Issue 2: I’m Against It, But One Opposing Argument Does Not Seem Convincing
To be clear, I’m against Issue 2, the Ohio Minimum Wage Increase Amendment, regardless of the answer to the item I’m wondering about here, for reasons that are so grounded in Econ 101 that they aren’t even worth bothering with.
The text of the amendment that is the basis of Issue 2 is here (imperfect HTML format on my site; PDF at the RaiseTheWage.org site)
Issue 2’s opposition claims that the language of the amendment will open up corporate payroll records to potential access by snoops, harassers, potential identity thieves, and others without direct involvement in enforcing the minimum-wage law should it take effect.
I don’t see it in the language.
The closest I can get is this language from the amendment:
An employee, person acting on behalf of one or more employees and/or any other interested party may file a complaint with the state for a violation of any provision of this section or any law or regulation implementing its provisions. Such complaint shall be promptly investigated and resolved by the state.
If “interested party” is construed as I would expect (i.e., a person’s attorney or other representative acting on an employee’s behalf or with their permission), I don’t see a problem. If I’m wrong, and an “interested party” could be anyone who doesn’t like a particular company, any of its officers, or just businesses in general, I would definitely have a problem if, thanks to Issue 2, they gained the ability to get their hands on payroll records without actually acting with the express permission of employees supposedly not being paid the minimum wage.
I would think that an “interested party” would fit the former description, and not the latter. For example, the group that sued to try to stop the tax breaks for the Jeep-Chrysler facility in Toledo were determined by the courts (incorrectly, in my opinion [third item at link]) not to have standing (i.e., they weren’t “interested parties”), even though they were taxpayers of the area affected by all the tax breaks. If taxpayers can’t even sue to stop a tax-giveaway deal, why could anyone sue a company on behalf of the minimum-wage amendment if they aren’t representing a supposedly affected employee?
As I said, it’s not a dealbreaker for me, because I’m against Issue 2 anyway. But I suspect that some who might otherwise be supporters of the initiative would turn against it if it appeared to authorized unlimited fishing expeditions against employers by people who have nothing better to do. I welcome any clarification.
