Massachusetts Voters Protect the Right To Work for Tips

The tug-of-war over what role the government should play in regulating compensation for tipped workers has subverted typical partisan lines.

Massachusetts voters have decisively rejected a measure to abolish the tipped wage, declining to require that restaurants and related employers replace the current pay scheme—which allows them to compensate employees with a lower base wage supplemented with gratuities—with the state-mandated hourly minimum.

Had the measure passed, the law would have gradually upped hourly pay for tipped employees until it ultimately reached $15 an hour, Massachusetts' current minimum wage, in January 2029. The state's tipped wage is $6.75 an hour—although employees often make considerably more than minimum wage with gratuities. If an employee's tips fall short of boosting them to the minimum wage, employers are already required to make up the difference.

The vote comes amid an ongoing tug-of-war across the U.S. over how muscular a role the government should play in regulating compensation for tipped workers—a debate that has subverted typical partisan lines. Spearheaded by the One Fair Wage Plus Tips MA Committee, the campaign hoped to have Massachusetts join eight states—Alaska, California, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, and Michigan, along with Washington, D.C., and Chicago, Illinois—that have eliminated, or are in the process of eliminating, the tipped wage.

But despite being primarily a left-leaning rallying cry, Massachusetts Gov. Maura Healey and Lieutenant Gov. Kim Driscoll, both Democrats, joined a long list of liberals and progressives to come out against the policy, citing their past work as waitresses who experienced how lucrative tipped employment can be.

Healey took it a step further. "I think it's important to vote no on this because I think you run the risk of closing restaurants and putting these workers out of work, actually, because the restaurant owners I speak [to] are not going to be able to afford this and they're going to end up laying off people," she said on Boston Public Radio. "In some instances, some have told me they're just going to shut down."

Areas that have tried this experiment can corroborate some of those concerns. Washington, D.C., for example, saw full-service restaurants hemorrhage 1,800 jobs between May 2023 and August 2024, shortly after the city nixed its tipped wage. The price of eating out there has also increased, particularly with the addition of hefty service fees, much to the chagrin of many customers.

Not unlike Massachusetts, D.C. heard loud opposition to the policy—particularly from voices in the restaurant industry. "I grew up in the Washington area, and I'm worried about my livelihood," wrote Ryan Aston, a bartender who identified as a progressive, in The Washington Post. "Restaurant profit margins are already often razor-thin, and to be forced to pay the largest (and already highest-earning) portion of a staff four times more than before creates a real accounting problem….Next, once menu prices have soared and staff has been cut, tips will dwindle."

In other words, many service workers themselves have objected to the change, citing the superior income working for tips can provide. Voters have sometimes decided they know better. In Massachusetts, thankfully, that wasn't the case.