Why the focus on the state's servers just to save $1 a hour?

Perhaps I'm just conditioned to siding with waiters and waitresses.

I'm decades removed from my abandoned degree in psychology, so I'm going on emotion rather than science when I say that years of mostly positive interactions with restaurant servers have caused me to generally think positively about them and negatively about people who demean them.

My experiences can be summed up simply: They greet me and smile. They bring me a glass of wine or a highball. They bring me food. If all goes right, at some point they call me "hon."

Reinforcement achieved. Repeat.

Which is why I continue to be perplexed by the yearly assault on the people on the front lines of Foodie Nation. On Monday, a pitched battle over tip credits spilled late into the night, resulting in a Minnesota House vote to step back the wage gains of last session on the backs of restaurant servers. The Republican-led House, with the help of seven DFLers, approved a measure that would create a $1 an hour lower minimum wage for servers who made at least $4 an hour in tips — you know, the rich ones.

The hospitality industry said restaurants have been hurt by the increase in the state's minimum wage to $8 in August. It is the first of three increases, up to $9.50, then they are tied to inflation. Restaurant owners want to hold costs down by whittling down the incomes of their top servers.

Is it just me, or is the focus on the incomes of servers disproportionate to the impact a $1 reprieve has on the state's economy?

"A lot of it speaks to the strength of the hospitality industry, along with the Chamber of Commerce and the Minnesota Business Partnership," said Schultz. "In the large scheme of things, one dollar more for wages seems to have little or no impact on the economy, or to the businesses, which are going to pass that along to customers.

"It's about interest groups and this being a flash-point issue for Republicans to appease the base and score points against the Democrats," Schultz said.

That hasn't always worked in a general election. Remember when gubernatorial candidate Tom Emmer proclaimed that a server at a sports bar — not some glacé and reduction joint — earned $100,000 per year? Job prospects started lining up at the bar asking for applications and the owners had to admit the story was fiction.

Emmer's blunder signaled a couple of things, Schultz said. Servers are popular, and Emmer seemed "out of touch with the working class." The continuing barrage this session could leave a similar impression of legislators who are attempting a clawback from those servers. Schultz said, however, that the tactic will likely strengthen the conservative base as symbolic, whether or not it has much real impact upon them.

To give credit where it's due, those favoring a lower wage offered a couple of amuse bouches to the bill. They voted to protect servers from having to pay credit card fees from their tips, and offered more salary transparency and protection against sexual harassment.

Not too shabby for a waiter slogging beef commercials at the Feedbag N' Fuel, right?

It turns out, however, that the wages cited were from a survey of only those restaurants represented by the MRA, which make up less than 20 percent of all state restaurants, according to Kris Jacobs, executive director of the Jobs Now Coalition, which supports higher worker wages.

A better survey might be the one from the Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development, which estimated in 2014 that the median pay for servers, including wages and tips, was $8.68 an hour. Ninety percent earned less than $11.93 per hour.

That's a big difference to most of those who bounce between the four-tops, hon.

Before she eats at a restaurant, Jacobs will sometimes call to see if it is a member of the MRA and whether it supports the lower minimum wage for its servers. Managers usually won't say because they fear it will backfire among staff and potential customers, she said. In a way, it's a bit of a stealth campaign by those owners afraid of letting anyone know what they think.

He said it with pride.

"I don't see why we have to pay [enough] so we can make it on one job. [Minimum wage] is a place to start and learn from," said Howe, 55. "I couldn't do it on one job. I continue to have three jobs. It falls on deaf ears to me."

So there you have it. I hope young people waiting tables to get through college take note that Howe has just set the realistic bar to their lofty ambitions.

Pretty soon everyone will demand three jobs.

jtevlin@startribune.com • 612-673-1702