Most Recent Posts

For South Dakotans who have enjoyed a relatively low-key campaign season so far, your peace and quiet is about to end.

Both the Senate arm of the national Democratic Party and a crowd-sourced, anti-superPAC superPAC are preparing to flood the airwaves with ads backing Democratic candidate Rick Weiland and attacking former Republican Gov. Mike Rounds.

South Dakota was supposed to be one of three easy pickups for Republicans in their bid to take control of the Senate — which means it's just a matter of time before Republicans and their outside group allies respond in kind.

The flurry of activity comes after new polling that shows Rounds' big lead in the race has shrunk, with both Weiland and former Republican Sen. Larry Pressler within striking distance. Democratic Party leaders would be happy with either Weiland, a onetime aide to former Majority Leader Tom Daschle, or Pressler, who both in 2008 and 2012 endorsed President Obama.

South Dakota has been a generally reliable Republican state in recent years, but Rounds has been dragged down by investigations into a state agency's use of a visa program that gives green cards to wealthy foreigners who invest in United States businesses. Rounds promoted the plan as governor, but a major beneficiary went bankrupt amid allegations of corruption and self-dealing.

A spokeswoman at the National Republican Senatorial Committee said Rounds is in good shape and that it's a sign of Democrats' desperation that they are throwing money at a race in a state like South Dakota.

Both the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and Mayday PAC have said they will spend $1 million in South Dakota, although the Democratic money will also be used for voter turnout.

The state is about as inexpensive a media market as they come. An ad buy designed so that the typical viewer will see it 10 times in a week costs about $250,000 in South Dakota – a fraction of what it costs in states with big TV markets.

And while states like North Carolina and Colorado have seen tens of thousands of television ads so far this election, South Dakota had only seen about 12,000 through this week, at a total cost of $2 million, according to the Center for Public Integrity.

If those hoping to defeat Rounds spend as much as they say, and those hoping to elect him match that, South Dakotans could easily be subjected to twice that number of ads in the final three weeks of the campaign.

2014 Senate race: South Dakota

2014 Senate races

South Dakota

This story is part of the New Boom series on millennials in America.

President Obama is holding a town hall meeting Thursday in California with a group he wants to mobilize for the midterm elections: millennial entrepreneurs. Millennials — young people ages 18-34 — are a key part of the Democratic coalition.

In just a few years, millennials will become the biggest demographic bulge in the electorate. For a very long time, young people's partisan preferences looked pretty much like everyone else's — they divided their votes between the two parties. After 2004 that changed, and they swung very heavily to the Democrats. But they're not the Obama-adoring college students of 2008 anymore. They're the generation hard-hit by the economy.

"Democrats have an advantage with them at this moment, but the one presidential candidate they really have voted for overwhelmingly is Barack Obama," says Peter Levine, who studies young people's civic participation at Tufts University. "And he's not gonna be available anymore. ... I think the Democrats have a job to shift the allegiance to the party. Quite a tough job ... Republicans should make an active play for them."

Join The Conversation

Use the hashtag #newboom to join the conversation on social media.

So projections that millennials are once and forever enthusiastic Democrats will be put to the test of the next few cycles. To find out more about their views, we asked six millennials to join us at La Colombe cafe in the Shaw neighborhood in Washington, D.C., to talk politics. They discussed political gridlock, economic issues and social issues like gay marriage and reproductive rights. Listen to their full conversation, and view excerpts below:

Listen to the Full Conversation36:44

Loading…

Listen to the Full Conversation

Arturo Chang

i i

Rachel Lushinsky/NPR

Rachel Lushinsky/NPR

I have issues mostly with the two-party system. ... I wouldn't blame the Republicans for the gridlock we see; I blame that more as a systematic issue as a result of our type of government, you know, the way it's structured it's prone to create gridlock. But I think the issue I see is that [the Republican Party is] not even willing to touch the social issues that we are all talking about here. ... I expect gridlock. The problem for me is partisanship in Washington, which, when you have an extremely partisan Washington and working within a system that is prone to gridlock, you're going to have a government that doesn't get anything done. ... The problem is that Washington just does not reflect the true American, the way America feels. You know, research shows America is not as partisan as we say they are.

Shaza Loutfi

i i

Rachel Lushinsky/NPR

Rachel Lushinsky/NPR

I would say that it's very difficult to find something that really aligns with what you believe. In a perfect world, I would say I am an independent, but in the system that we have currently where the two parties dominate, we have to choose a side. And in that case I would definitely say Democrat. I think there is this association with the Republicans of it being dominated by white males and the business scene, whereas the Democrats seem more inclusive, and that speaks to me.

As an Arab-American, when you talk about privacy and when we look at what's happened in recent years right after 9/11 — we've seen the wiretapping of Arabs, all of their information being taken and used in different ways — it's an abuse of power. And so when I think about that and I think about Republicans trying to use the privacy issue to get more voters, it is interesting to me. Because, as you know, Arabs used to vote Republican and they used to be very conservative and they would mesh with them on that. And so now it's interesting to see that maybe they're going to get the Arab vote back. Although I don't really agree with the Republican Party, it is an issue that I support and it is something I do think they're on the right track with.

Alexa Graziolli

i i

Rachel Lushinsky/NPR

Rachel Lushinsky/NPR

Most of us here probably have college loans, and I think Social Security, I think it's good to have a safety net, you work towards it, and I think it's about helping your elders and things like that. I want to pay in for it for my mom; I want my kids to pay in for it. So I do think that government is a helpful thing.

I think these [social] issues are so important to us too because growing up we were exposed to them more. So as far as ... gay rights, when my mom was growing up that may have been the secret in the family you didn't really talk about it. But growing up, you know, I knew my uncle was gay and that didn't matter to me because I'm 5 — I don't know the difference so I think that's why it's so important. As you get older you realize that there are people that are against it and you're kind of like, "Why? It hasn't caused me any harm; it doesn't cause you any harm." So I think that's why we're so focused on issues like that.

Stephen Crouch

i i

Rachel Lushinsky/NPR

Rachel Lushinsky/NPR

Obviously the government is a tool that we have to have in our society — it gives us laws, it gives us rules — but I would also like to point out there's a lot of bureaucracy involved. There's a lot of government bailouts that are happening, and this is money that we're paying into the kitty that we'll probably never see in our generation. We have politicians that make, you know, exorbitant amounts of money and ... these are [our] taxes ... we're buying their Lexuses, we're buying their McMansions, and obviously I feel like that's a system that's just not working for working-class people.

I kind of feel like politicians at this point of time, they rely on being very beige. They don't have any kind of stance either way, and that's how these guys are getting kind of pushed into politics. I mean, you look at Obama — he had no vote either way until he went into the presidency. It's like, politicians are almost negatively impacted for having an opinion. You know, like Rand Paul probably doesn't have much a chance at ... being the president because he voices an opinion which, you know, in all honestly is a breath of fresh air.

Jessica Ramser

i i

Rachel Lushinsky/NPR

Rachel Lushinsky/NPR

My dad is a labor worker and I saw unemployment help us so much growing up. And, yeah, I do fear that. Especially, you know, thankful for the loans that the government is giving me, but where is that going to take me in the next two years? You know, am I guaranteed a job anymore? No, and I am scared for my economic future.

[My dad] has gone through just periods of unemployment. The labor union is tough — sometimes there's jobs, sometimes there's not; it depends on the weather. There's so many union workers out there. Currently he is working now, but [he has] gone through periods of unemployment, which, you know, there's a couple months you're fine and a couple months you're not. So definitely living that paycheck to paycheck, I have felt firsthand with my family.

I think that as millennials we have a voice, and a strong voice. And within the next couple years, especially as we get into our careers and prominent roles, you'll see that throughout the United States and in policy.

Ginger Gibson

I came out of college and ... the economy crashed ... I walked into my office every day not knowing if they were gonna close the doors and turn us away. I mean, they were hemorrhaging employees, and I watched people who would have not gotten by had it not been for unemployment. ... I think that's going to, probably forever, change my perspective on government assistance like that, just because I saw how bad it was and how desperately people needed it.

I think we pay attention way more than we get credit for. I think that there's this misperception of millennials as being selfish, as being unengaged, as not working hard, as being difficult. I think that's wrong. I think anybody who's grown up in my years and years after me that has to deal with this economy knows that's wrong, we've worked really hard. And we pay attention. Sometimes we pay more attention than older generations. And we're going to keep paying attention. And I think that our viewpoints are not locked in, we're not going to be monolithic from the start, but I think that we are going to pay a lot more attention moving forward.

The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments Wednesday in a case that could affect millions of low-wage hourly workers across the country. At issue is whether federal law requires employers to pay workers for significant amounts of time spent in security screenings.

Integrity Staffing Solutions Inc. is a temp agency that hires workers for many of Amazon's warehouses. The employees fill customer orders and package them to ship. But after the workers clock out, they have to go through anti-theft screening — a process that they say took an average of 25 minutes because the company set up just two screening checkpoints for 1,000 workers at the shift change in Nevada warehouses. The workers sued, contending that under federal law they should be paid for the time spent in the long screening process.

Paul Clement, a solicitor general during the Bush administration, led off the argument on behalf of Integrity. He told the justices that under federal law, workers are not paid for clocking out or waiting to clock out, and therefore they should not be paid for the screening process afterward.

Justice Elena Kagan interrupted with a question: Suppose you have an employer with an "extensive process for closing out cash registers" to protect against theft. Without the theft concern, you could close out the register much more quickly. The same would be true for bank tellers or casino employees: Instead of a couple of minutes, there would be a 20-minute anti-theft process. So, she asked, what's the difference "between that case and going through security at Amazon?"

Clement seemed to suggest that in those cases, the employees would not be paid for their time either .

"Couldn't you say," Justice Antonin Scalia suggested, that "closing down the cash register is part of the job," while "getting yourself inspected as you leave" is not?

Clement readily agreed to the suggestion, but Kagan did not. "That would seem to make it depend on a complete fortuity," she warned. After all, you could have the cashier "take her tray" to the manager "on the way out the door." And you would end up with one answer at the cashier's station and a different one at the manager's station.

"Is it irrelevant," Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg interjected, that because there are not enough screeners, "what could be a five-minute process turns out to be 25 minutes?"

Clement replied that it is irrelevant, though he pointed out that some people at the front of the line would be screened in far less than 25 minutes.

Justice Anthony Kennedy focused the questioning back on the company. Isn't it "for the benefit of the employer" to hire fewer checkers, he asked, despite the fact that it causes long waiting periods for the workers?

Clement conceded the point, but maintained that the time spent waiting in line still wasn't compensable. To qualify for compensation, he argued, the screening would have to be "indispensable" to the job — and Amazon could "perfectly well run a warehouse" without security screenings.

"I don't think you can," interjected Justice Kagan. "What makes it Amazon" is a system of inventory control so good that it "knows where every toothbrush in the warehouse is."

Opposing Clement in court and arguing for the workers, Reno-based attorney Mark Thierman told the justices that, once an employee clocks out, anything else that an employer requires is a work-related task that the worker has to be paid for, unless there is a specific carve-out in the law.

Chief Justice Roberts observed that "the employer doesn't hire someone ... to go through security screening." It seems to me, he said, that "you're just saying [that] anything that is required for the benefit of employer" is an activity that has to be compensated.

"A person is hired to do what they are told to do. That's your job," Thierman responded. And the employer has to pay for it, if it takes more than a trivial amount of time.

Justice Stephen Breyer said that in a case like this, he normally would look to the Department of Labor, "and they say you lose."

Thierman replied that the Labor Department's interpretation of the law in this case is inconsistent with its other rules that "define work as 'when you're under the control of and doing what the employer tells you to do.' "

Breyer followed up, asking for examples of other activities, similar to security screening, that are compensated. Thierman noted that workers are compensated for time spent in routine drug testing, and truck drivers are paid for time spent refueling their trucks at the end of their shifts.

Chief Justice Roberts postulated that all of these issues likely would be addressed during the collective bargaining process, but Thierman noted that these are nonunion workers. Moreover, he said that most of these cases do not involve union workers.

Thierman went on to argue that having just two checkers for 1,000 people at one shift change was Integrity's choice. It could have hired more screeners — as it did later, when it lost in the lower court — and cut the wait time to five minutes; it could have installed cameras on the warehouse floor; it could have searched employee work stations. But it picked the cheapest way to conduct the security screening, he said, without regard to the time it cost the workers.

When he concluded his argument, though, it was not at all clear a majority of the court agreed the workers should be paid for their long daily waits.

Amazon.com

Nevada

Supreme Court

Imagine there's no tipping. By getting rid of gratuities, a few restaurants believe they'll make life easier for customers, while providing a more stable income to servers.

"It eliminates the pressure on the guest to worry about paying our staff," says Brian Oliveira, chef at Girard, a French-style restaurant opening in Philadelphia in a few weeks that intends to offer its staff up to $13 an hour in salary, plus health benefits, but with no tips.

Successful ideas in the restaurant business always get copied. Oliveira said he and his partners were inspired by no-tipping experiments happening at a handful of restaurants in California, Texas and New York.

Those restaurants say employees are more satisfied and that service has actually improved. Moving away from tipping may never spread industrywide, but it's a model that may help answer some complaints about poor salaries.

Packhouse, a no-tip meat emporium that opened in Newport, Ky., in January, pays servers $10 an hour and gives them the chance to earn 20 percent of their total sales per shift if they hit certain targets — whichever is higher. Servers bring home the bigger amount most days.

"If it's dead all day, they don't walk out making nine bucks," says Kurt Stephens, Packhouse's general manager.

Not all servers will be better off under this type of arrangement, but lack of tipping makes for easier accounting for customers and the business itself.

Menu prices might read a bit higher, but diners will know what they'll end up paying at meal's end — probably no more than they would have at an equivalent place where they'd tip.

And lack of tips simplifies compliance for restaurateurs obligated to make up the difference between servers' base pay and the standard minimum wage, if they don't make enough in tips. Currently, the federal minimum wage for tipped workers is $2.13 an hour, although that baseline is higher in a majority of states.

Tipping creates winners and losers. The people who bring you your steaks at high-end restaurants are probably doing quite well off tips, but many restaurant workers can't count on bringing home big bucks, especially after slow shifts on off days. A recent study from the labor-backed Economic Policy Institute found that 17 percent of restaurant workers live in poverty.

"I'm very aware that at some establishments, people would do far better under the existing tipping model," says Bill Perry, who is about to open Public Option, a no-tipping pub in Washington, D.C. "In our category, which is much more neighborhood-oriented, we're concerned that the variability of tips may not produce a good income."

This is an idea still very much in the making. Girard and Public Option aren't even open yet. With only a few other restaurants around the country having made the move away from tipping, it's not at all clear this will be a successful alternative.

But the increasing pressure on restaurants to pay their employees more — from fast-food workers to waiters hustling for tips — is one reason outlets should consider the tip-free approach, says Dennis Lombardi, a restaurant consultant based in Columbus, Ohio.

Wage increases are bound to translate into higher menu prices. "By going to nontipping, they can pay that living wage," Lombardi says, "without having the additional cost of tipping that will determine whether the customer comes back to the restaurant."

It works in Europe. But tipping has long been a part of the American way of dining out, a tool for diners to reward good service — and, less often, to punish those who fail to satisfy. The desire to earn good tips is part of what prompts people to give good service and "promotes the spirit of hospitality," says Hudson Riehle, senior vice president of research at the National Restaurant Association.

"Along with flexible work schedules, tipping is part of what makes [being] a restaurant server an attractive profession for millions of Americans," he says.

Even a labor advocate such as Saru Jayaraman, who directs the food labor research center at the University of California, Berkeley and calls the no-tip approach "a fabulous model," worries that it won't pay off for all workers. An increased base wage is a step in the right direction, she says, but she worries that salaries of $10 or $13 an hour won't be enough.

"Restaurant workers are professionals and in other countries are paid like professionals — $18 or $20 an hour," Jayaraman says.

But many restaurant workers in the U.S. don't make anything near those amounts, she concedes. So the prospect of a guaranteed income will be enticing for many who have come home with hardly anything to show after a quiet Tuesday afternoon lunch shift, suggests Perry, the D.C. restaurateur.

"Some of the folks we spoke to really cited the variability — that they never know what to expect," Perry says. "They can't wait to actually try [the no-tipping model] out."

Restaurant workers have traditionally experienced either feast or famine when it comes to their own pay packets. Some workers might be content just knowing the exact amount of take-home pay they can count on — at least, that's what the number of applicants at the new no-tipping establishments would suggest.

"We're kind of taking the risk off the server and putting it back on the business," says Stephens, the Packhouse general manager. "There's hardly any turnover, and everybody's making money."

A former NPR staffer, Alan Greenblatt is a journalist based in St. Louis.

no-tipping

tipping

restaurant workers

minimum wage