Republican Brett Stephens urged state legislators to reject a bill setting a $20 wage level, arguing during legislative debate that the proposal could place excessive pressure on small employers and harm workers it is intended to help.

Stephens acknowledged that working families deserve better pay, but made the case that the measure’s proposed increase was too rapid. He warned that a move to $20 could lead to fewer work hours, higher prices and fewer job opportunities, particularly if smaller businesses cannot absorb the added labor costs.

The Republican lawmaker framed his opposition as a call for a more gradual approach, arguing that any wage increase should be phased in, predictable and linked to economic conditions rather than established through what he characterized as a headline-driven mandate.

But Stephens’ position placed the focus of his remarks on the capacity of employers to manage a higher wage floor, rather than on the immediate financial pressures facing workers and families seeking better pay. His argument did not identify a specific alternative wage level or a timetable for the phased increase he said would be more responsible.

Stephens also pointed to warnings previously raised by Mr. Langley and Mr. McGrath, aligning himself with concerns that a $20 standard could produce unintended effects for workers. The speech presented those risks as the central case against the bill, while conceding the underlying premise that working families need improved wages.

The debate reflects a familiar divide over wage policy: whether lawmakers should move quickly to raise pay for workers or proceed more cautiously amid concerns about business costs and potential changes to hours or hiring. Stephens made clear that he favors the latter course.

His call for a no vote came with an appeal for an alternative designed, in his view, to protect both workers and jobs. Yet the remarks left unresolved what concrete wage proposal, if any, he would support in place of the $20 measure now under debate.