizona AFL-CIO and honorary co-chair of the Arizona Minimum Wage Coalition, said the commission has dealt with sensitive personal information for decades without privacy problems.
"They certainly have a reputation of being able to handle the privacy matters of an employee's records," she said. "I can't imagine why you would completely change something out that's been working since 1928. It is the natural place to have it."
Friend said introducing privacy concerns to the debate is a diversionary tactic to avoid discussing the pay increase Arizona workers deserve. Other states have had success in implementing a minimum wage higher than the national mandate, she said.
"What we're attempting to do through the initiative process is not new," Friend said. "There have been no massive landslides of employee concerns or privacy issues in any of these states."
While privacy concerns weren't mentioned by any opponents in the state's voter guide, Bolton bristled at the suggestion that privacy concerns are a diversion, saying it's dishonest not to educate voters on all aspects of the initiative.
● Contact reporter Eric Swedlund at 573-4115 or at eswedlund@azstarnet.com.
Get Arizona Daily Star home delivery and SAVE BIG!
Go Back