AUGUSTA — Workers who earn the lowest wages in the state were among Monday’s casualties in the aftermath of Gov. Angus S. King’s miniveto blitz.

The governor vetoed four bills passed by the Legislature including: a bill raising the minimum wage; another requiring companies that accept state and local tax breaks to provide a “living wage”; one that would legalize “tele-betting” over the Internet or by telephone; and another permitting state employees to sue the state under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

None of the bills passed by overwhelming margins in the Legislature, dimming the likelihood of an override when the Legislature reconvenes Thursday. An override requires a two-thirds vote in both the House and the Senate.

King has vetoed other minimum wage bills in the past and his veto of LD 357 came as no surprise. The measure passed by the Legislature would increase the state minimum wage from $5.15 to $5.75 on Jan. 1, 2001, and to $6.25 on Jan. 1, 2002. The bill also contained a provision for a statewide referendum to allow Maine voters to decide if the raises are necessary.

Only about 8,000 workers in Maine actually are paid at the minimum wage level, according to the state Department of Labor, but King feared the hike would make Maine one of 10 states with the highest minimum wages in the country. That distinction, he said, would make it more difficult to attract new jobs to the state.

King said he realized that an increase would improve the lives of some workers and that his veto decision was not “an easy one.”

“Nonetheless, I am unwilling to take the chance that the proposed increase will have an adverse impact on all workers by discouraging the creation of high-wage jobs in our state,” he said.

A second minimum wage increase bill is awaiting final votes in the Legislature, along with the proposed prescription drug measure and the controversial fingerprinting bill for teachers and school personnel. All are expected to be taken up by lawmakers Thursday or Friday.

The so-called “living wage bill” was never given much of a chance of winning King’s signature, according to legislative leaders, primarily because the bill put one of the governor’s favorite projects in its cross hairs: the Business and Equipment Tax Reimbursement program. The bill also threatens benefits some companies receive under local tax increment financing programs.

Presented as a “corporate accountability” measure, the driving philosophy behind the bill maintained that companies receiving more than $10,000 in tax breaks under either program should be able to demonstrate a commitment to workers by paying “a living wage.” As defined by LD 2516, the living wage would differ in each county and would equal three-quarters of the average wage paid in the county. The bill was opposed by King because he perceived the measure as one that not only would result in a significant loss of existing jobs in the state, but also would make it close to impossible to attract new ones.

“Adding this instability to the business environment, along with the increased bureaucracy of a statutory wage certification process, would cause Maine’s competitive position to take a giant step backward from the significant progress we have made,” King said.

A bill that would have spun off portions of profits from “tele-betting” to the Maine harness racing industry and state agricultural fairs also got the ax from the governor who generally opposes any attempts to expand gambling in Maine. King warned that since LD 1743 makes it easier to gamble, it ultimately could undermine the entities it was supposed to benefit.

“Convenience gambling only serves to increase the pool of gamblers, thereby increasing the level of wagering right down to the individual bet,” he said. “While there may be short-term benefit to the Maine harness racing community resulting from revenues realized from tele-betting, I am not convinced that in the long run, the tradition and culture will be preserved by encouraging remote betting from our living rooms.”

When the U.S. Supreme Court decided in the 1999 Alden vs. Maine case that state employees could not recover overtime, attorney’s fees and statutory damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the court created fertile ground for LD 2682. The bill passed this year by the Legislature would waive the state’s sovereign immunity by generally consenting to private lawsuits brought by state employees under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act.

The governor said the state already complies with the provisions of the FLSA and that other avenues of redress, such as the Maine Human Rights Act, are readily available to resolve state employees’ disputes. He also emphasized that the Legislature traditionally has approached waivers of sovereign immunity on a case-by-case basis to permit fair consideration of the equities involved in a particular case. King pointed out the state and federal supreme courts have “spoken eloquently” on the history and significance of state sovereign immunity.

“We should not relinquish that immunity, a fundamental attribute of our sovereignty, without a clear demonstration that it is necessary and proper to do so,” he said.