Outten & Golden: Empowering Employees in the Workplace

Posts Tagged ‘raising wages’

Warren proposes sweeping plan for 'empowering American workers and raising wages'

Thursday, October 3rd, 2019

Sen. Elizabeth Warren has released her plan for empowering American workers and raising wages, and, like Sen. Bernie Sanders’ workplace democracy plan, there is a lot here—and the sheer scope of the changes Warren proposes again reminds us of how effective the corporate and Republican war on workers has been over the past few decades. In a country that treated workers right, there wouldn’t be this many big changes to propose.

Warren identifies five broad goals, under which she organizes dozens of specific proposals:

  • Extending labor rights to all workers
  • Strengthening organizing, collective bargaining, and the right to strike
  • Raising wages and protecting pensions
  • Increasing worker choice and control
  • Expanding worker protections, combating discrimination, and improving enforcement

Extending labor rights to all workers includes passing legislation to protect farm workers and domestic workers, who are left out of key current labor laws (because they were predominantly black workforces at the time those laws were passed); ending misclassification of workers as independent contractors, as California recently passed a law to do; defining companies like McDonald’s as joint employers of the workers in their franchise restaurants and in other ways broadening the joint employer standard; allowing graduate students and some people currently defined as supervisors to unionize; cracking down on exploitation of undocumented workers; and more.

Warren’s proposals for strengthening organizing, collective bargaining, and the right to strike include prohibiting state-level “right to work” laws; passing majority sign-up for union organizing and passing the Protecting the Right to Organize Act; cracking down on intimidation and interference by employers and by state and local officials; using antitrust laws to expand rights for gig economy workers; and expanding the National Labor Relations Board’s enforcement power. She’d protect workers’ right to strike by banning permanent replacement of strikers, protecting the right to engage in repeated short strikes (like the one-day strikes favored by Fight for $15), doing away with secondary boycott restrictions, and more.

Warren would also promote sectoral bargaining, in which workers in an industry can bargain across multiple employers. “Each individual firm may have a strong incentive to resist collective bargaining if it believes it will raise costs and put the firm in a worse position relative to its competitors,” her plan says. “But if every firm is bound by the same bargaining outcome, their relative standing remains. That creates conditions for a more successful bargaining process.”

A $15 minimum wage, including for tipped workers and workers with disabilities, is a big part of Warren’s plan to raise wages and protect pensions. But that’s not all. She would also reinstate the Obama administration plan to raise the threshold for overtime pay eligibility—the Trump administration rolled that plan back significantly while still claiming credit for having raised the overtime threshold above Bush-era levels—and, just as she pledges to use antitrust law to protect gig economy workers, she’d use federal authority to “reject mergers if they create labor market consolidation that will drive down wages.” She’d support apprenticeships and project labor agreements, key policies for the building trades, and she’d strengthen pensions. Warren also addresses a question that skeptics of Medicare for All often raise, noting that health care is often a sticking point in union contract negotiations—a sticking point that could be eliminated by Medicare for All—but pledging, “In both the transition to Medicare for All and its implementation, my administration will work closely with unions and multiemployer health insurance funds to protect the gains they have made and to draw on their experience providing quality health care to working people.”

But wait, that’s not all. In the name of increasing worker choice and control, Warren would require that “American companies with $1 billion or more in annual revenue must let employees elect no less than 40% of the company’s Board members.” She’d enable workers to move more freely between jobs by banning noncompete agreements and no-poaching clauses. She’d do away with forced arbitration and class action waivers. In the name of expanding workplace protections and combating discrimination, Warren would promote fair scheduling laws and stronger safety protections, push to knock down anti-LGBTQ discrimination in the workplace, prohibit policies that are technically race-neutral but really discriminatory, such as allowing employers to ban workers from having dreadlocks, and press for protections for disabled and pregnant workers. But all the good policies in the world don’t help workers if they’re not enforced, so Warren would also strengthen enforcement.

Like I said, it’s a lot. Much of what Warren proposes, of course, would need to be passed through Congress, which is yet another reason we need Democrats to retake the Senate. But significant chunks of it could also be done through executive action and using the federal contracting process to move some major employers.

This article was originally published at Daily Kos on October 3, 2019. Reprinted with permission.

About the Author: Laura Clawson is a Daily Kos contributor editor since December 2006. Full-time staff since 2011, currently assistant managing editor. Laura at Daily Kos

Raising the Minimum Wage Has a Negligible Effect on Jobs

Friday, September 11th, 2015

William SpriggsAs states, cities and municipalities across the country raise wages to improve the lives of working people, it is worth highlighting how such moves affect low-income communities of color.

Many argue that higher wages hurt job growth. Here’s why that thinking is wrong.

The Congressional Budget Office, in an extensive review of the available research on the effects of the minimum wage, found that as many studies found job gains as found job losses, with the average estimate being that increases in the minimum wage have no measurable effect on employment. Digging more deeply into the studies’ various methodologies, the CBO noted that the best and most convincing studies looked specifically at instances in which minimum wages were increased in localities where bordering jurisdictions did not raise their minimum wage. The CBO found that in those studies, no significant employment effects were observed in the localities that raised their minimum wage compared with employment in the bordering communities. On that basis, the current consensus among economists is that raising the minimum wage has negligible effects on employment.

During the expansion of private-sector employment that began in 2010, and is now at record length, many states and localities have raised their minimum wage. Despite this, the sector most sensitive to increases in the minimum wage—the fast-food restaurant sector—has seen the greatest job growth of any sector. Job growth in those states with higher minimum wages is not lagging job growth in states that have failed to raise their minimum wage; again, this is true when looking at neighboring states with different minimum wages.

It continues to be the case that minimum wages are presented as a creator or destroyer of jobs. In reality, job growth is driven by rising incomes and growing customer bases that demand products, prompting businesses to respond by hiring more people to increase their output and serve the growing customer demand. Low wages do not create jobs or expand customer bases.

An error often repeated within the black community confuses the notion of not employed with unemployed. These are two separate concepts, and economists use them to understand the policy solution. The black community suffers from a very high unemployment rate—the share of people actively trying to find work. Nationally, while the number of unemployed people per job opening has come down, it remains higher than when the labor market peaks at slightly fewer than two unemployed people per job opening. The black community also suffers from a low labor-force participation rate, which is the share of people either employed or looking for work—those who are active members of the labor market.

Because of high unemployment rates, black working people are far more likely than white working people to accept low-wage work. Among households with full-time year-round working people, 9.2% of black families live in poverty compared with 3.4% of white families; among female-headed households in the black community, it’s 18.1%. At every level of educational attainment, black income is less than white income, just as at every level of educational attainment, black unemployment rates are higher than those of whites. Lowering black people’s wages will not close the unemployment gap faced by black working families.

Blacks will work for less, but that doesn’t mean blacks will work for anything. Some are not active in the labor market because of discouragement over limited job openings. However, many are discouraged not over job openings but over wages. Non-employment includes both those who are unemployed—actively looking for work—and those not in the labor force at all, such as young people who would rather pursue more education than take low wages, mothers who can’t afford transportation and child care expenses at low wages, and non-custodial fathers who wouldn’t net an income at low wages after paying for transportation and child support.

Raising wages will increase black labor-force participation. More black working people will continue to be engaged in job search if the jobs they are chasing pay higher wages. Working and being poor can be a poverty trap itself. Those who want to help the black community should work to raise the wages of the jobs that black people find themselves locked into. Raising wages for black working families means that money will support the growth and survival of businesses in their community.

This blog originally appeared in AFL-CIO on September 11 ,2015. Reprinted with permission.

About the Author: William E. Spriggs is the Chief Economist for AFL-CIO. His is also a Professor at Howard University. Follow Spriggs on Twitter: @WSpriggs.

Workers and Wages Aren’t a ‘Cost,’ We’re an Investment

Tuesday, April 7th, 2015

Kenneth-Quinnell_smallReading today’s Politico Morning Shift column, this sentence stood out in a short piece on Wisconsin Republicans’ efforts to repeal the state’s prevailing wage law: “That’s an 80-year law requiring that workers on construction jobs for local and state governments be paid a wage that the state determines to represent the prevailing norm—a calculation that tends to raise labor costs.” The bias in that construction is pretty simple, and it’s one that is often repeated by journalists despite it being a very clear anti-worker frame: Workers are a “cost” and not an investment and not the part of a business that does the work that creates the company’s profits. In other words, this common construction says workers are a pesky obstacle instead of the source of revenue a company needs to survive and grow.

When was the last time you heard a reporter refer to CEO pay as a “labor cost,” despite the fact that for many companies these massive payouts are much bigger than the amount any prevailing wage law might increase worker pay? When was the last time you heard other common costs such as buying machines to build products or raising investment capital, as a similar type of burden? When was the last time we talked about worker compensation as an investment that grows a business? When was the last time you heard about how hiring workers and compensating them well increased profits for a company, when the evidence is pretty clear that such a thing happens all the time?

Those questions are rhetorical, but this one isn’t: Why is there an insistence on repeating extreme right-wing anti-worker talking points as if they were facts? Reporters, who represent objectivity and balance, have a responsibility to not favor business interests over those of workers.

This insistence on focusing on workers as secondary to the interests of business owners shows that there is a need to pivot the debate in America. Reporters aren’t making up this language; they’re reporting what anti-worker politicians, pundits and business owners are saying. But the conversation is starting to change, and working families are the ones forcing the change. They expect us to stay silent and allow them to get away with whatever they want, but we’d rather talk about raising wages, expanding the middle class and making the American dream more real for more working families. When the national conversation only includes one side of the story, it not only leaves most Americans out of the conversation, it helps keep wages stagnant and creates an obstacle to giving people a raise.

This blog originally appeared on aflcio.org on April 4, 2015. Reprinted with permission.

Author’s name is Kenneth Quinnell.  He is a long-time blogger, campaign staffer and political activist.  Before joining the AFL-CIO in 2012, he 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.  His writings have also appeared on Daily Kos, Alternet, the Guardian Online, Media Matters for America, Think Progress, Campaign for America’s Future and elsewhere.

Trumka: Obama 'Forcefully Advocated for Working Families' in State of Union

Wednesday, January 21st, 2015

Image: Mike HallAFL-CIO President Richard Trumka said,

“President Obama eloquently and forcefully advocated for working families throughout his State of the Union Address,” last night. He also said:

‘The  president’s focus on raising wages through collective bargaining, better paying jobs, a fairer tax code, fair overtime rules, and expanded access to education and earned leave sent the right message at the right time.'”

So did his embrace of union apprentices and immigrants who want to achieve the American Dream. The president has again demonstrated his strong commitment to creating an economy that truly works for all working people.

Fighting income inequality is one of the biggest challenges of our time. As Oxfam recently reminded us, the world’s wealth continues to be increasingly concentrated in the hands of a very few. If we are serious about solving this monumental challenge, the size of the solutions must meet the scale of the problem. We must have a similarly vigorous response to the barriers to raising wages: our opposition to fast-tracked trade deals that are giant giveaways to big corporations must be resolute. We can’t face the competitive challenge of China with a trade deal that fails to adequately address currency manipulation, climate change or that gives corporations rights that people don’t have.

Now is the time for politicians to champion a Raising Wages agenda that ties all the pieces of economic and social justice together. America has now heard what the president thinks about this agenda. We thank the president for his passion and his advocacy. We are ready to see what he and Congress will do about it. That is the ultimate standard of accountability.

This blog originally appeared in aflcio.org on January 21, 2015. Reprinted with permission.

About the Author: Mike Hall is a former West Virginia newspaper reporter, staff writer for the United Mine Workers Journaland managing editor of the Seafarers Log.  He came to the AFL- CIO in 1989 and has written for several federation publications, focusing on legislation and politics, especially grassroots mobilization and workplace safety.

Raising Wages for Women in Retail Would Improve Lives, Boost Economy

Wednesday, June 4th, 2014
Kenneth-Quinnell_small
Raising Wages for Women in Retail Would Improve Lives, Boost Economy

A new report from Demos details how America’s retail businesses keep millions of working women and their families in poverty. The report, Retail’s Choice: How Raising Wages and Improving Schedules for Women in the Retail Industry Would Benefit America, shows how low pay, erratic scheduling and weak benefits have a disproportionate affect on women, who make up the bulk of the retail workforce. One of the purposes of the report, according to Demos, is to shift the debate about gender inequity away from female executives to the lowest-paid positions in the most common occupation in America. Demos estimates that retail industry practices lead to more than $40 billion in lost wages annually.

The report’s author, Amy Traub, directly challenges the retail industry to address the problem:

The nation’s large retailers are in a position to improve the lives of millions of America’s working women and their families—boosting the national economy and creating jobs while also advancing their own outlook for sales growth. Our research shows how improving scheduling, giving workers the hours they need and raising pay to the modest level of $25,000 a year for full-time work can help women succeed.

The report notes that more than 1.3 million women in the retail industry face poverty despite having jobs and that establishing a wage floor of $25,000 for full-time, year-round workers would raise most of those women and their families out of poverty. Additionally, such an increase would benefit many male workers, would boost GDP between $6.9 billion and $8.9 billion and create more than 100,000 new jobs. 

Read the full report.

This article was originally printed on AFL-CIO on June 3, 2014.  Reprinted with permission.

About the Author: Kenneth Quinnell is a long-time blogger, campaign staffer and political activist whose writings have appeared on AFL-CIO, Daily Kos, Alternet, the Guardian Online, Media Matters for America, Think Progress, Campaign for America’s Future and elsewhere.

Your Rights Job Survival The Issues Features Resources About This Blog