Outten & Golden: Empowering Employees in the Workplace

Posts Tagged ‘california’

How Does the Passage of AB 5 in California Affect Me and Others in the Gig Economy?

Wednesday, September 18th, 2019

Today Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law Assembly Bill 5.  The untitled new law will have a significant impact on the gig economy in California.  It will be increasingly difficult to lawfully classify California workers as independent contractors.  With the exception of several significant carveouts, which I discuss below, the definition of “to employ” announced by the California Supreme Court last year in Dynamex v. Superior Court (2018) 4 Cal.5th 903 will define the relationship between the hired and the hirer moving forward.  The core of the new law takes effect January 1, 2020.

Dynamex is Now the Law of the Land (Most of the Land, At Least)

Assembly Bill 5 codifies the ABC Test adopted in Dynamex for most California workers currently classified as independent contractors.  The ABC Test states that a hiring party “employs” a person (as an employee) unless it can prove each of the following:

  • The hired person is free from the control and direction of the hiring entity in connection with the performance of the work, both under the contract for the performance of the work and in fact.
  • The hired person performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity’s business.
  • The hired person is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or business of the same nature as that involved in the work performed.

This three-pronged definition of “to employ” describes the prototypical independent contractor relationship:  a plumber, for example.  First, when I hire a plumber to fix a leak in my office, I do not exert any control of the performance of their work.  The plumber does their job based on their best judgment using their own tools.  Second, the plumber is not performing tasks that are within the scope of my law firm’s work.  While my legal practice is broad in scope, plumbing repairs is not something Kitchin Legal offers to any client.  Third, when the plumber finishes their work at my office, they will drive away in their company truck to another plumbing job for another client.  They are engaged in an independent trade.

But there are significant exceptions under the new law.  For a wide range of professionals exempted under AB 5, an older test of the employer-independent contractor will apply.  However, even the exemptions themselves have multiple requirements.

The Existing Borello Test Will Still Apply to a Substantial Number of Workers in California

Prior to the passage of Dynamex last year, California courts relied on the “economic realities test” or “Borello Test” to determine whether someone was engaged as an independent contractor or as an employee.  This test was announced in 1989 by the California Supreme Court in a case called S.G. Borello & Sons, Inc. v. Department of Industrial Relations (1989) 48 Cal.3d 341.  In Borello, the high court set out a multiple-factor test for evaluating the relationship between the hirer and the hired.  While the most important indications of an employer-employee relationship under Borello are the hirer’s right to control the work of the hired person and the hirer’s right to terminate the worker at will, other factors are relevant to the determination as well:

  1. Whether the person performing work is engaged in an occupation or business that is distinct from that of the company;
  2. Whether the work is part of the company’s regular business;
  3. Whether the company or the worker supplies the equipment, tools, and the place for the person doing the work;
  4. The worker’s financial investment in the equipment or materials required to perform the work;
  5. The skill required in the particular occupation;
  6. The kind of occupation, with reference to whether, in the locality, the work is usually done under the company’s direction or by a specialist without supervision;
  7. The worker’s opportunity for profit or loss depending on his or her own managerial skill (a potential for profit does not include bonuses);
  8. How long the services are to be performed;
  9. The degree of permanence of the working relationship;
  10. The payment method, whether by time or by the job; and
  11. Whether the parties believe they are creating an employer/employee relationship.

Are You Excluded from the New Definition of “To Employ”?

Labor Code §2750.3 lays out the exceptions to the ABC Test for which the Borello Test will continue to apply.  Exempted from the new definition of “to employ” are insurance brokers, doctors, dentists, lawyers, architects, engineers, private investigators, accountants, human resource professionals, investment agents, marketing professionals, certain salespeople, commercial fishermen, repossession professionals, construction sub-contractors, referral agencies, motor clubs (think roadside assistance) and real estate professionals.  Freelance media-makers, including journalists, also are carved out of the ABC Test if they limit their contributions to any one media outlet to 35 pieces a year.  AB 5 directs the courts to use the Borello Test definition of “to employ” in cases involving these professionals, and not the ABC Test.

Who Will be Affected by AB 5?

The media are reporting that up to two million workers will be affected as they are reclassified under the law from independent contractor to employee.  While the media have focused primarily on the hundreds of thousands of Uber, Lyft and DoorDash workers who will affected, it is likely that the vast majority of affected workers currently work for small companies across the state.

Based on my experience representing misclassified workers in California, I have found that small companies, particularly tech start-ups, frequently classify workers as independent contractors because they believe it is easier and less expensive than hiring employees.  These employers fail to factor in the cost of the wage and hour lawsuit that may follow.

What Do Misclassified Workers Have in Common?

In all of my employee-side, misclassification cases, my clients were trained and controlled by the employers.  Their work hours were often scheduled by the employers.  They were subject to discipline if they failed to perform as expected.  They performed work directly related to the core business of the employers.  Many of them worked full time, had company business cards, company email addresses and in one case, a company credit card.  Almost all of them were paid by the hour.  One of them earned performance bonuses.  But, none of them was entitled to unemployment benefits based on their time working for these employers none was provided with workers compensation insurance coverage.

All of these workers ended their relationships with the employing parties because of a dispute over what and how they were paid, or over their opportunity to take meal and rest breaks.  While some of them had issues about how they were scheduled for work, most of them accepted fairly strict control over their work schedules in exchange for their earnings.  They all looked a lot like employees.

Finally, none of these clients fully understood the scope of the damages and penalties they were entitled to under California law until they spoke with an employment attorney.  Their hirers’ decisions to classify them as independent contractors led to a wide range of violations and valuable claims.

What Do Companies That Misclassify Employees Have in Common?

I also have represented a number of employers in several different industries who faced misclassification claims.  Based on my own experience, discussions with colleagues and the rich case law on the subject of the meaning of “to employ,” it is clear that companies that misclassify workers also share a number of characteristics.

First, most of these companies think they are saving money by avoiding the expenses of employing workers.  Second, many of these companies fail to put into place wage and hour policies that comply with California law.  Third, these companies typically do not have mandatory written sexual harassment and retaliation policies, and do not provide sexual harassment training to their workers as required by California law.  Fourth, most do not provide their workers with paid sick leave in compliance with state and/or local laws.  Fifth, these companies do not provide workers compensation insurance coverage.  Fifth, these companies fail to reimburse their workers for business expenses, including cell phone plans, internet costs and transportation costs.  Sixth, these companies do not comply with federal and state tax laws.  Seventh, all these companies are vulnerable to costly lawsuits and governmental audits.

What Do I think About the Law?

Subject to the section 2750.3 exceptions, classifying someone else as an independent contractor who performs work within your business establishment and within the usual course of your business operations still most likely violates the Borello TestIt certainly violates AB 5 and Dynamex.

Similarly, having someone perform work within the usual course of your business from a home office also likely creates an employer-employee relationship.  Under the ABC Test, it makes no difference whether the person signed an independent contractor agreement, sets their own hours, works relatively independently from direction or works from home.   The focus of the inquiry is much more limited.

As an employment attorney, I have always been suspicious of companies that have more independent contractors working for them than they have employees.  A disproportionate number of independent contractors might be evidence of an illegal scheme designed to avoid providing workers the benefits of employment: possible subterfuge.  Under the Borello Test (i.e., Economic Realities Test), the court should take into account what relationship the parties themselves were attempting to form when they entered into the working arrangement.  But the parties’ intentions do not matter under the ABC Test.  Even under Borello, however, the Supreme Court warned parties to classify workers with care. “The label placed by the parties on their relationship is not dispositive, and subterfuges are not countenanced.”

Finally, I have found that the harder it is to justify a decision to classify someone as an independent contractor, the more likely it is that the person is actually an employee entitled to all of the benefits given to employees under the law.

What Should a Misclassified Worker Do Now?

Claims for unpaid wages are governed by a three-year statute of limitations.  Under certain circumstances, a worker can reach back four years to recover unpaid wages pursuant to a misclassification claim.  If a person has been working as a misclassified worker for more than one year and has not been paid for all work time, and/or has worked overtime hours without overtime pay, and/or has not been provided meal and rest periods, and/or has not been provided complete and accurate paystubs, and/or has terminated for complaining about any of these things, that person should speak with a lawyer.

If a person is currently working as an independent contractor and wishes to make a smooth transition to becoming an employee of the hirer, they should also speak with an attorney.  As we move through this transition in California’s workforce, some employers are going to make efforts to pressure workers to sign illegal waivers of their right to obtain unpaid wages and penalties for past violations.  At this moment in our history, workers in transition should reach out to a competent lawyer for advice.

What Should an Employer Do Now?

The first step every employer who regularly relies on independent contractors should do is to consult with an employment lawyer.  This is a critical juncture for employers in California where risks that were once delayed for all sorts of reasons are at the door.  Assembly Bill 5 did not radically alter the law.  If a worker is deemed to be an employee under AB 5, it is most likely they will be deemed to have been an employee last week and last year in a lawsuit.

If hiring an employment attorney is not feasible, then employers should read about the new law.  Check with industry groups about the effect of AB 5.  Visit the website of the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (“DLSE”) at https://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/ I expect the DSLE will be issuing advisories he help in this transition.

Will AB 5 Slow “the erosion of the middle class and the rise of income inequality,” as it Promises in the Preamble?

By passing AB 5 into law, California has taken a substantial step in addressing the burgeoning gig economy and its impact on workers’ rights.  The law is based on the assumption that most workers are better off as employees than independent contractors.  Guaranteed minimum wage, paid sick and family leave, workers compensation coverage, unemployment benefits will be seen by many as a fair trade for giving up a little, or a lot, of scheduling flexibility.

Major critics of the law dispute this assumption and argue that this new law will be a jobs killer and will undermine the flexibility and profitability of the on-demand economy.  In June, Uber CEO Dara Khosrowshahi and Lyft co-founders Logan Green and John Zimmer, co-wrote an op-ed piece for the San Francisco Chronical in which they stated, “…, most drivers prefer freedom and flexibility to the forced schedules and rigid hourly shifts of traditional employment; and second, many drivers are supplementing income from other work.”  The new law, they have argued will require them to undertake a fundamental change in their business model and they warn of adverse effects on their operations and profits.

I am not certain who will be proved right over time.  This is only day one, but I am leaning heavily in favor of any law that provides additional benefits to workers and helps to level the economic playing field.  What is certain is that AB 5 is now one of the most complicated labor laws on California’s books.  The core of the new law, Labor code § 2750.3, is nearly 4,000 words long, has a total of 109 separate paragraphs and makes reference to a host of other California codes and regulations.  AB 5 also defines two distinct employment tests by reference to two California Supreme Court decisions separated in time by 30 years.  Borello has a lengthy citation history as appellate courts have wrestled with its meaning and application.  Already, Dynamex has been cited in nearly a hundred court decisions.  Of course, no matter how clearly written, no appellate decision is immune from different interpretations by parties advocating from different positions over different interests.

The way these two pivotal cases and Assemble Bill 5 are applied to the thousands of employee misclassification claims that will be made in the coming years will define the nature and scope of the employment relationship in California with every-increasing clarity—at least many of us hope for that.

 

 

About the Author: Patrick R. Kitchin is the founder of Kitchin Legal APC, a San Francisco, California employment law firm. He has represented tens of thousands of employees in both individual and class action cases involving violations of California and federal labor laws since founding his firm in 1999. According to retail experts and the media, his wage and hour class actions against Polo Ralph Lauren, Gap, Banana Republic, and Chico’s led to substantial changes in the retail industry’s labor practices in California. Patrick is a graduate of The University of Michigan Law School and is personally and professionally committed to the protection of workers’ rights everywhere.

 

Hey, Uber and Lyft: Gig Work Is Work. California Just Said So.

Monday, September 16th, 2019

The rideshare industry seems to have been on an unstoppable tear, running roughshod over regulations, filling the streets with cars, and making astronomical sums of Wall Street capital. But California just tripped up Uber and Lyft’s business model with pioneering legislation to rein in the freewheeling “gig economy.”

The law, Assembly Bill 5 (AB5), passed overwhelmingly in the California Senate this week and is expected to be signed by Governor Gavin Newsom soon. It lays out a clear standard, the so-called “ABC test,” to ensure employers are properly categorizing workers as independent contractors, taking into account how much control the company exerts over their working conditions. Under the law, an independent contractor is defined as a worker with real autonomy: a person who (a) is not directly controlled by the company, (b) does work in the same trade or field independent of that company, and (c) is “independently established” as a proprietor of a separate business in the same sector. Under AB5, if you’re a rideshare driver whose entire livelihood depends on the rides your app funnels into our smartphone every hour, you’re likely an employee under California law.

The ABC test will codify the decision made in a landmark California Supreme Court case last year, Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles. The Court ruled in favor of delivery service workers who argued they deserved to be classified as employees because they were forced to wear the company’s uniform and display its logo despite being legally deemed “independent.” A major goal of the AB5 legislation is to stop employers’ widespread abusive misclassification of workers as independent contractors, in order to deny them regular employment rights and protections, often by insisting that their workers are merely app users.

Once classified as employees under state law, gig workers—not just platform-based workers, but also nail technicians, home-repair workers and dog walkers—would have access to California’s minimum wage, overtime pay, paid rest break, parental leave and workers’ compensation.

Yet Uber and Lyft both continue to resist AB5, and Uber has even indicated that it does not plan to follow the law once it goes into effect at the start of 2020. The company argues that neither the companies, nor many of their drivers, want to be bound by state labor laws and prefer to drive Uber as a casual side hustle.

But thousands of drivers are already organizing in California for more power over their working conditions. According to Brian Dolber, an organizer with the California-based Rideshare Drivers United, a fledgling union of 5,000 drivers, AB5 paves the way to formal unionization. But Rideshare Drivers United has not yet decided on what form the union will take. For now, he said, “We’re really putting drivers’ voices first.” Dolber added, “We want to continue organizing drivers and have drivers decide how they want their union to be structured.’

Critics of AB5 point to the potential loss of “flexibility” once gig workers are regarded as  employees. However, labor advocates dismiss the flexibility question as concern trolling by the bill’s corporate foes. Nayantara Mehta of the National Employment Law Project argues that current labor laws do not automatically exclude jobs with irregular hours, such as union nurses and construction workers, from being employees. Besides, AB5 deals with the degree of control a company exerts over a worker, not how the schedule is set. “Courts have found that just because a worker has a flexible schedule doesn’t mean she is somehow transformed into the operator of her own business—the true benchmark of independent contractor status,” writes Mehta.

Moreover, the fixation on flexibility elides the reality of many gig jobs. Workers’ schedules may be unstable, but not by choice: Often workers are glued to their phones so they can scramble for whatever rides pop up on their phone, or get paid for each manicure they do or each burger they deliver. Their pay could be so dismal that workers “flex” themselves into exhaustion.

“We drive and we drive and we drive,” said Nicole Moore of Rideshare Drivers United, who helped coordinate a rideshare strike in May. “We don’t have dinner with our kids, we don’t do all the things that we’re supposed to be doing in life. Yet we’re expected to pay the rent, we’re expected to put food on the table, and try to make a better life for our kids.”

This is not the first time Uber’s independent contractor system has been challenged. Various lawsuits in recent months have sought to establish workers’ formal employment rights, with mixed results. Uber managed to wriggle out of two lawsuits in March, which together settled for $20 million with 13,600 drivers—but did not address their status as non-employees. Meanwhile, growing efforts to organize rideshare drivers, particularly the New York Taxi Workers Alliance, have helped win increased labor protections at the state and local level, including a minimum wage for drivers in New York City.

Facing the prospect of their payrolls becoming saddled with thousands of brand new workers, gig-company executives are panicking. Uber and Lyft spent a total of about $750,000 lobbying the California legislature, alongside other professional and industry associations that sought exemptions from the law. In the end, Uber and Lyft were not granted the carve-out they were hoping for in the bill, but other trades—including real estate and insurance agents, doctors, engineers, architects and lawyers—were exempted.

Now Uber, Lyft and DoorDash are reportedly joining forces to fight AB5 using a time-honored California political strategy: investing $90 million on a ballot initiative asking voters to overturn the law and erect a different legal regime for gig workers, which might include some weaker benefits and pay standards.

So the gig economy’s leading lights are bent on fighting the law until the bitter end. But in this next round of legal battles, California’s new law, which is based on a Supreme Court ruling and reflects growing public disillusionment with the gig economy titans, might finally put the brakes on the platform economy’s regulatory rollbacks.

Moore is hopeful that the law can help narrow the gulf between Uber executives and drivers. “There’s no difference between my humanity and their humanity, sha says, adding: “The basic American agreement is that yes, be innovative, become a millionaire, build your own business, but the American compromise is that you will need to share some of those millions with the people who do the work in your company, so that they can also afford to take a Lyft.”

This article was originally published at In These Times on September 13, 2019. Reprinted with permission.

About the Author: Michelle Chen is a contributing writer at In These Times and The Nation, a contributing editor at Dissent and a co-producer of the “Belabored” podcast. She studies history at the CUNY Graduate Center. She tweets at @meeshellchen.

Economic and environmental cost of Trump’s auto rollback could be staggering, new research shows

Wednesday, August 7th, 2019

The Trump administration’s plan to freeze fuel efficiency standards in defiance of California’s stricter, more environmentally friendly rules is set to have dire ramifications for emissions levels and the economy, according to new research out Wednesday.

Rolling back California’s robust vehicle emissions requirements will cost the U.S. economy $400 billion through 2050, an analysis from the environmental policy group Energy Innovation found. President Donald Trump’s efforts to undo Obama-era rules will also increase U.S. gasoline consumption by up to 7.6 billion barrels, subsequently increasing U.S. transport emissions up to 10% by 2035.

Under Trump, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) have been engaged in a bitter feud with California over emissions standards.

California has set its own standards for decades under the Clean Air Act’s Section 177 through an EPA waiver, with significant success: 14 states and the District of Columbia have adopted the same standards. Data shows that those “Section 177 states” — which represent more than 35% of the U.S. auto market — have reduced pollution and improved air quality, improving both public health and the environment.

But the Trump administration has targeted California’s waiver, arguing in favor of freezing fuel efficiency standards on new vehicles through 2025 nationally while stripping the state of its exemption. The government is also embroiled in litigation with the Section 177 states, which are fighting to keep their standards.

As California and the White House escalate their feud, Energy Innovation’s new modeling gives a preview of what the Trump administration’s plans would mean long-term.

“Freezing federal fuel economy and [greenhouse gas] emissions standards will harm U.S. consumers, who will pay more money to drive their cars the same distance,” the Energy Innovation report warns, pointing to both economic implications and likely associated climate impacts and poorer air quality.

“The only winners are the oil companies, who stand to sell more gasoline at the expense of American consumers, manufacturers, and the environment,” the group underscores.

Initially, the firm found that there would be economy-wide financial gains, as low-efficiency cars are cheaper to make. But over the years, increasing fuel expenses are projected to cut into those gains, ultimately costing the national economy hundreds of billions.

Using the open-sourced and peer-reviewed Energy Policy Simulator (EPS), the group looked at the economic impact of freezing the standards nationally and revoking California’s waiver, in addition to a scenario in which California retains its waiver following litigation but the rest of the country is held to the frozen standard.

In the first scenario, the economic cost by 2050 is projected to be $400 billion.

The second scenario is more uncertain. However, the report estimates it would affect around 65% of vehicle sales and could create a split market — one where automakers sell more efficient vehicles in Section 177 states and less efficient vehicles elsewhere.

Energy Innovation estimates that scenario would cost between $240 billion and $400 billion by mid-century. Costs on the lower end reflect a situation in which carmakers in non-Section 177 states would still largely comply with California’s standards, while those on the higher end reflect a split market possibility.

In addition to the economic costs, the report also underscores the climate implications. While the growing market for electric vehicles would mitigate climate impacts beginning in the 2040s, Energy Innovation finds that vehicle emissions would spike to their highest point in the 2030s based on current trends.

Under current policy, “transportation sector emissions are projected to be 1,370 million metric tons (MMT) of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e)” by 2035, the report notes. But with a nationwide freeze, emissions would increase to 1,510 MMT in 2035 — a 10% increase. If Section 177 states retain their autonomy, that increase would fall between 1,460 and 1,510 MMT.

The report’s authors clarify that all estimates should be viewed as somewhat conservative, however, given that they assume a trend towards purchasing electric vehicles — meaning the actual emissions impact could be much larger.

Energy Innovation policy analyst and report author Megan Mahajan told ThinkProgress that the overall result of a freeze would be rising emissions and increasing costs.

“Although the current administration argues the standards freeze is in Americans’ best interest, we find that it hurts consumers and the climate,” Mahajan said. “Our results show that the economic impacts to consumers will only grow over time as they continue to lose out on the significant fuel savings that come with stronger standards.”

The report also focuses on the international implications of the proposed freeze. Due to the Canada-California fuel economy memorandum of understanding, impacts associated with the move will be felt across the border. Canada’s auto market is closely tied with the United States and the country has indicated it will likely side with California in a split market scenario.

But if that doesn’t happen and Canada follows the U.S. federal freeze, Energy Innovation predicts the move could cost Canadian consumers up to $67 billion through 2050. It could also increase Canadian transport emissions up to 11% by 2035.

“In addition to hurting U.S. consumers, a fuel economy and… emissions standards freeze would have global implications,” the report argues.

Energy Innovation’s findings are only the latest to counter the Trump administration’s push for the freeze. Even the auto industry has expressed deep reservations. Many carmakers had already incorporated the emissions standards into their products, along with Obama-era efficiency efforts. The sudden change could cost companies, and some have made efforts to insulate themselves from any shifts in policy.

At the end of July, California inked a deal with Ford, BMW, Honda, and Volkswagen, with all four major carmakers pledging fuel-efficient cars. At the time, California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) linked the deal to broader efforts to combat global warming.

“Clean air emissions standards … are perhaps the most significant thing this state can do, and this nation can do, to advance those goals,” the governor said. “The Trump administration is hellbent on rolling them back. They are in complete denialism about climate change.”

But the standoff between California and the White House is only set to escalate. Last Friday, the EPA and NHTSA sent the final proposed rule to the White House for review.

That same day, California and New York led a group of states in suing NHTSA, which has reduced the penalties facing automakers who fail to meet Obama-era corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards. Under Trump, the penalty has been reduced from $14 to $5.50 per tenth of a mile per gallon.

And on Tuesday, 30 Senate Democrats encouraged 14 major automakers to join the four companies that have already made a deal on emissions with California.

“In the absence of an agreement between the Federal government and states, the California agreement is a commonsense framework that provides flexibility to the industry to meet tailpipe standards while also taking important steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and save money on fuel for consumers,” the senators wrote in a letter to the companies, which include Nissan, Toyota, and Volvo.

The letter was signed by several presidential candidates, including frontrunners Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), and Kamala Harris (D-CA).

This article was originally published at Think Progress on August 7, 2019. Reprinted with permission. 

About the Author: E.A. (Ev) Crunden covers climate policy and environmental issues at ThinkProgress. Originally from Texas, Ev has reported from many parts of the country and previously covered world issues for Muftah Magazine, with an emphasis on South Asia and Eastern Europe. Reach them at: ecrunden@thinkprogress.org.

When is a hairstyle not just a hairstyle? When it’s a pretext for discrimination.

Friday, July 5th, 2019
African Americans in particular find that their afros, cornrows and dreadlocks are held against them at school and when applying for jobs.

Employers in California no longer will be allowed to reject job candidates because they dislike their curls, coils, kinks or locks, after the governor signed a first-of-its-kind bill outlawing hair discrimination.

The new measure, signed Wednesday by Gov. Gavin Newsom (D), bans discrimination against a job candidate or school applicant for wearing natural hairstyles.

“There’s a human element to this. We don’t want to diminish people, we don’t want to demean people … We have to own up to the sins of the past,” Newsom said. “I hope that folks are paying attention all across this country.”

The bill was approved unanimously in both the California House and Senate.

The text of the measure states that throughout its history the United States has been “riddled with laws and societal norms that equated ‘blackness,’ and the associated physical traits, for example, dark skin, kinky and curly hair to a badge of inferiority, sometimes subject to separate and unequal treatment.”

The issue is a particularly fraught one for African Americans who have been expected to style their hair to conform with Caucasian norms of beauty or acceptability, especially in the workplace.

“Professionalism was, and still is, closely linked to European features and mannerisms, which entails that those who do not naturally fall into Eurocentric norms must alter their appearances, sometimes drastically and permanently, in order to be deemed professional,” the text of the legislation said.

Discrimination over her dreadlocks led Chastity Jones to fight a 10-year legal battle with an employer who fired her because she refused to get rid of the hairstyle. “It had nothing to do with the job,” she said. “It just had everything to do with my hair.”

Jones sued in 2013 for discrimination and lost wages, but her was dismissed by the court. The NAACP filed a petition last year on her behalf to the Supreme Court, but it declined to take the case.

And it has not just been a problem for workers: Last August, Louisiana sixth grader Faith Fennidy was kicked off the grounds of her Catholic school because her hair, neatly parted and swept back into braided ponytails, violated school policy.

ThinkProgress readers might also recall the case of Andrew Johnson, the high school wrestler in New Jersey who was told in December that he would have to submit to having his dreadlocks shorn off or forfeit the match.

California state Sen. Holly Mitchell introduced the anti-discrimination bill in her state, which extends the same protections that an individual would be afforded because of their skin color to their natural hairstyle and texture.

“The way the hair grows out of my head as a black woman is a trait of race,” Mitchell said, explaining the thinking behind her legislation, which has been dubbed the CROWN Act.

Reports say similar legislation is being considered in New Jersey and in New York, where a bill against discrimination on the basis of a person’s natural hair has passed both chambers of the state legislature and is awaiting Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s signature.

This article was originally published at In These Times on July 2, 2019. Reprinted with permission.

About the Author: Stephanie Griffith is a senior editor. She has worked as an editor and reporter for the Associated Press, The Washington Post, and Agence France-Presse, among other journalism gigs.

Minimum wage workers just got a raise in two states, D.C., and 15 cities or counties

Thursday, July 5th, 2018

Minimum wage workers in two states, Washington, DC, and 15 cities and counties got a raise on Sunday. These state and local governments had passed laws to increase the minimum wage on a schedule, with July 1 and January 1 being the most common dates for raises.

  • Oregon doesn’t have a single statewide minimum wage, but it went up! The minimum is now $10.75 as a standard, $10.50 in “nonurban” counties, and $12 in the Portland metro area.
  • Maryland’s minimum wage went up to $10.10. In Maryland, Montgomery County boosted its minimum wage from $11.50 to $12.25
  • Washington, D.C., rose from $12.50 to $13.25.
  • Eleven California cities saw minimum wage increases, with Emeryville the high point at $15.69 an hour for larger businesses. Los Angeles, Los Angeles County, Malibu, Milpitas, Pasadena, and Santa Monica all went from $12 to $13.25. San Francisco rose from $14 to $15.
  • Workers in Portland, Maine, are seeing a modest bump from $10.68 to $10.90.
  • In Illinois, Chicago went from $11 to $12 and Cook County went from $10 to $11.

The federal minimum wage remains stuck at $7.25 an hour, with Republicans continuing to refuse to consider an increase. Perhaps most depressingly—and showing most clearly where Republican priorities are—Birmingham, Alabama, and Johnson County, Iowa, were both supposed to have minimum wage increases on July 1, but didn’t. Their state legislatures stepped in to pre-empt local governments from improving life for workers.

About the Author: Laura Clawson is labor editor at DailyKos.

This blog was originally published at DailyKos on July 4, 2018. Reprinted with permission.

Tesla Swears It’s a Fair Employer—Yet It’s Trying to Dodge a Law That Protects Workers

Friday, June 15th, 2018

Since 2013, Tesla has fought unfair-labor-practice complaints from the NLRB, insisting it’s not a union buster and that it maintains a safe factory. However, just a week before the company went in front of a judge to face some of these accusations, Tesla petitioned the state of California to get around a new labor regulation that would require the company to be certified as a “fair and responsible workplace.”

On June 11, Michael Sanchez, a Tesla employee who is currently out on medical leave, testified before an NLRB administrative law judge, claiming that he was asked to leave the company’s Fremont factory by a supervisor and security guards in February 2017 after he attempted to hand out pro-union literature. The hearing is part of a wider complaint that was originally filed against Tesla by the NLRB last August.

Tesla has denied these allegations, insisting that the company is being unfairly targeted by labor groups looking to sow division among workers.

However, just one week before Sanchez’s testimony, the company sent a letter to the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency asking to be exempt from a new state rule that would require the company to be certified as a “fair and responsible workplace” in order for Tesla customers to receive state rebates for buying electric cars. Those rebates are viewed as key enticements in Governor Jerry Brown’s plan to put 5-million zero emission cars on California’s roads by 2030.

Governor Brown stuck the rule into his cap-and-trade legislation from last year, in a move that was perceived as a win for organized labor. However, Tesla believes that the provision effectively means that the state has picked a side in the company’s labor battles and is unfairly singling them out.

“To be sure, Tesla is not perfect–no company is,” reads the letter, dated June 4. “But any objective analysis of our workplace, as opposed to the selective use of unrepresentative anecdotes in a company of almost 40,000 employees globally, demonstrates we are a leader in the workplace. There should be absolutely no question that we care deeply about the well-being of our employees and that we try our hardest to do the right thing.”

On May 23, the state put out a concept paper for public comment, which detailed how the new rule would potentially be enforced. As part of their application process for the customer rebates, companies would have to submit information about their workplace practices to the state. This would include information about the company’s illness and injury prevention program, the recordable worker injury rates, nondiscrimination measures, and policies for investigating workplace complaints, wage violations and safety concerns. Manufacturers would also have to submit a list of citations and charges brought against them by government agencies and any criminal charges that have been brought against them for workplace issues within the last five years.

The concept paper will be revised with the accepted comments, and then the unions will push for the final document to become law. The government agencies have suggested that full certification commence in two years, but the United Auto Workers (UAW) union, which has been pushing to unionize the company’s factory, wants it to take effect by July 2019.

In addition to the aforementioned NLRB complaint, which encompasses a number of different accusations, Tesla is also facing several discrimination lawsuits from former employees. Last November, a former African-American worker named Marcus Vaughn sued the company claiming that coworkers and supervisors consistently referred to him by the n-word. Vaughn alleges that when he complained about the treatment, he was fired for not having a positive attitude.

Tesla CEO Elon Musk has repeatedly defended the company’s safety record publicly. In May, he went on a lengthy Twitter rant attacking the media for covering Tesla negatively, focusing specifically on a Reveal report that detailed how the company left workplace injuries off their books. Musk also criticized the UAW and declared that his employees didn’t actually want a union. “Nothing stopping Tesla team at our car plant from voting union,” Musk tweeted. “Could do so [tomorrow] if they wanted. But why pay union dues & give up stock options for nothing? Our safety record is 2X better than when plant was UAW & everybody already gets healthcare.”

When asked to explain what he meant by the stock option comment, Musk shifted to an observation about the Revolutionary War: “US fought War of Independence to get rid of a 2 class system!” Musk wrote, “Managers & workers [should] be equal [with] easy movement either way. Managing sucks [by the way]. Hate doing it so much.” Musk’s net worth is estimated to be about $18.2 billion currently.

The new rule and the NLRB hearing comes amid additional bad news for Tesla and its employees. After misjudging the speed at which they could produce their Model 3 vehicles, the company laid off more than 3,000 people—about 9 percent of their workforce. “We made these decisions by evaluating the criticality of each position, whether certain jobs could be done more efficiently and productively, and by assessing the specific skills and abilities of each individual in the company,” Musk wrote to the company in an email. “As you know, we are continuing to flatten our management structure to help us communicate better, eliminate bureaucracy and move faster.”

The rule could be codified as early as July.

This article was originally published at In These Times on June 15, 2018. Reprinted with permission. 

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

California laws protect undocumented workers from abuse by the boss

Friday, March 23rd, 2018

Undocumented immigrant workers are some of the most vulnerable in the U.S., with employers all too often targeting them for abuse, paying them less than the law requires, and basically using ICE to put down worker organizing efforts. But California, which has the highest proportion of undocumented immigrant workers of any state, is leading the way in protecting them and penalizing abusive employers, the Economic Policy Institute’s Daniel Costa reports.

Seven laws enacted since 2013 send a message to employers: the law still applies. You don’t get to break labor laws just because your workers are undocumented.

  • California’s AB 263 (2013) prohibits employers from using threats related to immigration status to retaliate against employees who have exercised their labor rights. For example, if an employee complains to an employer about wages owed to her, and if the employer retaliates with threats related to the worker’s immigration status as an excuse to discharge or not pay the worker, the California Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE) can investigate and fine the employer, or the worker can bring a civil lawsuit against the employer. Employers guilty of retaliation based on immigration status may be subject to a civil penalty of up to $10,000 and the employer’s business license may be temporarily suspended.

Several other laws expand or clarify AB 263, including penalties for filing or threatening to file false reports and say that an “employer’s business license may be revoked (not just suspended temporarily) if the employer is found to have retaliated against an employee based on immigration status. In addition, a lawyer who participates in retaliatory activities on behalf of an employer may be suspended or disbarred.” Making threats about someone’s immigration status can lead to criminal extortion charges. Also:

  • California’s AB 450 (2017) can provide due process for workers in the face of an I-9 worksite audit and discourage employers from using the I-9 audit process to retaliate against employees. Under AB 450, employers are prohibited from providing Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) with access to nonpublic areas of the workplace and employment records when ICE has not obtained a warrant or subpoena, and AB 450 requires employers to notify workers when ICE plans to conduct an audit and inform workers about the details of the audit. Employers can be fined $2,000 to $5,000 for the first violation, and $5,000 to $10,000 for each additional violation. In addition, employers are prohibited from requiring their existing employees to reverify their work authorization at a time or manner not required by federal immigration law, and may face penalties of up to $10,000 for each violation.
  • California’s SB 54 (2017), also known as the California Values Act, includes a provision that has the potential to make courts and government buildings more accessible to unauthorized workers (by decreasing the risk of detention by ICE agents while pursuing claims for workplace violations by employers). In light of increasing immigration enforcement activities at courthouses and state government buildings by ICE, unauthorized immigrant workers will face significant difficulties accessing the judicial system and due process. SB 54 provides for the upcoming publication (by October 2018) of model policies for ensuring that public facilities “remain safe and accessible to all California residents, regardless of immigration status.” These model policies have the potential to provide unauthorized immigrant workers with greater certainty that ICE agents will not be present in California courtrooms, thus creating a safer environment for immigrants to access the legal system and obtain due process.

But the fact that these laws were necessary goes to show how much exploitation, retaliation and abuse undocumented immigrants face on the job—and California is just one state. In too many places, these laws don’t exist to protect the workers who need them.

This blog was originally published at Daily Kos on March 24, 2018. Reprinted with permission.

About the Author: Laura Clawson is labor editor at DailyKos.

40,000 AT&T Workers Begin 3-Day Strike

Friday, May 19th, 2017

Around 40,000 members of the Communications Workers of America (CWA) at AT&T walked off their jobs Friday, for a three-day strike, as pressure continues to mount on the corporation to settle fair contracts.

In California and Nevada, around 17,000 AT&T workers who provide phone, landline and cable services have been working without a contract for more than a year. Last year, they voted to authorize a strike with more than 95 percent support. And in February, an estimated 21,000 AT&T Mobility workers in 36 states voted to strike as well, with 93 percent in favor.

Workers had issued an ultimatum, giving company executives until 3 p.m. ET on Friday to present serious proposals. They didn’t; the workers walked.

It isn’t the first strike at AT&T. Some 17,000 workers in California and Nevada walked off the job in late March to protest company changes in their working conditions in violation of federal law. After a one-day strike, AT&T agreed not to require technicians to perform work assignments outside of their expertise. Nevertheless, the biggest issues for workers remained unresolved.

AT&T has proposed to cut sick time and force long-time workers to pay hundreds of dollars more for basic healthcare, according to CWA. At a huge April rally in Silicon Valley, CWA District 9 vice president Tom Runnion fumed, “The CEO of AT&T just got a raise and now makes over $12,000 an hour. And he doesn’t want to give us a raise. He wants to sabotage our healthcare then wants us to pay more for it. Enough is enough!”

AT&T is the largest telecommunications company in the country with $164 billion in sales and 135 million wireless customers nationwide. It has eliminated 12,000 call center jobs in the United States since 2011, representing more than 30 percent of its call center employees, and closed more than 30 call centers. Meanwhile, the company has outsourced the operation of more than 60 percent of its wireless retail stores to operators who pay much less than the union wage, according to CWA.

The relocation of jobs to call centers in Mexico, the Philippines, the Dominican Republic and other countries is one of the main issues in negotiations. A recent CWA report charges that in the Dominican Republic, for instance, where it uses subcontractors, wages are $2.13-$2.77/hour. Workers have been trying to organize a union there and accuse management of firing union leaders and making threats, accusations and intimidating workers. Several members of Congress sent a letter to President Donald Trump this year demanding that he help protect and bring call center jobs back to the United States.

“We’ve been bargaining with AT&T for over a year,” CWA president Chris Shelton told the rally in Silicon Valley. “They can easily afford to do what people want and instead are continuing to send jobs overseas.”

According to Dennis Trainor, vice president of CWA District 1, “AT&T is underestimating the deep frustration wireless retail, call center and field workers are feeling right now with its decisions to squeeze workers and customers, especially as the company just reported more than $13 billion in annual profits.”

“The clock is ticking for AT&T to make good on their promise to preserve family-supporting jobs for more than 40,000 workers,” Trainor said before the start of the strike. “We have made every effort to bargain in good faith with AT&T, but have only been met with delays and excuses. Now, AT&T is facing the possibility of closed stores for the first time ever. Our demands are clear and have been for months: fair contract or strike.”

Last year, CWA members at Verizon were on strike for 49 days, finally gaining a contract with greater job protections and winning 1,300 new call center jobs. Since December, AT&T workers have picketed retail stores in San Francisco, New York, Boston, Seattle, Chicago, San Diego and other cities, hung banners on freeway overpasses, organized rallies and marches and confronted the corporation at its annual meeting in Dallas.

“Americans are fed up with giant corporations like AT&T that make record profits but ask workers to do more with less and choose to offshore and outsource jobs,” said Nicole Popis, an AT&T wireless call center worker in Illinois. “I’ve watched our staff shrink from 200 employees down to 130. I’m a single mother and my son is about to graduate. I voted yes to authorize a strike because I’m willing to do whatever it takes to show AT&T we’re serious.”

This article originally appeared at Inthesetimes.com on May 19, 2017. Reprinted with permission.

About the Author: David Bacon is a writer, photographer and former union organizer. He is the author of The Right to Stay Home: How US Policy Drives Mexican Migration (2013)Illegal People: How Globalization Creates Migration and Criminalizes Immigrants (2008), Communities Without Borders (2006), and The Children of NAFTA: Labor Wars on the US/Mexico Border (2004). His website is at dbacon.igc.org.

Overtime for farmworkers passes California legislature, heads to governor's desk

Thursday, September 8th, 2016

LauraClawson

The California legislature has passed a bill that would give farmworkers the same overtime protections as other workers. Now the question is whether Gov. Jerry Brown, who has not taken a position on the proposal, will sign the expansion from the state’s current law, which requires employers to pay time-and-a-half after farmworkers put in 10 hours in a day or 60 hours in a week. Other workers get, and farmworkers stand to get, overtime pay after eight hours in a day or 40 in a week.

 
Getting this bill passed required serious legislative maneuvering by Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez:

The Assembly rejected the proposal in June, when eight Democrats opposed it and another six refused to vote. In what Gonzalez has described as an unprecedented move to revive the bill, she worked around the Legislature’s rules and reinserted the proposal in another bill, angering Republicans who objected to the breach in procedure.

dreamstime_m_55622795

Gonzalez waged a social media campaign to pressure her Democratic colleagues to back AB1066; agreed to compromises to win votes, including giving small farms an extra three years to pay more overtime; and led a squad of Democratic allies in a 24-hour fast paying homage to the weeks long fast that legendary farmworker activist Cesar Chavez staged when the “Salad Bowl” strike of 1970 initially failed.

 

 

Federal law excludes agricultural workers from overtime protections, so California is already ahead—but these workers deserve the same protections and rights as everyone else.

This article originally appeared at DailyKOS.com on August 24, 2016. Reprinted with permission.

Laura Clawson is a Daily Kos contributing editor since December 2006. Labor editor since 2011.

California Moves To Pay Professional Cheerleaders Minimum Wage

Wednesday, July 8th, 2015

katelyn harropThanks to what is believed to be first of its kind legislation, legal minimum wages and worker protections may be on the horizon for California’s professional cheerleaders.

A bill proposed by State Rep. Lorena Gonzalez (D) in January, and approved by the Senate on Monday, requires California sports teams to adhere to state and federal minimum wage requirements and to provide overtime pay and sick leave to professional cheerleaders.

Despite the athletic skill and training required for participation in professional-level cheering — plus the branding and visual expectations that come along with acting as the public face of a sports team — cheerleaders are often considered independent contractors and therefore are not protected by minimum wage and other labor standards.

This is particularly jarring considering professional cheerleaders act as some of the most public symbols for leagues like the NFL, which is worth over $33 billion, according to recent estimates.

“A.B. 202 would explicitly require that professional sports teams provide cheerleaders with the same rights and benefits as other employees, protecting against the sort of financial and personal abuses that have been reported throughout the country,” said Gonzalez, who is a former college cheerleader herself, in an April press release. “A.B. 202 simply demands that any professional sports team — or their chosen contractor — treat the women on the field with the same dignity and respect that we treat the guy selling beer.”

A similar bill has been proposed in New York State, but Gonzalez’s will be the first to hit a governor’s desk. Both measures come as a response to a string of lawsuits brought against NFL teams over the last two years. The first suit was brought by a former Oakland Raiders cheerleader who claims that she and other members of the cheer team were paid less than $5.00 an hour and were denied overtime and other benefits associated with standard labor laws.

In bringing the lawsuit against the Raiders, attorney Sharon Vinik dismissed the team’s justification for the contractor status of the cheer squad, stating that the NFL team dictated the choreography and music used by the cheerleaders among other strict limitations. The defense also rejected the common claim that the opportunity to cheer for a professional team opened up other doors such as endorsements and modeling, and therefore acted as a career stepping stone.

“If you are a young starting quarterback, you get lot of notoriety for that, but you also get paid for that work,” said Vinik at the time. “The fact that the women might get some opportunities doesn’t justify not paying them.”

According to the Associated Press, Vinik thinks the new California legislation is a good step, but one that may not be big enough to actually change the payment culture surrounding professional cheerleading.

The Raiderette’s lawsuit was followed by similar legal complaints from other teams, including cheerleaders from the Buffalo Jills cheer squad, who claim that they were not paid for up to 20 hours of their weekly work with the Buffalo-based NFL team.

While the new California legislation may be a step in the right direction, the vast majority of professional sports teams and states have yet to address the significant wage gap and labor violations associated with the professional cheerleading industry.

This blog was originally posted on July 1, 2015 on Think Progress. Reprinted with permission.

About the Author: The author’s name is Katelyn Harrop. Katelyn Harrop is a summer intern at ThinkProgress. She is a rising senior at Ithaca College, where she is pursuing a B.A. in journalism and a minor in international politics. Katelyn is an editor for Buzzsaw Magazine, Ithaca College’s independent, student-run publication, and a staff writer for the community radio station in Ithaca, New York. Katelyn is originally from McMinnville, Oregon.

Your Rights Job Survival The Issues Features Resources About This Blog