Outten & Golden: Empowering Employees in the Workplace

What Are Your Workplace Rights When Entering Rehab?

October 10th, 2018 | Anna Ciulla

Drug and alcohol rehab have helped millions of Americans successfully recover from addiction and greatly improve their quality of life. But if you’re employed and struggling with substance abuse, a decision to enter rehab can often be complicated by anxious concerns about job security and if/how you should tell your boss. The good news is you have certain workplace rights that can alleviate many of these worries— even with respect to talking with your employer about a decision to pursue rehab.

Common Job-Related Concerns About Going to Rehab

Any full-time employee who has struggled with a serious health condition that requires treatment (and significant time away from work) has asked many of the same questions as employees with an addiction. Some of these questions include:

  • How will seeking treatment impact my career?
  • Do I qualify for medical leave?
  • Can I get fired for taking a leave of absence?
  • Can my company let me go after learning of my addiction?

What Are Your Workplace Rights?

While there is no cookie-cutter answer to these questions as everyone’s job situation looks different, knowing your workplace rights can help you both answer the above questions and prepare for a conversation with your boss.

  • A job-protected leave of absence from work – Alcoholism and other substance use disorders can qualify for a job-protected, unpaid leave of absence under the provisions of the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). The FMLA requires that employers with 50 or more employees grant up to 12 weeks of family or medical unpaid leave to employees who have been in their employment for at least 12 months. Consult your employee manual and/or human resources department to verify that an FMLA leave of absence is an option available to you.
  • Insurance coverage for treatment – If you work full-time, you should have a private insurance plan that covers treatment for alcoholism and other drug addictions (if not in full, then partially).
  • Paid time off (PTO) – If you have been working for the same employer for a while, you have the right to use PTO in the service of time off for treatment. Depending on how much PTO you have accrued, you can get creative about how you use it to help you through rehab— for example, by scheduling detox and rehab over a long holiday weekend and using PTO to make up for the remainder of that time away from work. Alternatively, if an intensive outpatient program will suffice for your treatment needs, you may be able to spread out small chunks of PTO across several weeks instead of taking off a prolonged period of time.
  • The right to control what you share with your employer – You are not required to tell your employer you’re going to rehab, although in some cases this may be the best course of action. If you do tell your employer that you need to go to rehab, it is within their right to ask for supporting medical documentation — but the release of any of that private health information will still require your signed consent. In other words, you have a right to limit what, if any, disclosures you make about your medical history. You also have a right to request confidentiality with any medical records you agree to share.

How to Prepare for the Conversation with Your Boss

In addition to getting better familiarized with your workplace rights, here are some other things you can do to prepare for that conversation with your boss:

  • Get organized ahead of time. Know what the dates of your leave of absence will be, and be prepared to propose a plan for how to cover your job duties while you’re away.
  • Decide ahead of time whether to share that you’re going to rehab. If you do tell your boss, rehearse an honest but brief explanation. If you’re hoping to avoid mentioning that you’re going to rehab, you’ll still need a prepared response for any questions asked about why you need a leave of absence.
  • Keep the conversation positive and focus on how taking the time off will help you become a better, more productive employee. Avoid gratuitously mentioning any negative details of your addiction.

Nobody should have to forego rehab for an addiction that is ruining their life purely out of fear they’ll lose their job or be forever stigmatized. These tips can help anyone considering drug or alcohol treatment navigate the challenge of pursuing rehab while protecting their job.

About the Author: Anna Ciulla is the Chief Clinical Officer at Beach House Center for Recovery. Anna has an extensive background in psychotherapy and clinical management, including more than 20 years of experience helping individuals and families affected by addiction and co-occurring disorders find recovery. Learn more about Beach House’s different rehab programs by visiting their website.

Permalink


Public workers organize after Supreme Court attacked their unions

October 9th, 2018 | Laura Clawson

The Supreme Court took a big swing at public worker unions in its Janus decision, which allows workers to demand the benefits of unions without contributing to the costs, essentially forcing their coworkers who are union members to subsidize them. But many unions are rising to the challenge.

In Connecticut at least, defections amount to a tiny trickle — just a fraction of 1 percent in most cases. […]

AFSCME Council 4 and other state employee unions are rapidly cutting into the ranks of non-members, restoring dues payments that were cut off from a total of about 7,100 people, depending on the month.

In Illinois, the Peoria Federation of Teachers is training teachers to be organizers, talking to other teachers about union issues:

We offer extremely good services for our members, but we realized if we don’t shift to an organizing model, we might get decimated,” said Jeff Adkins-Dutro, a Peoria English teacher who also serves as the local union president. “In my opinion, this is really going to strengthen our union.”

The transition requires a change in thinking and a lot of legwork. That’s why teachers like Innis and Grace gave up some of their summer break, taking part in an internship program organized by unions and a community group. They sat through seminars run at their local union hall across from the Illinois River, then hit the pavement to speak with teachers about school funding and whatever else they had on their minds.

Organize, organize, organize.

This blog was originally published at Daily Kos on October 6, 2018. Reprinted with permission.
About the Author: Laura Clawson is labor editor at Daily Kos.

Permalink


Kavanaugh Is Terrible on Workers’ Rights—And That’s Anti-Woman, Too

October 8th, 2018 | Julianne Tveten

On October 6, the Senate voted to confirm Brett Kavanaugh, the Republican federal appellate judge accused by multiple women of sexual assault, to the Supreme Court.

In light of the allegations—which include attempted rape—the opposition to Kavanaugh has been dominated by concerns about the impact he will have on the lives of women. In addition to his alleged history of physical and sexual violence, protesters fear what Kavanaugh’s “radical” conservatism may augur for reproductive-rights victories, namely Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 decision that expanded the legal right to abortion in the United States. Yet these don’t constitute the only perils of the judge’s appointment: Kavanaugh bears a pattern of anti-worker adjudication—a stance that inordinately harms women.

Kavanaugh’s catalog of judicial decisions indicates a clear predilection for the capitalist class. In 2008’s Agri Processor Co. Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board, Kavanaugh argued that a kosher-meat wholesaler, Agri Processor Co., wasn’t required to bargain with an employee union. Before the suit, the United Food and Commercial Workers Union, filed an unfair labor practice charge with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) after Agri Processor Co. refused to bargain. Kavanaugh upheld the company’s claim that the workers who had voted in the union election were undocumented workers and therefore didn’t qualify as “employees” protected by the National Labor Relations Act—and thus were prevented from unionizing, so their votes in the union election were invalid.

There are numerous other examples of Kavanaugh issuing anti-worker rulings. In 2015, Kavanaugh ruled in favor of a Las Vegas casino that requested that police officers issue criminal citations against demonstrators protesting the lack of collective-bargaining rights of casino employees. And in 2013, he argued that a Black woman, LaTaunya Howard, couldn’t pursue a race discrimination suit after being fired from her position at the Office of the Chief Administrative Officer of the U.S. House of Representatives for “insubordination.” Howard alleged that her termination was both racially motivated and in response to complaints she’d made about racial pay disparities at her place of work. What’s more, Kavanaugh helped thwart an NLRB order that would have required the Trump Plaza Hotel and Casino to bargain with the United Auto Workers.

This anti-labor positioning is particularly injurious to women, who benefit disproportionately from union membership. The Institute for Women’s Policy Research found that women covered by a union contract earn an average of 30.9 percent more per week that women with non-union jobs, compared to men’s increase of 20.6 percent. Correspondingly, the wage gap between men and women workers is more narrow among those with union representation than those without it. The Economic Policy Institute reported last year that female union workers earn 94 cents for every dollar their male peers earn, versus 74 cents on the dollar without union safeguards.

Kavanaugh also has a history of jeopardizing the work benefits that inform earnings. Workers with union representation enjoy greater access to family, medical and maternity leave—an advantage for women, who are more often tasked with child and elder care than men, and often lose wages as a result. Unionized women are much more likely to have at least partially paid health insurance than those who aren’t unionized: Notably, 73.1 percent of women in union jobs have employer- or union-provided health insurance, an advantage only 49.1 percent of their non-union counterparts receive. It’s virtually the same case for retirement: The ratio of unionized to non-unionized women with employer-sponsored plans is 74.4 percent to 41.8 percent.

If unions and earnings among women are to be examined, it’s necessary to consider the huge impact a figure like Kavanaugh could have on Black women. Though the unionized workforce has decreased precipitously over the last several decades, Black women have traditionally had a higher rate of unionization, particularly in public-sector jobs, than women of other racial and ethnic groups. As of 2013, Black women outnumbered white, Latinx and Asian-American women in terms of unionization. And by 2015, unionized Black women outnumbered unionized Black men.

This is essential for a demographic that, research shows, would have to work an additional seven months to receive the same pay as white men, despite working more hours than white women. (Black women are also paid less than white men for the same job, independent of education level.)

The same urgency for protections applies to Latinx women, who are now the least likely of all women to have union representation. Statistics show that they’re in the most dire need of the boons of organized labor: Latinx women, for example, make 54 cents for every dollar earned by white men. As Esther López of United Food and Commercial Workers urges, “There exists a sure-fire way for Latina women to earn the better wages they deserve: joining a union in their industry. Latina women who have joined a union earn more than their non-union counterparts—$242 more per week, in fact, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.”

Another concern arising from Kavanaugh’s anti-labor record—and one particularly pointed in the wake of the allegations levied against him—is women’s vulnerability to workplace sexual harassment. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission found that “25 percent to 85 percent of women report having experienced sexual harassment in the workplace.” Echoing López, writer Michelle Chen contends that collective bargaining is a viable means of combating this. “Union agreements,” she writes, “protect equality at work, provide everyday organizational support for workers, and promote public accountability by establishing legally binding conditions of employment,” and can pursue such measures as municipal anti-harassment ordinances.

Heeding Kavanaugh’s roster of rulings, the AFL-CIO, Communications Workers of AmericaNational Nurses United and other unions have formally opposed the now-Supreme Court associate justice. NNU has cited specific concerns for women, stating his assaults on collective bargaining rights and workers’ healthcare render him “unfit to serve on the Supreme Court of the United States.” The subtext is that women will pay the greatest price.

This article was originally published at In These Times on October 8, 2018. Reprinted with permission. 

About the Author: Julianne Tveten writes about the intersection of the technology industry and socioeconomic issues. Her work has appeared in Current Affairs, The Outline, Motherboard, and Hazlitt, among others.

Permalink


One year after the Weinstein story broke, sexual harassment claims are up 12% nationwide

October 5th, 2018 | Jessica Goldstein

Exactly one year ago today, the New York Times published its first investigation into sexual harassment allegations against Harvey Weinstein.

Given the number of think pieces written about the public’s ever-shrinking attention spans and the ever-rising churn of the news cycle’s speed, it is astonishing that anyone is still talking about Harvey Weinstein at all, let alone that the revelations about his alleged behavior — coercive, manipulative, violent, tyrannical — would spread so far beyond the confines of Weinstein and his accusers.

Much of the change catalyzed by the Weinstein story, and this past year of a reinvigorated #MeToo movement, is still ongoing and impossible to quantify. But some preliminary data points are emerging. On Friday, the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission reported that sexual harassment claims were up 12 percent this year, compared with the 2017 fiscal year.

The EEOC also announced via press release that it had filed 66 harassment lawsuits in the last year — an increase of 50 percent from the year before.

As Variety reports, only a fraction of the total number of harassment claims in the U.S. are ultimately reported to the EEOC. Still, “the trend lines are telling. Over the previous seven years, harassment claims had declined from 7,944 in 2010 to 6,696 in 2017. The EEOC’s preliminary data shows an increase to about 7,500 claims in 2018, the highest level since 2012.” And state data released by California and New York shows an “even more pronounced” pattern.

Even with the dramatic uptick, we’re not quite at post-1991-Anita-Hill-hearings levels just yet: EEOC data has the number of claims rising 52% in 1992.

This blog was originally published at ThinkProgress on October 5, 2018. Reprinted with permission. 

About the Author: Jessica M. Goldstein is the Culture Editor for ThinkProgress.

Permalink


Improving Patient Safety: Worker Wins

October 4th, 2018 | Kenneth Quinnell

Our latest roundup of worker wins begins with nurses across the country winning new contracts and includes numerous examples of working people organizing, bargaining and mobilizing for a better life.

New Contract for More Than 14,000 California Nurses Includes Improved Protections from Violence and Harassment: Registered nurses at the University of California, members of the California Nurses Association (an affiliate of National Nurses United/NNU) voted overwhelmingly to ratify a new five-year contract. The contract covers more than 14,000 registered nurses at more than a dozen locations. “We are so proud to ratify this historic contract for all registered nurses at UC. Nurses stood together in solidarity and fought back over 60 takeaways that would have directly affected our ability to care for our patients,” said Megan Norman, RN, UC Davis. “We won new language addressing infectious disease and hazardous substances as well as stronger protections around workplace violence and sexual harassment.”

11,000 VA Nurses Ratify New Contract: More than 11,000 registered nurses at 23 hospitals run by the Department of Veterans Affairs, who are represented by the National Nurses Organizing Committee/NNU, voted to ratify a new three-year contract that features workplace violence protections, infectious disease training and emergency preparedness information. “I am very excited about the workplace safety provisions that will improve the safety of our nurses and protect them from violence and injury,” said Irma Westmoreland, registered nurse and National Nurses United board member.

Maine Nurses Win Increased Workplace Safety in New Contract: Neatly 900 members of the Maine State Nurses Association (part of the NNOC/NNU) who work at the Eastern Maine Medical Center (EMMC) ratified a new contract. “This new agreement sets a new bar for quality care and patient safety at our hospital,” said Dawn Caron, bargaining team member and chief union steward for the nurses at EMMC. “When we began this process back in February, we set out to protect the role of our charge nurses and all of the other safe patient care provisions of our contract. The nurses at EMMC are proud to announce that today, we have done exactly that.”

Disneyland Resort Workers Approve Contract with Wage Raise and Bonus: After more than a year and a half of negotiations, Disneyland Resort hotel workers approved a new contract that includes nearly $2 an hour in higher wages and the payment of $1,000 employee bonuses originally announced in January. UNITE HERE Local 11 represents the more than 2,700 hotel workers at Disney covered by the new contract.

UFCW Members at Four Roses Distillery Reach Agreement to End Strike: In September, members of United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) Local 10D who work at the Four Roses distillery in Lawrenceburg, Kentucky, won a new agreement after a strike that lasted nearly two weeks. “We’re one big, happy, dysfunctional family around here,” Local 10D President Jeff Royalty said. “You know, just like brothers and sisters, you’ll have some hard feelings from time to time, but they’re short-lived.”

Columbia Postdoctoral Researchers Win Right to Form Union: The National Labor Relations Board ruled that postdoctoral researchers at Columbia can form a union. Official elections are being held this week to determine whether or not the Columbia Postdoctoral Workers become members of the UAW. “We are very excited that the NLRB finally issued the decision that Columbia’s postdoctoral workers can unionize despite the university’s efforts to undermine us,” said Alvaro Cuesta-Dominguez, a member of the postdoctoral worker organizing committee and a second-year postdoc researcher. “We look forward to the opportunity to really have our voices heard.”

Federal Judge Sides with FLOC, Rejects Anti-Union North Carolina Law: U.S. District Judge Loretta Biggs ruled that a North Carolina law limiting union organizing for farmworkers was unconstitutional. “North Carolina’s law is clearly designed to make it harder, if not impossible, for the state’s only farmworkers union to advocate for sorely needed protections against exploitation and bad working conditions,” said Brian Hauss, a staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union.

New York Port Authority Workers Win Wage Increase: After a long fight, working people at the New York Port Authority represented by the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union/UFCW (RWDSU/UFCW) and UNITE HERE won an increase to a minimum wage of $19 per hour by 2023. The new agreement includes nearly 5,000 catering workers that were excluded from the previous policy. The proposal could impact tens of thousands of workers at other area airports, as well.

ExpressJet Pilots Overwhelmingly Approve New Contract: United Express pilots at ExpressJet Airlines, represented by the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA), have won a new contract that increases pilot pay. More than 90% of those who voted supported the new three-year deal.

This blog was originally published by the AFL-CIO on October 3, 2018. Reprinted with permission. 

Permalink


Mental disabilities merit reasonable accommodation

October 3rd, 2018 | The Attorneys of Passman and Kaplan

The many myths and stigmas surrounding mental illness create barriers in the workplace. Employees with mental disabilities may be hesitant to disclose their struggles or ask for accommodations, and for good reason. Employers often refuse “special treatment” or even retaliate against the person.

If you are a federal employee with a mental or intellectual disability, you have rights. Your agency is required to make the reasonable accommodations you need to do your job and excel in your federal service career. What might that look like?

The law on disclosure and accommodation

Job candidates are not required to disclose a mental disability (or any disability) in the hiring process. You cannot be fired, demoted, reprimanded or taken out of consideration for job postings if your condition is later disclosed or discovered.

The ADA National Network says that a psychiatric disability should not be an issue unless your condition affects your ability to do perform your duties. Your agency is legally bound to accommodate you if you develop a disabling mental condition in the course of employment, if your pre-existing disability worsens, or if your duties change in a way that your disability interferes with your job.

What does “reasonable accommodation” look like?

The Americans With Disabilities Act prohibits discrimination on the basis of physical or mental disability. The ADA specifically requires employers, including federal agencies and federal contractors, to make reasonable accommodations.

For mental disabilities such as post-traumatic stress disorder, panic/anxiety disorder, depression or obsessive-compulsive disorder, accommodations might include:

  • Allowing the employee to work from home
  • Allowing the employee to skip face-to-face meetings
  • A quieter work station or white noise earphones
  • Flexible scheduling for medical appointments
  • Temporary part-time status until the condition stabilizes
  • More frequent work breaks
  • Supervision by a different manager

The accommodation should be tailored to the employee and their limiting condition, and not merely dictated as a take-it-or-leave-it.

When the agency balks or pushes back

Some employers feel blindsided or betrayed when a disability comes to light. They might give a negative performance review or create a hostile working environment to force you to quit. They might flatly refuse the specific accommodation or refuse to engage in an interactive process to reach a viable solution. All of these responses violate the ADA. If this happens, it is time to consult legal counsel.

This blog was originally published by Passman & Kaplan, P.C., Attorneys at Law on October 3, 2018. Reprinted with permission. 

About the Authors: Founded in 1990 by Edward H. Passman and Joseph V. Kaplan, Passman & Kaplan, P.C., Attorneys at Law, is focused on protecting the rights of federal employees and promoting workplace fairness.  The attorneys of Passman & Kaplan (Edward H. Passman, Joseph V. Kaplan, Adria S. Zeldin, Andrew J. Perlmutter, Johnathan P. Lloyd and Erik D. Snyder) represent federal employees before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), the Office of Special Counsel (OSC), the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and other federal administrative agencies, and also represent employees in U.S. District and Appeals Courts.

Permalink


DC Council overrules constituents, votes to reinstall tipped wage system

October 2nd, 2018 | ThinkProgress Staff

The District of Columbia’s city council took the first step Tuesday to overturn Initiative 77, a measure passed by a 55 percent to 45 percent majority by the Washington voters. If its efforts succeed, as expected, the council will undo the minimum wage protections for tipped workers.

A 2016 living wage law, enacted by the city council, established a series of gradual steps up to a $15 minimum wage for workers — but included a lower $5-an-hour minimum for service workers, so long as their tips brought that total to no less than $15 per hour. Restaurant-workers-rights groups launched a voter initiative to phase out that exemption and, on June 19, 2018, more than 55 percent of those voting on primary day backed the effort. The restaurant industry — and the city council members they have bankrolled — immediately launched an effort to overturn the voters’ will by city council legislation.

On Tuesday afternoon, the city council rejected a proposed compromise and endorsed a full repeal, on an 8 to 5 vote. Mayor Muriel Bowser (D) has said she will sign the legislation, authored by Council Chair Phil Mendelson (D). Six council Democrats and one independent voted yes on the initial vote; four Democrats and one independent voted no.  District voters have not elected a Republican to the council since 2004.

The council reaffirmed this on an 8 to 5 vote later in the afternoon.  Final final passage is expected later in the October.

Bowser’s official website highlights the District of Columbia’s demand for statehood — it currently has limited “home rule” but the U.S. Congress can overrule any local action. “DC residents seek full democracy for DC since 1982 and today,” it proclaims. “Mayor Muriel Bowser continues the fight to secure full democracy for DC because it is the most appropriate mechanism to grant U.S. citizens, who reside in the District of Columbia, the full rights and privileges of American citizenship.”

But for Bowser and the majority of council members, that full democracy can be overridden when the restaurant industry does not like what the majority decides.

This article was originally published at ThinkProgress on October 2, 2018. Reprinted with permission. 

About the Author: Josh Israel has been senior investigative reporter for ThinkProgress since 2012. Previously, he was a reporter and oversaw money-in-politics reporting at the Center for Public Integrity, was chief researcher for Nick Kotz’s acclaimed 2005 book Judgment Days: Lyndon Baines Johnson, Martin Luther King Jr., and the Laws that Changed America, and was president of the Virginia Partisans Gay & Lesbian Democratic Club.

Permalink


Today Amazon, Tomorrow the Railroad Industry: The Fight for $15 Rolls On

October 1st, 2018 | Jeff Schuhrke

After being called out by labor activists and progressive politicians like Bernie Sanders for paying poverty wages despite receiving tax breaks and raking in billions of dollars, Amazon has caved to the pressure and announced it will offer all its workers a $15-per-hour minimum wage starting next month. Now, a new coalition of workers and community leaders is taking aim at another major player in the logistics industry: the railroads.

Class I railroads like CSX, Norfolk Southern and BNSF benefit from billions in taxpayer subsidies and are reporting high profits. Yet the people who transport their rail crews between trains, cities, hotels and homes are paid low wages and receive few benefits. To keep costs down and evade liability, the railroads use subcontractors like Hallcon and Professional Transportation Inc. (PTI) to hire their crew drivers.

On September 27, several dozen rail crew drivers with the United Electrical Workers (UE), United Steelworkers (USW), Sheet Metal, Air, Rail and Transportation Workers (SMART) and United Public Services Employees Union (UPSEU) protested outside a conference of railroad executives in downtown Chicago. The drivers and community allies are calling on the Class I railroads to implement responsible contractor policies to make companies like Hallcon and PTI pay a $15-an-hour minimum wage and offer decent benefits.

“We’re dedicated drivers out here,” said Devin Ragland, a PTI driver with USW District 7. “It’s not fair that we’re out here from sundown to sunup, running these crews back and forth where they need to go, and then we get mistreated when it comes time for pay.”

Ragland and the other drivers were joined by Cook County Commissioner and congressional candidate Jesús “Chuy” Garcia, who called for an “end to the poverty wages in the rail yards.”

“I join your voices in saying to these railroad companies that they should adopt responsible contractor policies to ensure that the prosperity that they are experiencing is shared with all of the workers in the industry,” Garcia told the drivers.

UE, USW, SMART and UPSEU represent crew drivers from coast to coast. UE has been organizing Hallcon drivers nationwide for the past several years, recently winning a union election at the company that added 650 more drivers from 8 states into the union’s ranks, bringing the total number of UE-represented drivers at the company to nearly 1,700. 

“Everywhere we go at Hallcon, people are at minimum wage or just above,” UE International Representative J Burger told In These Times.  Drivers say they earn so little that many are forced to rely on public assistance.

UE is currently negotiating a new master contract at Hallcon. Burger said the company is resisting demands for living wages, instead arguing that drivers should only get a one-time bonus or miniscule raises of between 15 to 20 cents per year.

“I’ve been told we were offered 21 cents. I can’t make a phone call with 21 cents,” driver and UE member Vickie Bogovich said on September 27. “Is that all I’m worth? I don’t think so.”

“They’re offering us pennies and we need dollars,” added Clarence Hill, a Hallcon driver who serves as Chief Steward of UE Local 1177. Hill said he is paid only $12 an hour after 8 years on the job.

The drivers are on-call at all hours of the day, required to hop in a company van at a moment’s notice to shuttle a rail crew from one location to another. Frequently, they wait hours at a time before finally getting a call. After one trip, they often have to wait several more hours for the next call, sometimes stretching their work day to 24 hours or more. Drivers are only paid for their driving time, not for the hours they spend waiting.

Burger noted this “stretch out” is not only unfair to drivers, but it also endangers the rail crews they transport, putting them at the mercy of fatigued drivers operating on little to no sleep. In contract talks, UE is fighting for on-call pay and more compact hours when the company is unable to put drivers to work. 

Additionally, the union is demanding improved benefits, including paid time off and affordable health insurance. “We’re trying to make the job something people can actually live by,” Burger told In These Times.

UE’s current contract at Hallcon was originally set to expire in August, but has been extended to October 21. Meanwhile, USW, SMART and UPSEU—which represent drivers at both Hallcon and PTI—will also see some of their current contracts expire later this fall, setting up the potential for a nationwide strike that could disrupt retail freight in time for the busy holiday shopping season.

The unions have been increasingly coordinating efforts over the past year, trying to “have a united front approach,” Burger explained. “We’re all talking about raising the standards in the industry. We’re united for the betterment of the drivers.” 

In addition to Chuy Garcia, the drivers also have the solidarity of the rail crews they shuttle. Other union workers in the railroad industry—including from the Brotherhood of the Maintenance and Way Employees and the Chicago All Rail Craft Coalition—joined Thursday’s protest.

“The labor movement was built on the simple concept that an injury to one is an injury to all,” Mark Burrows of Railroad Workers United, a coalition of rank-and-file rail workers from across North America, told the drivers. “We’re doing all that we can to educate our coworkers and get them behind this struggle.”

This article was originally published at In These Times on October 2, 2018. Reprinted with permission.

About the Author: Jeff Schuhrke is a Working In These Times contributor based in Chicago. He has a Master’s in Labor Studies from UMass Amherst and is currently pursuing a Ph.D. in labor history at the University of Illinois at Chicago. He was a summer 2013 editorial intern at In These Times. Follow him on Twitter: @JeffSchuhrke.

Permalink


FY 2019 OSHA Budget Is Here: Good News, But More Work to be Done

September 28th, 2018 | Jordan Barab

For the first time practically in recorded memory, the Labor-HHS-Education budget, which includes OSHA, MSHA and NIOSH, was passed and signed into law before the beginning of the new Fiscal Year — October 1st.  The final OSHA budget actually contains a $5 million increase over FY 2018 and $8.8 million over the President’s FY 2019 Request. We can thank the Senate for that, considering the final budget is a whopping $12.5 million over what the House wanted.

Highlights include:

  • The total OSHA budget is $557.8 million, a $5 million increase over FY 2018
    • $1 million increase for federal enforcement,
    • $1.5 million increase for state plans
    • $2.5 million increase for federal compliance assistance ($3.5 million will be spent on the Voluntary Protection Programs)
    • Susan Harwood Worker Training Grant program continues to be funded at $10 million — despite the Trump administration’s continuing efforts to kill it.
    • There are no “poison pill” riders — attempts to kill silica enforcement or OSHA’s electronic recordkeeping standard.
  • The MSHA budget is level funded.
  • NIOSH will receive  $336.3 million (a $1 million increase over FY 2018).
    • Trump’s proposal to transfer NIOSH to the National Institutes of Health and slash the NIOSH budget was rejected. Funding for the Educational Resource Centers, Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing Research Centers and other NIOSH programs was maintained.
  • A few other Labor Department programs — Wage and Hour Division, Bureau of Labor Standards and the Office of Labor Management Standards — also got small increases although funding for employment services was cut.

A Word of Warning

But don’t get too happy. While these small increases (or level funding) are good news considering who’s in the White House and in control of Congress, funding for virtually all of the labor programs has been basically frozen for years. The total OSHA budget, and some line items like State Plan funding, are still lower than they were in 2012, as you can see in the table below.  And while the budget hasn’t shown much change, the  costs of operating these programs have increased, resulting in declining staffing levels and program activity.

As AFL-CIO Safety and Health Director Peg Seminario summarizes, “we have a victory holding the line, but much more work to be done.”

This blog was originally published at Confined Space on October 3, 2018. Reprinted with permission. 

About the Author: Jordan Barab was Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor at OSHA from 2009 to 2017, and spent 16 years running the safety and health program at the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME).

Permalink


Regulating from Below: How Front-Line Bank Workers Can Help Fix the Financial Industry

September 27th, 2018 | AFL-CIO Now

Ten years after risky practices at our largest banks wreaked havoc on the global economy, we face a financial sector that, despite some reforms, remains broken in fundamental ways.

Wall Street has beat back many of the kinds of structural changes that happened after the Great Depression, and the reforms that have happened in the United States are rapidly being undermined by the Donald Trump administration. Banking scandals still abound—from Wells Fargo to Santander to Bank of America to Deutsche Bank. Consumers are encouraged to take on more debt than they can bear. Trust in the banking system remains dreadfully low while opacity of the financial system is near an all-time high.

In the wake of the 2008 crash, there was a renewed intensity by regulators and central banks to stop the bleeding caused by the banks’ irresponsible behavior, but that coordination has slipped away while power in the sector has concentrated in the hands of fewer and fewer banks and corporations.

The public is right to sound the alarm.

Strengthening oversight of the financial system is necessary. Regulations are the guardrails that keep our global banking system from veering off course and into crisis. But while these rules are critical, they are stronger when paired with unions.

Unionization in the financial sector—the norm in nearly all advanced economies, except for the United States—provides a way to “strengthen financial regulation” from the ground up. Unions are a countervailing force against the worst tendencies of the financial sector, in part by guaranteeing that pay schemes are not driven by the extreme sales pressure and unfair performance metrics.

UNI Global Union has worked with finance unions around the world for many years to develop the best practices in this area, and many unions have negotiated what are called “sales and advice” clauses in their agreements to stop predatory Wells Fargo- and Santander-esque practices. In Italy, unions have a national, sector-wide agreement to rein in the high-pressure sales goals that harmed millions of consumers in the United States.

The Nordic unions provide another example. The Nordic Financial Unions have input into nearly all aspects of banks’ changing business practices and financial regulation through dialogue with global authorities. This cooperation exists because management sees the long-term benefit of partnering with unions for the bank, for workers and for consumers.  

Dialogue and partnership are especially important as banks that were “too big to fail” have grown even bigger. Through a cycle of constant mergers and acquisitions, global financial institutions have gotten bigger, more powerful and harder to regulate. Worker voices must be integrated into corporate governance of financial institutions to provide a backstop against abuses.

The importance of workers’ involvement in finding solutions to problems in our financial system cannot be stressed enough, given that executive decisions at systemically important banks easily affect the economy and our daily lives. This inclusion relies on an environment and culture in which workers are managed through respect and not fear, with protection against unfair dismissal and retaliation, will foster the trust and security required for workers to speak out against egregious practices  

Several large banks taking steps in the right direction by signing agreements with UNI to ensure that bank workers have the right to organize without the opposition and hostility common in the United States.   

Most recently BNP Paribas signed a Global Agreement with UNI that goes beyond the right to organize and also sets standards on paid maternity leave and insurance for its 200,000 employees around the world. 

In the United States, there are virtually no front-line bank employees protected by the kinds of collective bargaining agreements that have helped pump the breaks on abuses in other countries.

That is why U.S. bank workers have joined together to collectively speak out against questionable practices—exposing those that are risky, detrimental and fraudulent—and succeeded in challenging some of the industry’s vilest practices.

UNI Global Union-Finance and affiliates, such as the CONTRAF-CUT (Brazil), the NFU, La Bancaria (Argentina), the Communications Workers of America (CWA), along with the Committee for Better Banks, also have launched a global campaign for “regulation from below.” It puts workers’ voices and workers’ rights at the forefront of creating a healthier world financial system.

We know that “regulations from above” can and do work. In the U.S., Glass-Steagall, Dodd-Frank and the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau have curbed banks’ ability to game the system and hurt working people.

A multinational coalition of bank workers standing together to help fix the financial industry can help re-ignite the global approach needed to bring trust to our banking system.

Banks and other large financial institutions must act responsibly and be accountable when they do not. Governments must have their feet held to the fire to enforce, enhance and defend protections against unethical banking practices.

That’s something that workers united, and unafraid to speak out, are well positioned to do.

This post comes on the heels of a new report, authored by UNI Finance and the AFL-CIO, with support by Friedrich Ebert Stiftung New York, titled Tipping the Balance: Collective Action by Finance Workers Creates ‘Regulation from Below.

This blog was originally published by the AFL-CIO on September 27, 2018. Reprinted with permission. 

About the Author: Christy Hoffman is the General Secretary of the UNI Global Union, a federation of 20 million service workers from more than 150 countries

Permalink



Your Rights Job Survival The Issues Features Resources About This Blog