November 16th, 2016 | Theo Anderson
The presidential election was bad news for progressives, but the dark cloud had a sort of silver lining—ballot measures. At the state level, workers won minimum wage increases in four states and paid sick leave in two.
Voters approved an increase to $12 an hour by 2020 in Arizona, Colorado and Maine. Washington voted to raise the minimum wage to $13.50 by 2020—and index it to inflation after that. In Flagstaff, Arizona, voters approved an increase above the new state minimum wage, raising it to $15 an hour by 2021.
These increases will affect about 2.3 million workers, according to the National Employment Law Project (NELP). And overall, the “minimum wage ballot wins bring to 19.3 million the number of workers who have received raises because of minimum wage increases in the four years since the Fight for $15 launched in New York City and began changing the politics of the country around wages,” noted NELP’s executive director, Christine Owens.
Voters approved an increase to $12 an hour by 2020 in Arizona, Colorado and Maine. Washington voted to raise the minimum wage to $13.50 by 2020—and index it to inflation after that. (AZ Healthy Working Families/ Facebook)
The measures in Arizona and Washington also included mandatory paid sick leave for workers. In Arizona, the initiative guaranteed at least 40 hours of paid leave for workers in businesses with 15 or more employees. Workers in businesses with fewer than 15 employees are guaranteed at least 24 hours. The law goes into effect July 2017. In Washington, workers will earn a minimum of one hour of paid sick leave for every 40 hours worked. That law takes effect in 2018.
In South Dakota, meanwhile, voters rejected a decrease in the minimum wage for non-tipped workers under the age of 18. And voters in Maine and Flagstaff abolished the sub-minimum wage for tipped workers, guaranteeing them the regular minimum wage.
The state and local minimum wage increases promise substantial benefits for a wide range of workers. Maine’s measure, for example, will raise wages for about 180,000 people, according to NELP. About a third of them are working seniors, who are “among the fastest-growing age groups in Maine’s labor force”—a trend that applies nationwide.
A report by the Women’s Foundation of Colorado found that the state’s $12 minimum wage will affect about 200,000 households with children and 290,000 women. The increase for most female minimum wage workers will be between $4,000 and $7,000 a year. The study also found that the median age of minimum wage workers is 30 and that more than 35 percent of them are over 40.
“For a family with two children,” the report read, “a minimum wage boost to $12 per hour could cover the cost of six to eight months of food; seven to nine months of transportation expenses; four to seven months of rent; or a semester to a full year at a community college.”
In other states, Alabama and Virginia voted on whether to enshrine so-called right-to-work laws into their state constitutions. In “right-to-work” states, employees can opt out of paying union dues. Both states already have such laws on the books, but putting them in the constitution would make them permanent. Alabama approved the measure. Virginia rejected it.
In the realm of health care, Colorado rejected an initiative that would have created a universal health care system in the state, with 80 percent voting against.
Also in Colorado, voters rejected (51-49 percent) a measure designed to alter the state’s constitution by deleting language from 1876 that allows slavery among people who are being punished for a crime. The proposed amendment highlighted growing concerns over working conditions in prisons and would have prohibited slavery in all cases. The state chapter of the AFL-CIO had supported the change.
Even though workers didn’t win on every initiative, the success of the minimum wage and paid sick leave measures suggests one promising path forward for progressives. Of the more than 160 total ballot measures this year, 71 were initiated through signature petitions rather than state legislatures.
As Justine Sarver, executive director of the Ballot Initiative Strategy Center, said Wednesday, “The success of the minimum wage and other progressive ballot measures in the face of last night’s election results clearly shows that ballot initiatives will become an increasingly important tool in coming cycles to pass the kind of policies that create an economy that works for everyone.”
This blog originally appeared at inthesetimes.com on November 10, 2016. Reprinted with permission.
Theo Anderson, an In These Times staff writer, is writing a book about the historical and contemporary influence of pragmatism on American politics. He has a Ph.D. in American history from Yale University and teaches history and literature seminars at the Newberry Library in Chicago.
November 15th, 2016 | Dave Johnson
Is the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) dead or not? The President-elect says he is against TPP. TPP may be the thing that cost Clinton the election. The voters obviously were against it. The head of the Senate says he won’t bring it up for a vote. But House Speaker Paul Ryan hasn’t said a thing. And, of course, Wall Street and the giant multinational corporations want TPP and they want it bad.
Trump, Senate Leaders, Voters Opposed To TPP
Donald Trump campaigned and won on opposition to past trade agreements and the upcoming TPP. Because of this the leaders of the Senate are saying there won’t be a TPP vote in Senate during the “lame duck” session of Congress. This week Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Obstruction) said that there will be no Senate vote on TPP before next year. Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-Wall Street), who is expected to be the next Senate Minority Leader, told the AFL-CIO executive council the same.
Further confirming the importance of trade in the election, some are saying that TPP may have cost Clinton the presidency. Friday’s Politico Morning Trade quotes Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT),
DELAURO: TPP PUSH MAY HAVE COST CLINTON THE ELECTION: The White House’s push for approval of the TPP may have cost Hillary Clinton the election, even though both she and Donald Trump opposed the pact, Rep. Rosa DeLauro said.
“In those states, where we lost by a point or two, it was all about trade,” the Connecticut Democrat said in an interview, arguing that the possibility of Congress voting on the agreement in the lame duck may have motivated a higher turnout in industrial swing states — to the benefit of Trump.
Clinton’s refusal to say she would push hard to get democrats to oppose TPP certainly didn’t help her with voters concerned about the effect of trade policies on their jobs and communities.
So Is TPP Dead Or Not?
With all of that opposition it would seem that TPP is dead. But TPP is at the very top of the “corporate agenda” because it moves those pesky governments and voters and their interference with corporate goals out of the picture. Wall Street and the giant multinational corporations want TPP and Wall Street and the giant multinational corporations get what they want.
Morning Trade explains how this can still happen,
“I’m not so sure TPP is in the dustbin,” Susan Ariel Aaronson, a research professor of international affairs at George Washington University, told Morning Trade. The argument – which she stressed was “not likely, but a possibility” – is that Republican leaders in Congress could feel pressured to move by two important constituencies: multinational businesses that have value chains in Asia, and the military.
“If Congress is willing to move quickly … there’s a lot of pressure on Republicans from those two sources,” she said. “And I do think that it’s possible that all this pressure to move quickly on trade will lead to some sort of collaboration between internationalist-minded Republicans who will have NAM, the Chamber of Commerce, Business Roundtable, the tech sector, who really want TPP to happen. Plus the military.”
Remember, Republican opposition was based on trying to keep President Obama from getting things he was asking for. Now Obama is out of that equation, while the true owners of the Republican Party — Wall Street and the giant multinational corporations — want TPP and want it bad.
House Speaker Paul Ryan is the key. Ryan has not yet said that there will not be a vote on TPP in the coming “lame duck” session of Congress.
But wait, there’s more. Trump said what he needed to say to get elected. Not he’s elected and he doesn’t need to keep saying it. It’s not like he isn’t himself a huge supporter of the agenda of Wall Street and the giant multinational corporations. His tax plan cuts their taxes dramatically and lets them off the hook for taxes already owed on profits stashed in tax havens. He wants to gut the Dodd-Frank legislation that reined in Wall Street a tiny bit. He will also help gut the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). And, of course, he says he will gut government regulation of corporations. So next year it’s quite possible that Trump could endorse a (possibly renamed) TPP agreement that has been modified a bit, saying it’s fixed. Because that is what Wall Street and the giant multinational corporations want.
So until the lame duck session is over we are still in wait-and-see mode. A TPP vote could still happen before next year.
This post originally appeared on ourfuture.org on November 11, 2016. Reprinted with Permission.
Dave Johnson has more than 20 years of technology industry experience. His earlier career included technical positions, including video game design at Atari and Imagic. He was a pioneer in design and development of productivity and educational applications of personal computers. More recently he helped co-found a company developing desktop systems to validate carbon trading in the US.
November 15th, 2016 | Ian Millhiser
If President-elect Trump follows through on his campaign promises, millions of individuals-immigrants, religious minorities, people of color-face a very grim four years. One of the worst hit groups will be Americans with significant health costs. The Trump transition team published a brief summary of the incoming president’s health plan on its website, and the news is not good for the elderly, the poor, and millions of Americans with preexisting conditions.
Much of the plan is vague. Trump plans to “Modernize Medicare,” for example, an unclear statement that is likely code for Speaker Paul Ryan’s (R-WI) plan to repeal Medicare and replace it with a voucher system that imposes much higher out-of-pocket costs on seniors. Similarly, Trump says he will “Maximize flexibility for States in administering Medicaid,” a statement that is probably code for Ryan’s plan to either “require states to provide less extensive coverage, or to pay a larger share of the program’s total costs, than would be the case under current law.”
A central prong of Trump’s plan, however, is to repeal the Affordable Care Act and replace it with, well, not much at all. Trump says he will “repeal the ACA and replace it with a solution that includes Health Savings Accounts,” which primarily benefit the rich and offer little or no benefits to low and middle income Americans. Trump will “enable people to purchase insurance across state lines,” a coded phrase which actually means that he will eliminate state regulation of insurance which requires coverage of treatments ranging from mammograms to maternity stays to well child care.
And then there’s his proposal for people with preexisting health conditions.
Prior to Obamacare, one of the most vulnerable groups was people with medical conditions who neither qualified for a government health program nor received insurance through their employer. Insurance companies would deny coverage to these individuals for conditions as severe as cancer or as routine as hay fever.
The reason why is that covering people with such conditions is expensive. A health insurance plan is a pool of money. Consumers contribute to that pool when they pay their premiums, and they take money out of that pool when they become sick or otherwise seek treatment. That means that, if someone tries to join the pool who has a preexisting condition, the insurer will try to keep them out because it will cost more to insure them than they will pay in.
The Affordable Care Act addressed this with a trio of reforms—a requirement that insurers allow everyone in, subsidies to help pay for coverage, and a financial consequence for people who fail to buy insurance. The final of these three reforms existed so that healthy people would not forego insurance, forcing insurers to cover only the most expensive individuals.
Trump plans to eliminate this framework and replace it with “high-risk pools,” essentially, a special insurance program for people with expensive preexisting conditions. In theory, high-risk pools can work to provide health coverage with such conditions, but they are an inefficient way to do so. And they have reliably failed when attempted by states.
At best, high risk pools are a way to maximize the insurance industry’s profits while shifting the costs of our health care system onto the taxpayers. If the government takes on the burden of insuring the most expensive individuals?—?and only the most expensive individuals?—?then that’s a bonanza for the insurance companies because they will be left with a pool of less expensive (and more profitable) consumers. Meanwhile, the costs of providing care for the most expensive health care consumers will fall upon whatever new government program President Trump creates to manage the high risk pools.
But that’s actually the best case scenario for Trump’s health plan. Because high risk pools take on the most expensive health care consumers, they are expensive to maintain. And when states attempted to set them up in the past, they did not fund them enough to cover more than a fraction of what was needed. As one report explained when Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) proposed high risk pools during his 2008 presidential bid, these pools “have not been a viable alternative for the medically uninsured because of high premiums…and inadequate funding to subsidize the full cost of providing insurance to a high-cost population.”
McCain’s plan is informative regarding what a Republican proposal for high-risk pools is likely to look like. The Arizona senator proposed spending between $7 to $10 billion on these pools. But that would only cover a fraction of the Americans who would lose their health insurance if Obamacare is repealed. A national program “funded at $7 billion per year would cover only 875,000 people,” and that was in 2008. Alternatively, “even if participants had to pay half of their own premiums, as is generally the case today in state high risk pools, less than 2 million Americans would be covered.”
Obamacare provides health insurance to about 20 million Americans.
Of course, Trump’s proposal is vague on details and especially short on numbers. So maybe he plans to fund the high risk pools enough to fill the gap that will be created by repealing Obamacare. The likelihood that Republicans intend to replace a policy they denounced as socialism with what would likely be a significantly more expensive government program, however, is small.
If there is any ray of light in Trump’s proposals, it is that he doesn’t appear to have set his eyes on pre-Obama laws that protect workers with employer-provided health plans that have preexisting conditions. Nevertheless, Trump is, in effect, planning to reinstate a problem known as “job lock,” where people in jobs that they would rather leave are forced to stay in them because it is the only way that they can obtain health benefits.
That means fewer people starting businesses, more people working into the years when they would rather retire, fewer jobs opening up for younger workers eager for new opportunities, and more people simply stuck in jobs that they hate.
On November 7th, it seemed like workers were finally free to take risks without having to fear that they would lose their health coverage. Only a few days later, that freedom is likely to disappear.
This blog originally appeared in ThinkProgress.org on November 11, 2016. Reprinted with permission.
Ian Millhiser is the Justice Editor at ThinkProgress. He is a skeptic of the Supreme Court, hater of Samuel Alito, and a constitutional lawyer of ill repute. Contact him at email@example.com.
November 11th, 2016 | Laura Clawson
It’s become a regular feature of elections in recent years: Even as the federal minimum wage stays stuck at $7.25 an hour, with congressional Republicans refusing to raise it, voters resoundingly choose to raise state and local minimum wages. Four states voted for minimum wage increases on Tuesday: Arizona, Colorado, Maine, and Washington. Paid sick leave also continued to gain momentum.
In Arizona, $12 by 2020 was passed by nearly 60 percent of voters. The first raise, from $8.05 to $10, will come in January. Tipped workers in one Arizona city are also getting some good news. Flagstaff voted to raise the tipped minimum wage to $15 by 2026. The federal tipped minimum wage has been $2.13 an hour since 1991. In Colorado and Maine, the minimum wage will be going to $12 by 2020 as well, with Maine including tipped workers—they’ll get to the full $12 by 2024, up from a current level of $3.75.
And then there’s Washington state, which before the minimum wage-raising movement of the past few years had the highest minimum wage of any state in the country but has gotten left behind even as two of its cities—Seattle and SeaTac—passed $15 minimum wages. On Tuesday, Washington voters said yes to $13.50 by 2020. Their minimum wage was slated to go from $9.47 to $9.53 on January 1, but instead it’ll go to $11.
That’s not all. The same measures that raised the minimum wage in Washington and Arizona also included paid sick leave. They will become the fifth and sixth states—after Connecticut, California, Massachusetts, and Oregon—to require paid sick leave.
This is all good news for millions of workers. And workers will need any good news they can get under President Trump.
This article originally appeared at DailyKOS.com on November 10, 2016. Reprinted with permission.
Laura Clawson is a Daily Kos contributing editor since December 2006. Labor editor since 2011.
November 10th, 2016 | Mario Vasquez
In July 2015, the University of California’s student-workers union, United Auto Workers (UAW) 2865, passed a resolution calling on the AFL-CIO to terminate the membership of the International Union of Police Associations (IUPA).
Now, after a series of meetings in Los Angeles throughout October, the same resolution is making its way through Service Employees International Union (SEIU) 721, a local representing public service and nonprofit employees in Southern California. Although SEIU is not part of the AFL-CIO, organizers for the resolution hope it will spark a wider discussion about the role police and their unions play.
The resolution was first approved by the African-American caucus of SEIU 721 on October 6, and later by the local’s Latino caucus on October 19. The endorsements came after collaboration and presentations by Olufemi Taiwo, a UAW 2865 member, and Julia Wallace, a member of SEIU 721.
“When I heard about the UAW’s resolution,” Wallace tells In These Times, “I thought this is great. This is a way for us, as union members to show our support for working-class people, but also to be clear that the police have played a role historically … not just [as] oppressors of Black people, Latino people, LGBT people, disabled people, but also against workers, against working-class people as strike-breakers.”
Wallace says her goal is to get the resolution approved by the executive board of SEIU 721.
“I think the best thing is a politicized, organized and educated workforce,” says Wallace. “That’s the best thing that we could have, because even if it doesn’t get passed through the executive board, then there’s a discussion within our union meetings. ‘Okay, so, what is the role of the police? What are we going to do to organize against them? How are we going to protest?’”
The deaths of Michael Brown, Eric Garner and Freddie Gray at the hands of police, and the subsequent rise of the movement for Black lives, helped push the Black Interests Coordinating Committee (BICC), a UAW 2865 caucus, to write the original resolution.
The AFL-CIO did not officially comment on the resolution, but Carmen Berkley, the federation’s director of civil, human and women’s rights, told Buzzfeed’s Cora Lewis in January:
“We are not in the business of kicking people out of unions … What we are in the business of is having conversations with our law enforcement brothers and sisters about how they can have different practices … I do think there’s a lot of reconciliation that needs to happen between communities of color and law enforcement, and we want to be the bridge that helps them get there.”
When asked about Berkley’s remarks, Taiwo tells In These Times, “She’s posing the issue as if what it is—is there’s individual victims of police violence and individual perpetrators of police that need to sit down and have a mediation.”
“If what they’re for is protecting the ruling class, then it’s not an issue of mediation. It’s not an issue of reconciling individual differences or healing individual acts of violence,” Taiwo says. “It’s an issue of reconciling our union structures with what we’re trying to fight for as unions.”
Wallace says that as long as police side with “bosses” on the picket line and police unions “unequivocally [defend] the police murdering people” then they should not be members of labor organizations.
“They can defend themselves just fine. Their pensions aren’t challenged, their healthcare benefits aren’t cut, their raises continue to happen and ours are always on the chopping block,” Wallace says. “Ours are always in question and there’s a reason for that. It’s because they defend the wealthy.”
The IUPA responded to UAW 2865 shortly after the resolution passed, with IUPA legislative director Dennis Slocumb telling Workers Independent News: “It’s impossible to stand for the rights of working-class people while opposing the people in law enforcement. We are working class. And we think this is nothing but a publicity stunt for a group that’s struggling for some sort of attention.”
Slocumb noted that the resolution did not explicitly call out any other labor groups that represent and bargain for police.
“They don’t call on their own union to disgorge police officers. They haven’t called on AFSCME, or CWA or any of the other organizations that represent police officers within the AFL-CIO. The Teamsters and SEIU, who are outside of the AFL-CIO but certainly labor organizations, also represent police officers,” he said.
Moving forward, Wallace says she hopes to get other unions to endorse the resolution, while also organizing a project to build a general strike against police violence.
“People are talking about this and it’s just the beginning,” she says.
This blog originally appeared at inthesetimes.com on November 3, 2016. Reprinted with permission.
Mario Vasquez is a writer from southern California. He is a regular contributor to Working In These Times. Follow him on Twitter @mario_vsqz or email him firstname.lastname@example.org.
November 9th, 2016 | Kenneth Quinnell
On Monday, transit workers in TWU Local 234 reached a tentative agreement with the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority and ended a weeklong transit strike in Philadelphia. Nearly 5,000 employees are returning to work, and the deal now goes to the local’s membership for a vote, which is set for Nov. 18.
Willie Brown, president of Transport Workers (TWU) Local 234, lauded the agreement:
“This is a contract with many important gains, especially on pension benefits and a host of non-economic issues effecting the working conditions and job security of our members. As everyone with experience in collective bargaining knows, we didn’t get everything we wanted—but we came a long way from where we were prior to the strike. We made gains in pensions and wages and minimized out-of-pocket health care expenses at a time when health care costs are soaring, while maintaining excellent medical coverage for our members and their families.
“We worked day and night at the bargaining table in an attempt to finalize a new contract over the past week. We settled just hours before facing the possibility of a back-to-work court-ordered injunction. We ultimately prevailed because our members were determined and united from beginning to end. We also benefited from the assistance of city leaders such as Congressman Bob Brady and Democratic congressional candidate Dwight Evans, who worked to help us settle this dispute with a SEPTA Board controlled by Republicans.
“Our members will keep Philadelphia moving, and we will continue to fight for our members’ economic well-being and their rights on the job.”
Said TWU President Harry Lombardo:
“TWU’s members in Philadelphia are some of the hardest working people on the job. We’re pleased they’ll have a contract that recognizes that.”
Details of the agreement will be made public after the vote.
This blog originally appeared in aflcio.org on November 7, 2016. Reprinted with permission.
Kenneth Quinnell: I am a long-time blogger, campaign staffer and political activist. Before joining the AFL-CIO in 2012, I worked as labor reporter for the blog Crooks and Liars. Previous experience includes Communications Director for the Darcy Burner for Congress Campaign and New Media Director for the Kendrick Meek for Senate Campaign, founding and serving as the primary author for the influential state blog Florida Progressive Coalition and more than 10 years as a college instructor teaching political science and American History. My writings have also appeared on Daily Kos, Alternet, the Guardian Online, Media Matters for America, Think Progress, Campaign for America’s Future and elsewhere. I am the proud father of three future progressive activists, an accomplished rapper and karaoke enthusiast.
November 8th, 2016 | Raquel Brito
I work in the United Airlines terminal as a baggage handler at O’Hare Airport in Chicago. Not too long ago, the people doing my job made $22 an hour. Then United outsourced the jobs to Prospect.
Now I’m paid just $11 an hour. Let’s do the math. That’s half of what they used to pay.
Same job. Less money.
I live with my family. I help pay the bills and put food on the table. At 21 years old, I already handle more responsibility than a lot of people do in a lifetime.
My aunt and grandma also work at O’Hare. All three of us are underpaid. We’re tired of struggling just to get by.
The worst part is that we don’t get health benefits. When I was injured on the job, I had to pay for most of my treatment out of my own pocket.
That’s why I’m standing with my coworkers. Like airport workers across the country, we’re fighting for $15 and union rights.
On Martin Luther King, Jr. Day I was arrested for blocking the street outside United Airlines’ headquarters in Chicago—an act of nonviolent civil disobedience. This spring, I joined my coworkers on an unfair labor practice strike to protest the retaliation we faced for coming together for $15 and union rights.
Chicago is an expensive place to live. Fifteen dollars—at least—is what we need to live our lives.
We know the money is there. Our jobs used to be good jobs. We’re pumping huge profits into United—but we’re barely making enough to make ends meet.
We are not going to stop until airlines step up and make our airports good for our communities again.
This article was originally printed on SEIU.org in October 2016. Reprinted with permission.
Raquel Brito is a baggage handler for Prospect Airport Services in the United Airlines terminal at O’Hare Airport in Chicago.
November 7th, 2016 | Angelic Papacalos
This year’s election has stirred up a lot of controversy, arguably more than the most recent elections. Everyone is talking about the election, whether it is in person or online. Sex, politics, religion, money; these are things we were told not to talk about, especially at work. But now, in this new age of technology, even if we don’t talk about it at the office people can still find out our views if we post online. What rules apply to the workplace and where do we draw the line?
There seems to be a fine line between what type of political speech is and is not acceptable in the workplace. Federal Law prohibits government employers from restricting free speech in the workplace because of the 1st Amendment. However, private employers do not have the same restriction. In some states, employers may be able to express their political beliefs as long as they are not coercing any employees to vote for or contribute funds to a specific candidate. However, encouraging donations is fine. Other places only allow a company to express its beliefs by expressing its views on which side of each issue is best for the future of the company. Are employees held to the same standard?
What can employees talk about at work? Friends talk about politics outside of work, but what if you are friends with your coworkers? Some employees may be fine with talking about politics with each other. However, if these conversations happen at work where other employees can hear them, they might be offending someone. Employers can regulate as they see fit through their own workplace policies but there aren’t any laws governing this. Some might think offensive political speech would amount to a hostile working environment. However, federal and state laws do not consider political speech as a basis to prove a workplace is hostile. Should employees be able to talk about politics that deal with workers rights, like health care, minimum wage laws, and working conditions? Do employers have the right to restrict this type of speech through their policies? And what happens when someone’s views differs than the boss’s?
Retaliation and discrimination
There are only a few states with laws prohibiting retaliation against employees for their political beliefs. Employees may be fired or passed up for promotions just for having opposing political beliefs from their boss. Even if an employee doesn’t talk about their beliefs at work, an employer can use what they find on the Internet against you. If you post political speech on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, or any other form of social media, your employer can find out about it. But what about your coworkers, can they discriminate against you?
A recent article talked about coworkers using political speech to harass a Hispanic woman. They changed her computer screensaver to pictures of Trump. They also told her to go back to Mexico and called her an illegal immigrant, even though she was born in America. This woman was eventually fired and told, “Illegal immigrants can’t vote or work. Good luck finding a job.” Is this political speech enough to consider the workplace hostile, even though the law doesn’t recognize this as a basis for discrimination? This woman and her lawyers are not taking that chance. They are filing a lawsuit against the company for racial discrimination, which is actually recognized by federal and state law. How do we stop these things from happening when race becomes such a major topic in political debates?
If political speech is so controversial, why not ban it from the workplace? Do we ban all of it or just what may cause employees to feel uncomfortable? Many private companies have their own regulations, but how do they efficiently regulate it? Employees donate money and time to political campaigns, post to social media, and vote outside of work on their own time. Now that we can access technology anywhere, should employers ban political speech online during work hours? Should certain websites be blocked or monitored?
What about voting privileges? Most states require employers to allow employees to take time off work to vote. Some states are stricter than others by restricting how much time can be taken off work, the amount of notice required, or by including exceptions, but employers must comply. If they have to let employees vote during work hours, can they really regulate anything else they do during this time?
For more information about voting rights in each state visit WorkplaceFairness.org.
Angelic Papacalos is a law student at American University Washington College of Law and an intern for Workplace Fairness.
November 3rd, 2016 | Dave Johnson
“An order that creates a culture of legal compliance could have a transformative impact on American industry.” George Faraday, Legal and Policy Director at Good Jobs Nation
Truck drivers and warehouse workers working for federal contractors at the Port of Los Angeles are striking for 48 hours to draw attention to wage theft and other violations. These workers work for companies that contract with the federal Department of Defense. They say they have been misclassified as “independent contractors”, had their wages stolen and have been retaliated against for exercising the right to organize.
The workers are doing this because President Obama’s Fair Pay & Safe Workplaces Executive Order protecting low-wage workers on federal contracts from wage theft and other labor law violations takes effect today. Contractors are supposed to start reporting whether they are found in violation of wage theft and other labor laws and regulations. Later the government can use this information in the decision process for awarding contracts.
On a press call discussing today’s strike, Jaime Martinez, a port worker, explained that he has worked for K&R, a federal contractor, for 19 years. “We are on strike today for issues including respect and and wage theft. We earn very low wages, with no benefits and no workers compensation because we are classified as independent contractors.”
Obama’s Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces Executive Order
July’s post, Obama’s ‘Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces Executive Order’ explained,
President Obama’s executive order cracks down on federal contractors who break hiring, health and safety, and wage laws. It also prohibits employers from requiring mandatory arbitration agreements with employees of federal contractors, in order that workers can get their day in an actual court instead of being forced to appear in front of an arbitrator picked and paid for by the company when there is a dispute involving the Civil Rights Act or related to sexual assault or harassment.
Specifically, the new rules require companies that bid on federal contracts to disclose wage and hour, safety and health, collective bargaining, family and medical leave, and civil rights violations from the prior three years. Federal contractor hiring officers are to take serious violations into account before awarding contracts. These officers will be issued guidelines on whether certain violations “rise to the level of a lack of integrity or business ethics.”
This Is A Big Deal
According to Good Jobs Nation this will affect a large number of workers around the country,
- A U.S. Senate investigation revealed that federal contractors were responsible for nearly one-third of the largest U.S. Department of Labor penalties for wage theft and other legal violations;
- A report by the National Employment Law Project found that 1 in 3 low-wage federal contract workers are victims of wage theft; and
- An analysis by the Government Accountability Office showed that known legal violators have continued to receive lucrative federal contracts because of lax government oversight and enforcement.
“Creates A Culture Of Legal Compliance”
Companies with federal government contracts employ 1 in 4 American workers. Thanks to this executive order they will have to demonstrate a record of labor law compliance, including wage and hour and health and safety laws. On the press call discussing today’s strike Good Jobs Nation’s Legal and Policy Director George Faraday said, “An order that creates a culture of legal compliance could have a transformative impact on American industry.”
Fair Pay Hotline And Website
Also today, Good Jobs Nation is launching the first-ever national legal hotline – 1-844-PAY-FAIR – for federal contract workers to report law-breaking. Information is also available at goodjobsnation.org/payfair,
If you are a worker on a federal contract and you believe that are not receiving the pay and benefits owed to you under federal laws – like the Service Contract Act or the Davis Bacon Act – contact Good Jobs Legal Defense at 1-844-PAY-FAIR or click below.
This post originally appeared on ourfuture.org on October 25, 2016. Reprinted with Permission.
Dave Johnson has more than 20 years of technology industry experience. His earlier career included technical positions, including video game design at Atari and Imagic. He was a pioneer in design and development of productivity and educational applications of personal computers. More recently he helped co-found a company developing desktop systems to validate carbon trading in the US.
November 2nd, 2016 | Elizabeth Grossman
Freedom of peaceful assembly and association, says a new United Nations report, “are essential to human dignity, economic empowerment, sustainable development and democracy. They are the gateway to all other rights; without them, all other human and civil rights are in jeopardy.” But these rights, says the report, are being jeopardized by the recent dramatic rise in the power of large multinational corporations and their dependence on global supply chains and the growing informal and migrant workforce. While these rights are most imperiled in the world’s poorest countries, workers in the United States are also facing these problems.
Undertaken by the special rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association, the U.N. report singles out the plight of migrant, women and domestic workers, many of whom lack formal employment. In fact, worldwide, most workers are now without formal employment arrangements. According to the report, an estimated 60.7 percent of the world’s workers “labor in the informal economy, where employment relationships are not legally regulated or socially protected.” In some countries this workforce rises to 90 percent. The report also notes that while such employment has always existed, the rise of global supply chains has “exponentially expanded its growth.” As a result, some 1.5 billion people or 46 percent of the world’s workers, now experience what the report calls “precarious employment.” More than 70 percent of people in Southern Asia and sub-Saharan Africa work this way.
This workforce includes self-employed, contract and part-time workers, and day laborers—and often those working in special economic zones where, as the report describes, “worker protections are sharply reduced or eliminated in order to attract foreign investment.” It encompasses professions of all skill levels, from teachers, to taxi drivers, call-center and agricultural workers. These arrangements often involve on-call schedules, short-term contracts and multi-layered subcontracts—all of which add to workers’ difficulties in asserting rights and difficulties in enforcing labor laws. Women, because they make up the majority of the world’s agricultural and domestic workers, are especially burdened by the lack of labor protections.
As anyone working in this world knows, such jobs do not have typical employment benefits like health and unemployment insurance, sick leave, overtime pay and other wage protections. Workers have little opportunity to organize, form unions or bargain for higher wages and better working conditions. This situation, says the U.N. report, is contributing to wealth inequality worldwide.
But it’s not just globalization that’s swelling the ranks of workers whose right to organize is in jeopardy. Conflict, war and climate change are also contributing to the world’s growing migrant population that’s now its largest since World War II, notes Roger-Mark De Souza, director of population, environmental security and resilience at the Wilson Center. These people “have become a major low-wage workforce that is excluded from opportunities to bargain collectively for improved wages and working conditions,” says De Souza. And, he explains, these workers are now woven into the fabric of world economics—sending to their home countries an estimated $580 billion in 2014.
The report singles out the plight of migrant, women and domestic workers, many of whom lack formal employment. (ILO in Asia and the Pacific/ Flickr)
The United States is no exception
While the impact of working without the freedom to organize is most dire in the world’s poorest countries, “the U.S. is no exception to the types of labor rights abuses the report lays out,” Oxfam America regional director Minor Sinclair tells In These Times. “The abuses of labor and the changes in the economy, and how that disadvantages labor and labor rights—the U.S. is as much caught up in that as any other country,” says Sinclair.
The economy’s structure is changing “in a way that disadvantages even more workers,” Sinclair explains. Whether through layers of subcontractors that ultimately employ factory workers in Bangladesh, U.S. meat processing workers or college graduates working the “gig economy,” the report reflects the fact that “increasingly, people don’t have employers that are responsible for workers’ rights,” says Sinclair. And this makes it “harder for workers to advocate for (these rights) and protections.”
The impacts of this situation are, of course, most acute at the low-wage end of the employment spectrum, a workforce that often includes immigrant workers. In the United States, as elsewhere, farmworkers and food processing workers are especially vulnerable and lacking in protected labor rights, as are domestic workers. The report says that in the United States, immigrant workers “who attempt to exercise their rights are often blacklisted by employers, who use the threat of denied future work opportunities to silence workers.”
Sinclair also notes the impact and rise of right-to-work laws across the United States, which are now in place in 26 states. “Basic labor rights, the right to unionize and right to strike, are severely compromised by right-to-work laws,” he says. The report describes what’s happened to workers in states in the U.S. South where these laws are in place—and how corporations have taken advantage of the lack of unionization.
When it comes to solutions, the U.N. report sees little progress in support of workers’ freedom to assemble and organize coming from voluntary corporate social responsibility and auditing programs. Such programs, says the report, “are not a substitute for legally binding, robust enforcement of the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association.” It calls on businesses to refrain from anti-union policies and practices and to support labor rights throughout their supply chains, especially for workers in “vulnerable situations,” including migrant and minority group workers.
Despite this trend, Oxfam’s Sinclair says he sees “some real signs of hope in the legislative work around the right to $15 per hour and the new federal overtime regulation.” He also notes that, albeit slowly, corporations are beginning to realize that “rights erosion is not a sustainable business model.” That said, he also fears that we’re moving towards “a bipolar work situation,” where “some people have workers’ rights and some people don’t.” But because this situation now affects everyone from university teachers to auto manufacturing and farm workers, he also holds out hope the issue of workers’ rights will finally get substantive attention.
“We welcome the U.N. report and the opportunity it provides to raise awareness and highlight the many challenges workers still face globally in exercising this fundamental right to freedom of association,” Carol Pier, deputy undersecretary for international labor affairs at the U.S. Department of Labor, said in a statement. “Working to protect and promote workers’ rights to organize and bargain collectively is a priority for the Department, at home and abroad.”
Currently on the U.N. agenda: a legally-binding human rights agreement for corporations and businesses.
This article originally appeared at Inthesetimes.com on October 26, 2016. Reprinted with permission.
Elizabeth Grossman is the author of Chasing Molecules: Poisonous Products, Human Health, and the Promise of Green Chemistry, High Tech Trash: Digital Devices, Hidden Toxics, and Human Health, and other books. Her work has appeared in a variety of publications including Scientific American, Yale e360, Environmental Health Perspectives, Mother Jones, Ensia, Time, Civil Eats, The Guardian, The Washington Post, Salon and The Nation.