Outten & Golden: Empowering Employees in the Workplace

Columbia grad students go on strike to protest university’s efforts to block unionization

April 25th, 2018 | Elham Khatami

More than a year after graduate students at Columbia University voted to unionize with the United Automobile Workers, hundreds of students participated in a walkout Tuesday to protest the university’s refusal to bargain with them.

The students plan to stage a week-long strike during what is the university’s most hectic time, when students and professors are preparing for finals and the help of graduate teaching assistants, fellows, and research assistants is critical.

They claim that the university has “repeatedly ignored” the majority support among graduate students for the Graduate Workers of Columbia University-United Automobile Workers (GWC-UAW). This, despite the fact that efforts to unionize have been ongoing for more than three years.

The conflict between the university and its students regarding unionization is rooted in a fundamental disagreement about whether or not graduate students are university employees — students argue that they are, and the university contends that they’re not.

The distinction is not merely an issue of semantics, but one of rights, better wages, and improved working conditions. According to a January 2018 report by the Economic Policy Institute, graduate teaching assistants have taken on heavier workloads, have more responsibility when it comes to teaching and grading, and assume much of the research that ends up winning the universities grants and prestige.

“And yet the pay they receive rarely rises to the level of a living wage,” the report stated.

The EPI report found that between 2005 and 2015, the rise in graduate assistant and non-tenure-track faculty jobs surpassed that of tenured and tenure-track jobs, with the former currently making up approximately 73 percent of the academic workforce.

“The simple explanation for this increasing reliance on graduate and non-tenure-track faculty is that they are far less costly to employ,” the report reads.

In a statement last week, Columbia University provost John H. Coatsworth said “we believe it would not serve the best interests of our academic mission—or of students themselves—for our student teaching and research assistants to engage with the University as employees rather than students.”

Coatsworth noted that the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has “repeatedly reversed itself on the status of teaching and research assistants over the past 15 years,” and called for a judicial review of the “still-unsettled question.” The most recent decision came in 2016, when the NLRB ruled that student teaching and research assistants at private universities are employees with the right to form a union. That ruling is expected to be reversed again under the current Trump administration.

Other universities across the country, including Harvard University and the University of Chicago, have also recently taken steps toward unionization. Harvard graduate students voted to unionize with UAW last week.

“This growing momentum makes clear that Columbia’s efforts to block our democratic rights here on our campus cannot hold back the rising tide of academic workers seeking to improve our conditions and make our universities more just and inclusive for all,” a statement posted on the GWC website on Monday reads. “Columbia administration needs to get on the right of history and negotiate with our union.”

This article was originally published at ThinkProgress on April 24, 2018. Reprinted with permission.

About the Author: Elham Khatami is an associate editor at ThinkProgress. Previously, she worked as a grassroots organizer within the Iranian-American community. She also served as research manager, editor, and reporter during her five-year career at CQ Roll Call. Elham earned her Master of Arts in Global Communication at George Washington University’s Elliott School of International Affairs and her bachelor’s degree in writing and political science at the University of Pittsburgh.

Permalink


Colorado Republican bill would jail teachers for walking out

April 24th, 2018 | Laura Clawson

Colorado teachers are getting ready to join the wave of teacher walkouts to fight for pay raises and increased education funding—and two Republican lawmakers want to jail the teachers for their activism.

The bill, SB18-264, would prohibit public school teacher strikes by authorizing school districts to seek an injunction from district court. A failure to comply with the injunction would “constitute contempt of court” and teachers could face not only fines but up to six months in county jail, the bill language reads.

The bill also directs school districts to fire teachers on the spot without a proper hearing if they’re found in contempt of court and also bans public school teachers from getting paid “for any day which the public school teacher participates in a strike.”

Presumably state Rep. Paul Lundeen and state Sen. Bob Gardner have not read the polls showing widespread support for teacher walkouts and an even more widespread sentiment that teachers are underpaid. Or maybe they have read the polls and they just don’t care how unpopular their jail-the-teachers bill would be.

This blog was originally published at Daily Kos on April 23, 2018. Reprinted with permission.

About the Author: Laura Clawson is labor editor at Daily Kos.

Permalink


Toiling Over a “Puddle of Blood”: Why These Warehouse Workers Are Standing Up to Abuses

April 23rd, 2018 | Mica Soellner

Fifty years ago, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. lent his support to the historic Memphis sanitation workers’ strike. Today, the safe working conditions that strikers fought for in 1968 remain elusive for low-wage workers in one Memphis warehouse.

Workers at the XPO Logistics warehouse in Memphis announced in early April that they had filed a complaint to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) alleging rampant abuse, including sexual harassment. On April 3, workers held a rally with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters (IBT) to coincide with the filing of the EEOC complaint.

The complaint was triggered by an XPO worker’s death that co-workers attribute to company policies which restrict workers from leaving the job. In October 2017, Linda Neal, 58, died at work after passing out on the job. Workers allege that a supervisor denied Neal being given CPR by a co-worker. Medical reports confirmed that Neal died of a heart attack caused by cardiovascular disease.

XPO Logistics, based in Connecticut, has warehouses across the country and a market value of nearly $9 billion. The company provides transportation, delivery and logistics for Verizon, Ikea, Home Depot and other retailers. The Memphis warehouse has more than 300 permanent employees and more than 400 temporary workers.

Lakeisha Nelson, who has worked for XPO since 2014 and was close to Neal, tells In These Times, “[Neal] was a mother figure to a lot of us, and we had to become family in that building. We had to work over the puddle of blood that was left behind the next morning, and that hurt me to my core.”

Nelson believes company policy played a role in Neal’s death, recalling that an XPO supervisor would not allow Neal to leave work when she expressed she was feeling ill.

“She told them she wasn’t feeling well and this was just XPO’s policy,” says Nelson. “I don’t blame the supervisor, he was just doing his job. This is what he has to do in order to keep his job—don’t let anyone go home.”

“The only thing that’s important to XPO is them making money, and if it takes our lives to get their money, then our lives are expendable,” says Nelson. “And they tell us all, if you don’t like the way we do things, find another job. It’s very, very easy to get fired there.”

Staff workers have filed multiple complaints regarding safety hazards and dangerous working conditions, but little has been done by management to address them, according to Nelson.

Nelson says the building and ceiling are caving in while workers face harsh temperatures inside that fluctuate with the weather, and that sweaters are only allowed if they are purchased through the company.

The forgotten women of #MeToo

Sexual harassment at the company is another issue that has gone unsolved, despite attempts to get Human Resources involved, according to Nelson.

The warehouse has a history of sexual harassment. In 2015, New Breed Logistics, which was acquired by XPO in 2014, lost a $1.5 million dollar suit after a male supervisor sexually harassed three female temporary workers who were then terminated for refusing his advances.

Elizabeth Gedmark is a senior staff attorney for A Better Balance, an organization that promotes paid leave and other family-friendly policies, and which is supporting the Memphis warehouse workers. She says that low-wage workers are particularly at risk of harassment. 

“The notion that you can just quit and leave your job when you’re faced with sexual harassment or discrimination does not apply to a low-wage worker needing to get by living paycheck to paycheck,” Gedmark tells In These Times. “If she does file a complaint, she faces a very real likelihood of retaliation.

“They’re very much a part of the global #MeToo movement that’s not just about movie stars or wealthy women, it’s really about these women being put front and center, the hard-working, average women who too often go unnoticed.”

Next steps

Restrictive scheduling and time-off policies are also affecting XPO workers’ personal lives. Nelson claims that workers often do not know when their shift will end and have little to no notice of overtime.

Elizabeth Howley, 38, is the operational administrator for the Memphis warehouse and has been at the company for six years. Howley has also expressed concerns over poor working conditions, claiming workers have been forced to deal with bugs, snakes and other creatures infesting the workplace. But, she says, the strict hours are what have most driven emotional stress in her personal life.

Howley says that most of the women working at the warehouse are single mothers, and being separated from their families and children for long periods have taken a toll on them. When Howley’s oldest son dropped out of high school, she says, she was unable to get out of work to help get him back into school. 

“I’ve lost so much time with my children in the past five or six years being with this company and it hurts because my kids are in need of me and I can’t be there for them,” Howley tells In These Times. “I had to apologize, saying ‘I’m sorry, son, I don’t have PTO time to get you back into school.’”

The Memphis XPO warehouse workers are currently working with IBT to address these issues and improve the safety conditions and end the harassment that continues in their workplace. They are in the early stages of organizing, and IBT General President James P. Hoffa has pledged to back them in their union drive. They have also earned the support of civil and women’s rights groups such as the NAACP and National Women’s Law Center.

“Maybe by exposing XPO and the conditions that they make these workers work under will bring about a change,” Felicia Walker, an international organizer for IBT, tells In These Times. “These are human beings, not animals. There are laws to protect animals from that treatment, what about humans?”

This article was originally published at In These Times on April 23, 2018. Reprinted with permission. 

About the Author: Mica Soellner is a journalist currently based in Washington D.C. She has written for a variety of global outlets and is interested in pursuing stories about issues in the workplace.

Permalink


Production Over Safety at Tesla: “People are getting hurt every day”

April 20th, 2018 | Jordan Barab

Elon Musk, owner of SpaceX and Tesla is a seriously strange and driven guy. That can be a good thing in some circumstances and even amusing if it’s your next door neighbor or crazy uncle. But when you own a major car company, it can mean workers getting hurt or killed. Last May we wrote about a report chronicling Tesla’s poor safety record. And things apparently aren’t getting any better.

After interviewing more than three dozen current and former employees and managers — including five former members of its environment, health and safety team —  and reviewing hundreds of pages of documents, a major investigative piece by Will Evans and Alyssa Jeong Perry at Reveal and the Center for Investigative reporting found that Tesla is ignoring major health and safety issues in their Fremont, California plant and is making the company’s injury numbers look better than they actually are by repeatedly failing to report some of its serious injuries on legally mandated OSHA reports.

Why? Production over safety:  “Everything took a back seat to production,” according to Justine White, a former safety lead, “It’s just a matter of time before somebody gets killed.”

Almost every day there is an article describing Tesla’s failure to meet its self imposed deadline for delivery of its moderately priced Model 3. And Musk seems to be taking out on his employees.

Elon Doesn’t Want Signs

And second, as I mentioned above, Elon Musk is a seriously weird guy who doesn’t like yellow lines on the floor (that set pedestrian safety lanes to avoid fork lifts) or clutter caused by safety signs, or noise caused by back-up beepers. So unpleasant!

In her March 2017 resignation letter, White recounted the time she told her boss, Seth Woody, “that the plant layout was extremely dangerous to pedestrians.” Woody, head of the safety team, told her “that Elon didn’t want signs, anything yellow (like caution tape) or to wear safety shoes in the plant” and acknowledged it “was a mess,” she wrote.

So what are we talking about? Exposure to un-monitored toxic chemicals, heavy manual lifting because mechanical lifts are too slow, lack of training, musculoskeletal injuries and on and on. 

Elon didn’t want signs, anything yellow (like caution tape) or to wear safety shoes in the plant

There’s this:

Last April, Tarik Logan suffered debilitating headaches from the fumes of a toxic glue he had to use at the plant. He texted his mom: “I’m n hella pain foreal something ain’t right.” The searing pain became so unbearable he couldn’t work, and it plagued him for weeks.

But Logan’s inhalation injury, as it was diagnosed, never made it onto the official injury logs that state and federal law requires companies to keep. Neither did reports from other factory workers of sprains, strains and repetitive stress injuries from piecing together Tesla’s sleek cars. Instead, company officials labeled the injuries personal medical issues or minor incidents requiring only first aid, according to internal company records obtained by Reveal.

And this:

When building Tesla’s other cars, former workers said they had to sacrifice their bodies to save time. Some workers, for example, lifted heavy car seats over their shoulders because the mechanical assists designed to ease the load were too slow, said Joel Barraza, a former production associate.

“People would carry a seat because they’d be like, ‘Oh, I gotta get this done.’ I personally carried a seat,” Barraza said. “They’re supposed to move. Move it on, move it on, keep the line going.”

White, the former safety lead, also said workers sometimes lifted seats manually, but Tesla, in a statement, said it doesn’t happen.

A former Tesla safety professional … said the company systematically undercounted injuries by mislabeling them

And this:

A former Tesla safety professional … said the company systematically undercounted injuries by mislabeling them. “I saw injuries on there like broken bones and lacerations that they were saying were not recordable” as injuries, said the safety professional, who asked to remain anonymous. “I saw a lot of stuff that was like, ‘Wow, this is crazy.’ ”

Even where supervisors labeled an injury job-related, it often didn’t get recorded on OSHA logs:

For a dozen examples provided to the company by Reveal, Tesla stood by its decision to not count them. It said workers may have thought they were injured because of their jobs, and supervisors may have assumed the same. But later, Tesla said, a medical professional – sometimes contracted or affiliated with the company – determined there was no connection to work.

 “It’s just a matter of time before somebody gets killed.”  – Justine White, former Tesla safety lead

And then there are injuries suffered by temporary workers. Companies must count those injuries if they supervise the temps:

At one point, though, White said she asked her supervisor why the injury rate seemed off, and he told her they weren’t counting temp worker injuries.

“They knew they were reporting incorrect numbers,” White said. “Those workers were being injured on the floor and that wasn’t being captured, and they knew that.”

Tesla began to fix that problem in 2017, former employees said, but it’s unclear how consistently.

After workers requested the company’s injury logs last year, Tesla amended its original 2016 report to add 135 injuries that hadn’t been counted previously. The company said it changed the numbers after it discovered injuries that hadn’t been shared with Tesla by its temp agencies.

Average Isn’t Good Enough…Until It Is

Now, we wrote about the health and safety problems at Tesla last year after Worksafe, a California-based organization that works to prevent injury, illness, and death, issued a report finding that the rate of serious worker injuries at Tesla’s Fremont, California plant was approximately double the auto industry rate for 2015. Tesla rebutted that in 2017, Tesla’s overall injury rate was dramatically better in the first quarter of the year. And Musk later stated that even being “average” wasn’t good enough for him. He wanted to be better than average:

Last year, Musk claimed in a staffwide email and at a shareholder meeting that the company’s injury rate was much better than the industry average. A company blog post said that to be average would be “to go backwards.”

Then Tesla apparently did hit reverse.

“Our 2017 data showed that we are at industry average, so we’re happy about that,” Shelby said, explaining the earlier claims as a “snapshot in time.”

A Calculated Disinformation Campaign Driven by Extremists

So how did Tesla respond to the Reveal investigation? Maybe something like “thanks for pointing out these serious problems. We will do whatever is necessary, no matter the cost, to fix them?”

Not exactly. More like a statement accusing Reveal of being a tool in an ongoing unionization drive and portraying “a completely false picture of Tesla and what it is actually like to work here.”

“In our view, what they portray as investigative journalism is in fact an ideologically motivated attack by an extremist organization working directly with union supporters to create a calculated disinformation campaign against Tesla.”

Well at least they didn’t call the Reveal journalists “slime bags.”

The UAW has been trying to organize the plant for some time. The authors of the article noted that “Some of the workers who spoke to Reveal have supported the unionization effort, while many others – including safety professionals – had no involvement.”

Volks Redux

And one more thing that wasn’t mentioned in the article. You all may remember last March when Congress repealed OSHA’s Volks regulation that would have allowed OSHA to continue enforcing a requirement that employers maintain accurate injury and illness records for a period of five years.  What that means is that in this case, let’s say OSHA launches an inspection of Tesla on May 1 and finds dozens or hundreds of cases of chronically and deliberately inaccurate recording of injuries and illnesses over the past five years. And let’s say it then takes OSHA four months to issue a citation. Due to the repeal of the Volks rule, OSHA would only be able to cite inaccurate recordkeeping for the months of March and April 2018, and most like issue a tiny penalty.

As we’ve described before, OSHA has in the past used large recordkeeping citations to drive major health and safety improvements in large companies and throughout entire industries. But no more. Thanks Trump (and Ryan and McConnell)

Now, of course, Tesla is in California and is under CalOSHA’s authority, not federal OSHA’s authority.  It’s unclear to me whether the Volks case, which limited OSHA recordkeeping citations to six months, applies in California. (Those who know the answer, feel free to use the comment link below.)

I Can’t Sleep Here at Tesla

Former safety lead Justine White’s story says everything there is to say about Tesla’s approach to workplace safety:

A few months into her job, White became so alarmed that she wrote to a human resources manager that “the risk of injury is too high. People are getting hurt every day and near-hit incidents where people are getting almost crushed or hit by cars is unacceptable.”

The next day, she emailed Sam Teller, Musk’s chief of staff, that safety team leaders were failing to address the hazards.

“I know what can keep a person up at night regarding safety,” she wrote. “I must tell you that I can’t sleep here at Tesla.”

She said she never heard back from Musk’s office. She transferred departments and quit a couple months later, disillusioned.

Meanwhile, we hear that CalOSHA has opened a new inspection at Tesla.

Stay tuned.

This blog was originally published at Confined Space on April 18, 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


She gave the President the finger. Employer gave her the boot.

April 19th, 2018 | The Attorneys of Passman and Kaplan

Juli Briskman was on her own time, riding her bicycle, when President Trump’s motorcade drove by. She expressed her personal feelings with a middle finger salute, not realizing that a news reporter had captured her gesture on camera.

She abruptly lost her job after the photo went viral on social media. Her employer, a government contracting firm, feared the Trump administration would retaliate by withholding or not renewing contracts. She has sued for wrongful termination.

Did her employer’s action violate her rights?

Briskman was forced to resign in November 2017. She has now filed a lawsuit against her employer, citing violation of her civil rights. There are limits on free speech in the workplace. But she wasn’t in the workplace. When she “flipped the bird” at the president and his motorcade, she was doing so as a private citizen.

Giving someone the finger, however uncouth it may seem, is protected speech under the First Amendment. Employers do have some leeway to discipline or fire workers if they badmouth the company or if their personal conduct violates a corporate policy.

Briskman is claiming that she was fired as a sacrificial lamb. Her employer, Akima, has government contracts. The company has not claimed that her speech violated policy or offended her co-workers. Rather, she contends the company terminated her to avoid the wrath of the White House. The stated reason for her forced resignation was that the company could lose out on lucrative contracts if she were retained. In other words, the company retaliated against her before the president could retaliate against the company.

Can an employer pre-emptively terminate a worker for what might happen?

Ms. Briskman would likely still have her job if she had given the finger to anyone other than the president of the United States. And perhaps if it had been any other president. Maybe management was pressured by the White House through back channels. Maybe they just weren’t taking any chances.

The question for the court, or a jury, will be whether Akima was within its rights to take adverse employment action against an employee for (a) private speech that could (b) potentially but not necessarily affect its future contracts.

“Working for a company that does business with the federal government should never limit your ability to criticize that government in your private time,” Briskman has stated.

This unsettled legal issue will likely come up again

In the age of social media, clashes between free speech and employment are increasingly common. What you post on Facebook or Instagram on your free time may be visible to your bosses. Anyone with a cellphone can capture your strong words or rude gestures and make you suddenly (in)famous on the internet.

It will be interesting to see where this lawsuit goes. Do you think political speech or personal opinions while you are off duty should be protected? Or should employers be able to fire workers for free speech that results in backlash against the company?

This blog was originally published at the Passman & Kaplan blog on April 18, 2018. Reprinted with permission.

About the Author:  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


New Jersey to be tenth state with paid sick leave, but the U.S. stays at the bottom worldwide

April 18th, 2018 | Laura Clawson

More than a million workers will be getting paid sick leave soon after New Jersey’s legislature has passed a bill, which Gov. Phil Murphy has said he supports. That makes New Jersey the tenth state to require paid sick leave, and the second to do so in 2018, but New Jersey’s path to this point has been especially tough. Republican former Gov. Chris Christie kept a statewide sick leave bill from becoming law even as 13 cities and towns, including some of the state’s largest, passed their own local laws. Now:

The legislation, variations of which have been making its way through the Statehouse for years, would allow private-sector workers to accrue one hour of earned sick leave for every 30 hours worked.

They can use that time to care for themselves or a family member who is ill, to attend school conferences or meetings, or to recover from domestic violence.

Family Values @ Work co-directors Ellen Bravo and Wendy Chun-Hoon noted in a statement that, in addition to the domestic violence provisions, the law “includes the most inclusive definition of family, mirroring America’s families. Those in LGBTQ relationships, people who care for grandparents, aunts, uncles and loved ones outside of the nuclear family model, can heed doctors’ orders and take the time they need to care for their chosen family.”

Republicans continue to stand in the way of the United States joining the overwhelming majority of other countries in requiring some form of paid sick leave.

This blog was published at DailyKos on April 13, 2018. Reprinted with permission.

About the Author: Laura Clawson is labor editor at Daily Kos. 

Permalink


Arizona teachers could be next to go on strike

April 17th, 2018 | Casey Quinlan

Arizona teachers will begin voting on whether to strike on Tuesday. The voting will go on for three days.

Although Gov. Doug Ducey (R) announced a proposal to raise teacher pay by 20 percent by 2020, which state lawmakers will debate this week, teachers say his proposal doesn’t address education cuts over the past decade or large classroom sizes across the state.

Teachers are leaving the state for higher salaries and smaller classroom sizes and there are too many teacher vacancies as a result, teachers told ThinkProgress’ Elham Khatami last week. Last year, there were 8,600 teacher vacancies and 62 percent of those vacancies were vacant or being taken by people who couldn’t qualify for a teaching certificate, according to the Arizona Republic.

Arizona had the most devastating cuts over the past decade, according to a 2017 Center for Budget and Policy Priorities report on education funding since the Great Recession. State funding per student fell by 36.6 percent between 2008 and 2015, more than any other state.

On April 11, thousands of teachers participated in a statewide walk-in to ask for more education funding and higher salaries. In addition to the 20 percent raise they requested, they want to implement a permanent salary structure, offer competitive pay for educational support staff, stop new tax cuts until the state’s per pupil funding reaches the national average, and restore education funding to 2008 levels.

Arizona Educators United, a coalition of teachers, administrators, and education support professionals, organized the vote. Derek Harris, a member of the coalition’s leadership team and a band teacher at Tuscon Unified School District, said the group wants to see support from all over the state, according to Tuscon.com.

He said organizers want something more than a simple majority, but they don’t have a firm threshold for a vote. Teachers will vote before and after school hours. One of the members of the coalition leadership team, Kelley Fisher, a kindergarten teacher at Las Brisas Elementary School, showed teachers how to make a secure ballot box in a video on the group’s Facebook page.

“I am a creative arts teacher so I had to include some glitter but that’s not required,” she added.

Teachers on the coalition’s leadership team named the reasons why the governor’s proposal is not sufficient, such as the lack of detail on where funding for the raises will come from. Teachers also said a proposal should include more education funding to improve students’ quality of education.

“My students deserve to have repairs on their building and working plumbing and holes in walls patched,” Harris said in the group’s Facebook video published on Monday.

Harris laid out a plan for teachers over the next week for the voting process and next steps over the weekend, such as community organization meetings across the state.

“You will be breaking into canvassing teams, organizing house meetings, and really moving into the next step to get the community on our side,” Harris said. “So this week, let’s try to stay very attentive to what’s going on. We’re saying this week is #RedAlert, because if the legislature does something funny we want to make sure that you’re paying attention and ready to do anything that may need to be done.”

This article was originally published at ThinkProgress on April 17, 2018. Reprinted with permission.

About the Author: Casey Quinlan is a policy reporter at ThinkProgress covering economic policy and civil rights issues. Her work has been published in The Establishment, The Atlantic, The Crime Report, and City Limits

Permalink


12 Things We've Learned About the GOP Tax Bill

April 16th, 2018 | AFL-CIO Now

President Donald Trump and congressional Republicans rushed to pass the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act in December 2017, leaving very little time for public scrutiny or debate. Here are a few things we have learned since the GOP tax bill passed.

1. It Will Encourage Outsourcing: An April 2018 report by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office confirms that two “provisions [of the GOP tax bill] may increase corporations’ incentive to locate tangible assets abroad.”

2. It Has Not Boosted Corporate Investment: The rate of investment growth has stayed pretty much the same as before the GOP tax bill passed.

3. Few Workers Are Benefiting: Only 4.3% of workers are getting a one-time bonus or wage increase this year, according to Americans for Tax Fairness.

4. Corporations Are Keeping the WindfallAmericans for Tax Fairness calculates that corporations are receiving nine times as much in tax cuts as they are giving to workers in one-time bonuses and wage increases.

5. Corporations Are Using the Windfall to Buy Back Stocks: Corporations are spending 37 times as much on stock buybacks, which overwhelmingly benefit the wealthy, as on one-time bonuses and wage increases for workers, according to Americans for Tax Fairness.

6. Corporations Are Laying Off WorkersAmericans for Tax Fairness calculates that 183 private-sector businesses have announced 94,296 layoffs since Congress passed the tax bill.

7. It Costs More Than We Thought: The GOP tax bill will eventually cost $1.9 trillion by 2028, according to an April 2018 report by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. And we know some Republicanswill call for cuts to Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security to pay for it.

8. We’ve Fallen Behind When It Comes to Corporate Tax Revenue: Thanks to the GOP tax bill, corporate tax revenue (as a share of the economy) will be lower in the United States than in any other developed country, according to an April 2018 report by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy.

9. Extending the Individual Tax Cuts Would Benefit the Wealthy: The GOP tax bill’s temporary tax cuts for individuals expires by 2025, and some Republicans are now proposing to extend them.  An April 2018 report by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy shows that 61% of the benefit from these extending individual tax cuts would go to the richest one-fifth of taxpayers.

10. It Is Shoddy Work: In March 2018, a leading tax expert concluded that the GOP tax bill’s new rules for pass-through businesses “achieved a rare and unenviable trifecta, by making the tax system less efficient, less fair and more complicated. It lacked any coherent (or even clearly articulated) underlying principle, was shoddily executed and ought to be promptly repealed.”

11. It Is Still Unpopular: The GOP tax bill polls poorly, with a clear majority disapproving.

12. The Outsourcing Incentives Can Be Fixed: In February 2018, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) and Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas) introduced the No Tax Breaks for Outsourcing Act, which would eliminate the GOP tax bill’s incentives for outsourcing by equalizing tax rates on domestic profits and foreign profits.

Permalink


Acosta Refuses To Commit to Preserving OSHA Recordkeeping Rule

April 13th, 2018 | Jordan Barab

In a hearing before the Senate Appropriations Committee today, Secretary of Labor Alex Acosta today refused to commit not to rescind OSHA’s electronic recordkeeping rule. The rule, issued in 2016, requires employers to send injury and illness information into OSHA and prohibits employers from retaliating against workers for reporting injuries.

The electronic recordkeeping rule has three major parts, two of which are in effect.

First, it required employers to send in a summary of their injury and illness data (form 300A (Summary of Work-Related Injuries and Illnesses) by December 15. A second submission (including information on Form 300 and Form 301), providing more detail about how workers were injured, was scheduled to be submitted later this year. Finally, the rule prohibits employers from retaliating against workers for reporting injuries or illnesses.  OSHA’s intent when the rule was issued was to public post on its website the individual employer data to ensure that workers and the public were aware of companies’ health and safety record. No confidential or personally identifiable information would be submitted to OSHA or posted publicly.

Over the past year, Trump’s OSHA as announced that it’s working on revising the rule. While it had been assumed that the Trump administration was mostly interested in repealing the requirement to send in the more detailed data, rumors have been circulating that an effort is being made to repeal the entire rule.

Yes or No?

Senator Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) asked Acosta at this morning’s hearing whether Acosta thought it was important for OSHA to have access to accurate injury and illness data in order to target its limited resources to the most dangerous resources.

After agreeing that such data was in fact important, Acosta was asked whether he planned to rescind the rule, yes or no?

Acosta responded that “Yes or no answers are somewhat difficult on this,” but “it is also important to respect he privacy of individuals and employees” and then, without answering Baldwin’s question, proceeded to filibuster the time with a long discussion about the non-existent issue of confidentiality.

In short, “yes or now answers” should not difficult in this case, nor is confidentiality a real issue.

First, the deadline for sending in the summary data on OSHA form 300A has already passed (although a large number of employers failed to comply), and as is evident from the form, there is no private data about any individuals.  The more detailed information was to be sent to OSHA by July 1, 2018, but that date has been delayed indefinitely while OSHA determines how to modify the regulation.

While employers do include Personally Identifiable Information (PII) on their in-house forms 300 and 301, that information was not required to be submitted to OSHA or would have been automatically scrubbed out of the submission. When the regulation was released, the agency announced that:

OSHA has effective safeguards in place to prevent the disclosure of personal or confidential information contained in the recordkeeping forms and submitted to OSHA. OSHA will not collect employee name, employee address, name of physician or other health care professional, or healthcare facility name and address if treatment was given away from the worksite.  All of the case specific narrative information in employer reports will be scrubbed for PII using software that will search for, and de-identify, personally identifiable information before the data are posted.

So, what we’re seeing here is not a concern about employee privacy, but an effort by the Chamber of Commerce and the anti-OSHA lobby to kill the rule.

So, what we’re seeing here is not a concern about employee privacy, but an effort by the Chamber of Commerce and the anti-OSHA lobby to kill the rule because they’re afraid that if OSHA collects injury or illness information about companies’ health and safety record, the companies’ information — not the PII — will eventually be publicly released. And that won’t look good for those companies with poor health and safety records. Transparency is great — unless it hurts your bottom line.

In addition, as Baldwin suggested and Acosta acknowledged, the injury and illness data would be used to enable OSHA to target the most dangerous industries. Now that makes sense. OSHA is a tiny agency able to visit only a very small number of workplaces each year, so it makes sense that those inspections focus on the most high hazard industries, and the most dangerous companies within those high hazard industries.  No one wants to waste OSHA’s time, the taxpayer’s money, or an employer’s time inspecting a company that’s doing everything right. If possible, you want to use the data to get to those companies that are putting workers at risk.

But of course, if you happen to be one of those companies whose putting workers at risk, or a company in a high hazard industry, maybe you’re not so interested in OSHA targeting your industry. Better they waste their time wandering around aimlessly, reducing even further the small chance that you’ll ever be inspected.

So could Acosta have said “No, the rule will not be repealed, although as we have already announced, we’re working on modifying it?”  Yes.

Unless they’re really considering a complete repeal.

OSHA Inspections

Acosta proudly informed the Committee in his opening remarks that “The number of inspections conducted in 2017 increased year over year for the first time in five years despite OSHA’s suspension of enforcement activities to provide more compliance assistance and facilitate the provision of personal protective equipment during the hurricane recovery in areas affected by natural disasters this year.”

And, in fact, the number of inspections did increase by a few hundred in FY 2017.  A good thing? Yes and no.

I have nothing against increasing the number of inspections. Thirty-two thousand inspections is a small number considering the huge number of workplaces under OSHA’s jurisdiction, so the more the better.

But, there are some problems with that. Because how many inspections is not the only question. One must also ask what kind of inspections?  A little background:

Career government employees, and especially OSHA staff, are good soldiers. Give them a numerical goal and if at all possible, they’ll meet it by hook or by crook. So if the Secretary of Labor demands that you increase the number of inspections, even though a hiring freeze has caused critical staffing shortages, you go for the short, easy inspections — usually a lot of short construction inspections. And you spend a lot of time out in the field inspecting at the end of the Fiscal Year, and then stay in the office and do all the paperwork at the beginning of the next Fiscal Year.

During the Obama administration, we decided to do something a bit different. We decided to prioritize the type and quality of inspections over the pure number. Because if you’re focusing on short easy inspection to get some numbers up on the board, you may be neglecting the more complex investigations that may be more significant in the big picture — workplace violence, ergonomics, chemical plant inspections — those that may take a long time but are important to do.   We did this by counting “enforcement units” instead of just the number of inspections, and assigning more “enforcement units” to the more difficult inspections so that inspectors or offices wouldn’t be penalized for taking on the more difficult projects.

So I find Acosta’s emphasis on numbers to be ironic, because the typical Republican criticism of OSHA is that it plays a “gotcha” game — just putting citations up on the board. Which is exactly what this administration seems to be doing.   And I understand it. It certainly plays better in Congress to say you did more inspections than that Democrats.

They are the laws of the land. They need to be enforced. — Alex Acosta

The good news is that Acosta again emphasized the importance of enforcement when asked by Committee Chairman Roy Blunt why the Administration had recommended flat budgets or slight increases for DOL enforcement agencies. Acosta responded that

Those are priorities. These laws matter. They’ve been passed by Congress. They are the laws of the land. They need to be enforced. The men and women of the Department of Labor need the resources to enforce them  Over time even if budgets remain flat, life gets more expensive. And so we’ve asked for slight increases to continue the efforts that we’ve done this year. Because as I’ve said, enforcement matters.

Hard to argue with those words.

Tipping Over

Finally, as I mentioned the other day, the fireworks over Acosta’s tipping ruleallowing employers to steal servers’ tips evaporated when Congress included a bill prohibiting tip stealing in the FY 2018 budget bill. Acosta had come under withering attack for not including a damaging economic analysis in the proposal that would have estimated how much money servers would have lost.

But the fix passed in March and everyone congratulated each other and patted each other on the back and sang Kumbaya over this great (and rare) example of everyone working together in perfect harmony.

But Acosta couldn’t quite let it go. He needed to “just put it on the record…”

Taking up the Chairman’s offer for a few parting words at the end of the hearing, Acosta reminded everyone that when the original regulation was issued in 2011, the Obama administration also didn’t include an quantitative economic analysis. (Which was not required because the 2011 version did not make any changes in current practice.) He then went to great lengths to explain again how complicated an analysis was and how they could have made some “wildly crazy” assumptions to come up with a number, but that wouldn’t have served the public interest and Obama did the same thing no one got upset, so that’s “indicative of an unfortunate state of affairs that we’re at,” and anyway employers wouldn’t have kept tips anyway because no one would eat there and employees would walk out  but that’s why I’m happy that we all worked together and we had a happy ending.

And to all a good night.

This blog was originally published at Confined Space on April 12, 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


Tesla Workers Say Elon Musk is a Union Buster. The NLRB Just Gave Their Case a Boost.

April 12th, 2018 | Michael Arria

Tesla factory workers have been trying for months to win restitution for the company’s alleged union-busting and harassment. Now, a National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) complaint against the company appears to be making strides.

Last August, the NLRB filed a complaint against Tesla after finding merit in a number of accusations from employees at its Fremont, California factory. Some Tesla factory workers say the company engaged in various forms of union-busting, through harassment and surveillance. They also claim that Tesla required them to sign a confidentiality agreement which prohibited them from discussing the details of their working conditions.

On March 30, the NLRB amended the complaint to add new allegations from workers which the board found to have merit. In the new claims, Tesla workers say the company investigated them after they posted information on a pro-union Facebook page.

The case has now been scheduled to go before an NLRB administrative law judge in June. After hearing the case, the judge will issue a decision and recommended order. The fact that the complaints were deemed to have merit, and that workers will have their concerns heard, constitute significant developments in the case.

The amended NLRB complaint comes as Tesla, and its CEO Elon Musk, are being criticized for failing to live up to their production goals. After Tesla shares dropped last month, its engineering chief Doug Field sent an email to staff attacking people who doubted Musk’s vision. “I find that personally insulting, and you should too,” Field wrote in a March 23 email. “Let’s make them regret ever betting against us. You will prove a bunch of haters wrong.”

In an internal memo from March 21, the company also announced that a small number of “volunteers” would be brought in to help assist with Tesla’s Model 3 line. After Bloomberg reported this fact on March 29, Tesla informed the outlet that volunteer shifts would only take place on one day, while production of the company’s Model X and S cars was stopped. Employees who regularly work on those models could either volunteer to work on the Model 3, take paid time off, or take unpaid time off that day.  “The world is watching us very closely, to understand one thing: How many Model 3’s can Tesla build in a week?” Field wrote in his email to staff. “This is a critical moment in Tesla’s history, and there are a number of reasons it’s so important. You should pick the one that hits you in the gut and makes you want to win.”

The working conditions of Tesla employees, and their organizing efforts, were brought to the public’s attention last February when Jose Moran, a production worker at Tesla’s plant in Fremont, published a Medium post criticizing the company’s hourly wages and high number of preventable work injuries. “Tesla isn’t a startup anymore. It’s here to stay,” wrote Moran. “Workers are ready to help make the company more successful and a better place to work. Just as CEO Elon Musk is a respected champion for green energy and innovation, I hope he can also become a champion for his employees.” In his piece, Moran mentions that Tesla workers had reached out to the United Auto Workers (UAW) for assistance with their unionizing efforts.

Workers at the Tesla factory say they were reprimanded by management for printing copies of Moran’s post and attempting to pass them out, along with information about the UAW. Three workers cited this action in the charges that became part of the August complaint from the NLRB. Workers also claim they were harassed for wearing UAW shirts. The updated complaint claims that two workers were investigated and interrogated by Tesla after they posted company information in a private Facebook group called “Fremont Tesla Employees for UAW Representation.” Last October, one of the employees was fired and the other was given a disciplinary warning. Tesla said it fired the employee after he admitted to lying about the incident during their internal investigation.

That same month, Tesla fired 700 of its employees without notice or warning, about 2 percent of its entire workforce. The UAW promptly filed a federal complaint against the company, claiming that some of the employees were fired because they were part of the unionization efforts. On a quarterly earnings call last November, Elon Musk defended the firings and called criticisms of them “ridiculous.” He pointed to Tesla’s supposedly high standards for performance. “You have two boxers of equal ability, and one’s much smaller, the big guy’s going to crush the little guy, obviously,” said Musk. “So the little guy better have a heck of a lot more skill or he’s going to get clobbered. So that is why our standards are high. They’re not high because we believe in being mean to people. They’re high because if they’re not high, we will die.”

Last November, the UAW filed another complaint against Tesla. This one concerned its Gigafactory battery plant in Nevada. The filing, which was obtained by Jalopnik via an FOIA request, charges Tesla with intimidating, surveillance, and interrogating employees who participated in union organizing. The NLRB consolidated these charges into the ongoing complaint.

Earlier this month, Tesla released the following statement regarding the amended NLRB complaint: “These allegations from the UAW are nothing new. The only thing that’s changed since the UAW filed these charges is that many of the allegations have been outright dismissed or are not being pursued by the NLRB. There’s no merit to any of them.”

Legally, Tesla has to respond to the newest round of complaints by April 13. The case will go before an administrative judge on June 11.

This article was originally published at In These Times on April 12, 2018. Reprinted with permission. 

About the Author: Michael Arria covers labor and social movements. Follow him on Twitter: @michaelarria

Permalink



Your Rights Job Survival The Issues Features Resources About This Blog