Outten & Golden: Empowering Employees in the Workplace

Archive for January, 2020

Trump’s NLRB Quietly Makes It Riskier To Wear Union Schwag at Work

Wednesday, January 29th, 2020

The Republican-controlled National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) ended 2019 by rolling back another round of Obama-era regulations and handing down a number of pro-employer decisions. One of those rulings restricts workers from wearing union buttons and other pro-labor insignia.

The Organization United for Respect at Walmart (Our Walmart) had challenged a company policy limiting the size of union buttons for employees of the retail corporation. The group seemingly had momentum on its side. In 2017, the NLRB rejected an attempt by the fast-food chain In-N-Out Burger to prohibit its workers from wearing “Fight for $15” buttons during their shifts. The company then tried to have the case heard before the U.S. Supreme Court, citing the court’s infamous anti-union Janus ruling to argue for an expansion of corporations’ free speech rights, but the case was declined. “Today’s decision affirms that no company can just unilaterally decide to take away our right to speak out and join together in a union,” In-N-Out employee Alondra Becerra told Bloomberg Law in February of 2019. “It’s a victory for workers everywhere who are fighting to win our unions and make the economy more equal that the Supreme Court is not going to take up In-N-Out’s case.”

However, in a 3-1 decision handed down on December 16, 2019, the NLRB ruled that private sector employers covered by the NLRB are allowed to ban some union insignia. Walmart had argued that its restrictive policies “enhance the customer shopping experience and protect its merchandise from theft or vandalism.” The NLRB agreed. The decision further erodes worker rights and will make it harder for employees to openly back unionization campaigns while on the job.

The decision upends a 75-year-old precedent that was established in the 1945 Republic Aviation Corp. v. Labor Board case. In doing so, the NLRB cited its 2017 Boeing ruling, which established a new test to determine whether employer rules are lawful: The court must weigh the rights of workers against the concerns of the employer. By the conditions of Boeing, the NLRB ruled that it’s unlawful for Walmart to prohibit certain union buttons in “employees only” zones like break rooms, but perfectly legal to require that they are “small and “non-distracting” on the sales floor. “[Walmart’s need] to enhance the customer shopping experience and protect its merchandise from theft or vandalism—outweigh the adverse impact on employees’…rights,” reads the decision.

The lone dissent came from the only Democrat who was on the board at the time, Lauren McFerran. “I fear that today’s decision signals the majority’s intention to import the Boeing framework… into other well-settled areas of Board law that currently require their own subject-matter specific analyses,” she wrote. “That surely would not be a welcome development for workers.” McFerran’s term expired shortly after the decision.

Cyndi Murray, a United for Respect member and Walmart associate of 20 years, slammed the ruling in an interview with In These Times. “Trump’s NLRB continues to put the interests of large corporations ahead of working families,” said Murray. “Walmart’s CEO McMillon would rather us not talk about having our hours cut or how no one can make ends meet at $11 an hour, but this ruling won’t stop people who work at Walmart from continuing to speak out for living wages and respect.”

The Walmart decision comes amid a barrage of pro-employer rulings that will surely make workplace organizing more difficult. Last month, the NLRB overturned the Obama-era Lincoln Lutheran of Racine decision, effectively allowing employers to unilaterally end automatic deductions of union dues when a collective bargaining agreement expires. In Caesars Entertainment, it found that the casino didn’t break the law by prohibiting employees from using their work email addresses for  “non-business information.” In blocking potential unionizing on these platforms, the board overturned an Obama-era decision which protected the right to share information regarding “wages, hours, or working conditions” via company email. The board also reversed union election rules that were adopted under Obama. Employers will now have more time to prepare for organizing votes and potentially develop plans to thwart unionization efforts.

Despite the large number of strikes and work stoppages in 2019, union membership in the United States remains scant. On January 22, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) released data showing that the percentage of wage and salaried workers in unions fell by 0.2 points last year to a record low of 10.3%. A recent piece of legislation called the Protecting the Right to Organize Act (or the PRO Act) would strengthen unions and make it easier for workers to organize, but it has yet to receive a vote on the House floor.

This article was originally published at In These Times on January 28, 2020. Reprinted with permission. 

About the Author: “Michael Arria is the U.S. correspondent for Mondoweiss. Follow him on Twitter: @michaelarria.

California Assembly Bill 9 Expands the Statute of Limitation for Discrimination Claims

Tuesday, January 28th, 2020

Image result for patrick r kitchin

Statutes of limitations, are designed to ensure that an alleged victim does not delay in making a claim for damages or other relief.  A long delay can deprive the defendant of the evidence necessary to fight the claim. By failing to act with reasonable diligence to pursue a claim, relevant document may be lost and witnesses’ memories may fade.

With respect to claims under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”), employees must file a complaint with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (“DFEH”) and obtain a right-to-sue letter before filing in court.  Until January 1, 2020, employees had one year to initiate this process to exhaust administrative remedies.  Following the passage of California Assembly Bill 9, which amends Government Code sections 12960 and 12965, employees now have three years to file these claims with the DFEH.  But, AB 9 is not retroactive.  Old claims are not revived by the new law.

What Does AB 9 Do for Employees?

AB 9 represents a significant expansion of employee rights in California. The one-year statute of limitations will continue to apply to claims made under the Unruh Civil Rights Act, Ralph Civil Rights Act of 1976 and under Civil Code provisions addressing “Blind and other Physically Disabled Persons.”

AB 9 also includes four expansions of the three-year filing deadline for cases brought under the FEHA.

  • First, the statute of limitations is tolled (or temporarily stopped) for up to 90 days following a person’s discovery of the facts of the alleged discrimination.
  • Second, the statute is tolled for up to one year in situations where one first discovers the identity of the employer after three years have passed.  Thus, for example, the true employer might be disguising its identity within a maze of companies.  AB 9 provides a limited tolling under such circumstances to permit an employee to substitute the actual employer into the claim.
  • Third, the statute is tolled for up to one year in cases brought under Civil Code § 51.7 (Ralph Civil Rights Act of 1976) from the date the employee learns the identify of the person liable for the discrimination.
  • Fourth, the statute is tolled for up to one year after the person aggrieved by the discrimination reaches their majority (18 years).

How Does Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies Under the FEHA Work?

Filing a discrimination complaint with the DFEH requires the employee to complete an online form that identify themselves, their employer and the violations they allege occurred.  A failure to include all of the claims available or to sufficiently describe the claims being asserted can deprive the employee of the right to pursue the claims at the DFEH or in court.

After completing the complaint form, the employee is asked whether they wish to have the DFEH investigate the claims or to issue an immediate right-to-sue letter.  Generally, an employee should not ask for a right to sue letter unless they are represented by an attorney. Once the employee obtains a right-to-sue letter, the DFEH will stop any investigation.  The employee has one year to file a lawsuit based on the allegations set out in their complaint.

AB 9 is Not Meant to Encourage Delays

Although an employee in California now has three years to file a complaint with the DFEH, an employee being subjected to unlawful discrimination, harassment or retaliation at work should not delay too long to challenge those unlawful conditions.

Unreasonable delays can be used by the employer to argue that conditions must not have been very bad if the employee continued to work there.  In addition, evidence of the discrimination can be lost to time as witnesses move on to new places and new jobs.

Finally, delay often means that the employee will continue to labor under conditions that are intolerable.  While filing a complaint with the DFEH is not a fix-all solution to discrimination at work, initiating the complaint process can lead to positive changes there.  It is also a way for an employee to take back some of the power they have lost in the hostile environment.

Reprinted with permission.

About the Author:  Patrick R. Kitchin is the founder of Kitchin Legal APC, a San Francisco, California employment law firm. He has represented thousands of employees in both individual and class action cases involving violations of California and federal labor laws since founding his firm in 1999. Patrick also represents employers requiring guidance in California employment law. Patrick is a graduate of The University of Michigan Law School and rated AV-Preeminent by Martindale-Hubbell, its highest ranking for legal knowledge, skill, experience and ethics.

Trump Gets An F From Workers

Monday, January 27th, 2020

Donald Trump, the self-proclaimed “great negotiator” and author of “The Art of the Deal,” promised to use his bargaining skills to help the American worker.

Trump vowed to rewrite trade deals, stanch the offshoring of U.S. jobs and reinvigorate American manufacturing.

His behavior tells a different story. Both of the trade deals he produced so far—the original United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) and the “phase one” agreement with China—failed American workers.

Bad trade cost millions of American jobs. Trump’s brand of deal-making won’t bring them back.

Make no mistake, Trump inherited real trade problems. For more than 20 years, politicians of both parties failed to fix a broken system.

Corporations exploited trade agreements to shift family-sustaining manufacturing jobs to MexicoChina and other countries that pay workers low wages and deny them the protection of labor unions. They made boatloads of money offshoring jobs, but in the process, they robbed U.S. workers of their livelihoods and hollowed out countless American communities, decimating their tax bases and exposing them to epidemics of crime and opioids.

Cheating compounded the job losses. China subsidizes its industries, manipulates its currency and then floods global markets with cheaply priced goods, severely damaging U.S. manufacturing in steel, aluminum, paper, furniture, glass and other products.

“Work just started to dwindle,” recalled Bill Curtis, who eventually lost his cloth-cutting job at a Lenoir, N.C., furniture factory swept under by cheap Chinese imports

Trump made fair trade—and standing up to cheaters—a centerpiece of his 2016 campaign.

He railed against the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which empowered corporations to shift more than one million manufacturing jobs to Mexico. He excoriated China for illegal trading practices that siphoned off more than three million American jobs, and he vowed to stop the bleeding.

The labor movement was prepared to work with him to achieve its long-sought goals. But as president, he let workers down. America needs a comprehensive trade solution, but Trump’s policy lacks vision.

The omission of enforceable labor standards in the original NAFTA enabled U.S. corporations to move manufacturing jobs south of the border and take advantage of Mexican workers.

Mexican workers make a few dollars an hour, much less than their U.S. counterparts, and they lack the protection of real labor unions. Companies make deals with protection unions to muzzle complaints about wages and dangerous working conditions. Workers have no voice, and U.S. corporations get rich gaming this system.

But Trump’s version of the USMCA also lacked specific mechanisms to enforce labor standards. Because he failed to deliver, labor unions and Democratic members of Congress stepped into the breach and did the hard work of fixing the deal so that it provides real protections for workers and jobs in all three countries covered by the agreement.

Congressional Democrats traveled to San Luis Potosi, Mexico, to visit a Goodyear plant that pays some workers less than $2 an hour, exposed them to hazardous conditions and fired dozens who dared to strike. Goodyear, which laid off workers in Virginia and Alabama while operating the low-cost Mexican plant, refused to let the Congress members through the door.

But the visit showed the importance of incorporating worker protections into the USMCA. Prominent Democrats, including Sen. Sherrod Brown of Ohio, Rep. Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut, House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Richard Neal of Massachusetts and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. refused to pass the legislation until it represented a significant improvement over NAFTA.

Under the revised version of the USMCA, Mexico must follow through with promised labor reforms, such as giving workers the right to organize, or face enforcement actions. When Mexican workers join unions, their wages will rise, giving U.S. employers less incentive to relocate jobs.

In addition, the revised version makes it easier for the U.S. to initiate complaints against Mexican companies for trade violations, provides for multi-national inspections of Mexican factories and gives the U.S. the authority to impose significant penalties and ultimately to block violators’ goods.

That’s real enforcement.

Congress passed the revised version of the USMCA, not Trump’s toothless version. The deal is far from perfect, but it’s a significant improvement over NAFTA.

Trump’s failure to follow through on labor standards in the USMCA showed his murky strategy on trade. His use of tariffs does, too.

In 2018, he slapped steel and aluminum tariffs on the whole world—alienating global trading partners—when the right approach would have been a strong, surgical strike against China’s dumping. While the tariffs had some positive effects, they’re no substitute for big-picture fixes Trump has yet to deliver.

Last week, Trump unveiled “phase one” of a new trade deal with China. It’s little more than window dressing and an effort to defuse bilateral tensions during an election year.

The deal removes some tariffs on Chinese goods and theoretically commits China to purchasing $200 billion in pork, jets, energy and other U.S. products. It gives new market access to U.S. financial firms, allowing Wall Street to line its pockets. But it does nothing to address job loss.

The U.S. lost 3.7 million jobs to China since 2001, 700,000 of them during Trump’s presidency, and the trade deficit actually increased during the first two years of his term.

The loss of American jobs is no accident. It’s part of China’s policy to destabilize competitors and boost its own power.

China subsidizes its industries, giving companies raw materials, land and cash. Then the companies sell their products abroad at prices that U.S. companies—lacking government handouts—can’t match.

In addition, China allows its industries to overproduce and flood global markets, further driving down prices with gluts of steel, aluminum and other products. And it artificially depresses the value of its currency to encourage still more overseas sales.

These are the major problems that U.S. trade policy must address, but Trump’s phase-one deal doesn’t resolve any of them.

Instead, before announcing the phase one agreement, he backpedaled. He rescinded China’s designation as a currency manipulator.

Now, just like they did with the USMCA, labor unions and Democratic members of Congress must be ready to wade in and demand improvements to the China deal.

More jobs will disappear unless Trump pursues a cohesive trade strategy that prioritizes the American worker. Now, he’s just helping to perpetuate the broken system he bitterly criticized.

This blog was originally published by AFL-CIO on January 27, 2020. Reprinted with permission. 

About the Author: Tom Conway is international president of the United Steelworkers (USW).

Unions face another year of eroding membership as the war on workers continues

Monday, January 27th, 2020

The share of U.S. workers represented by a union ticked down slightly from 2018 to 2019, dropping from 11.7% to 11.6%; the share of U.S. workers who are union members also dropped from 10.5% to 10.3%. The overall number of workers represented by a union stayed about the same, growing by 3,000. (Interestingly, unions grew by 47,000 members in Missouri, hitting a 15-year high.)

While the picture for unions remains dim, after decades of decline, it’s worth noting that the Supreme Court’s anti-union Janus decision hasn’t—so far, anyway—dealt public-sector unions the intended death blow. “The meaningful decline in the union membership rate among local government workers (from 40.3% to 39.4%) might suggest Janus is having its intended effect. However, there was not a similar decline among state government workers,” the Economic Policy Institute reports. But “The share of state government workers who are members of unions rose substantially between 2018 and 2019, from 28.6% to 29.4%.”

This article was originally published at Daily Kos on January 25, 2020. Reprinted with permission.

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

Bernie’s labor support snowballs

Friday, January 24th, 2020

Image result for Holly Otterbein

Most national unions haven’t picked a favorite yet in the Democratic presidential primary.

It’s been a boon for Bernie Sanders.

Sanders has already racked up 11 labor endorsements, more than any of his Democratic rivals, most of which are from local, regional and statewide unions. And some are among the most powerful labor organizations in early-voting and Super Tuesday states.

“He’s picking up more labor endorsements because the national unions, almost without exception, have not made endorsements, which implicitly or explicitly sets the local and regional unions free,” said David Kusnet, a former speechwriter for Bill Clinton who co-authored a book with an ex-AFL-CIO president. “He has a lot of friends and fans and supporters in the union movement, and some of them are succeeding in pushing their local labor unions to endorse him.”

The local endorsements are filling the political void left by national unions, still gun-shy after the acrimonious 2016 primary election left many rank-and-file members furious that their leaders supported Hillary Clinton over Sanders. Most are staying neutral for now, including some that have longstanding relationships with Joe Biden.

Five unions have come out for Biden, including three international or national unions, and three have gone for Warren, one of which is a national group that also co-endorsed Sanders. None has endorsed Pete Buttigieg.

The support of labor unions such as New Hampshire’s SEIU Local 1984, which represents more than 10,000 members, gives Sanders a boost of momentum and ground troops in critical early-voting states. Sanders has also won the backing of large teachers local unions in California, which votes on Super Tuesday, and in Nevada.

“We will have boots on the ground, canvass for him, get out the vote,” said Rich Gulla, president of SEIU Local 1984. “He’s talking good-paying jobs, he’s talking health care. I think he’s resonating with labor and, quite frankly, with a lot of working people in this country that are finding it more difficult to make ends meet, and I think that’s why he’s getting the endorsements that he’s getting.”

Though Biden has fewer unions backing him, he won the support of two international unions that together represent nearly 400,000 U.S. members: the International Association of Fire Fighters and the Iron Workers. Sanders has three national unions behind him.

Given teachers’ and nurses’ close relationships with members in their communities, Sanders’ team is hopeful that their canvassing will be especially effective.

It’s unclear which candidates other labor groups will endorse as the primary unfolds. More building trades are expected to side with Biden at some point, and there is a possibility that some pro-Sanders local unions will put pressure on their national unions to put their weight behind him.

Robert Reich, who served as labor secretary under the Clinton administration, suggested that Sanders’ success stems from his work courting unions and their members, including by proposing to offer them advantages if Medicare for All passed. Under his plan, businesses whose workers have union-negotiated health care coverage would have to renegotiate their contracts if single-payer became the law of the land — and direct any windfall to the employees.

“Sanders has been particularly diligent in appealing to unions and workers. He’s proposed expanding union power and doubling union membership during his first four years in office. He’s demonstrated solidarity with striking workers,” Reich said. “Many unions are still weighing other candidates, especially Elizabeth Warren and Joe Biden, but Bernie seems to be in the lead right now.”

Sanders might also be benefiting from the effort he’s made to professionalize his 2020 campaign, including his political operation. In 2016, he had no political director. Analilia Mejia, who previously worked for SEIU and UNITE HERE, is now his national political director.

“I come out of the labor movement. My deputy comes out of the labor movement. A bunch of the staff comes out of the labor movement,” she said. “I was talking to one labor leader and they were like, ‘It’s nice to talk to a campaign that understands the difference between a lockout and a strike.’”

Sanders’ campaign has also texted and emailed its supporters to encourage them to stand on picket lines and raise money for labor groups.

“When I was political director [for unions], the thing I most wanted was a big turnout at my actions. And we were like, ‘Hey, wait — we have a list of people who care about Bernie. Let’s tell them they should come out in solidarity,’” Mejia said.

While Sanders’ supporters in labor unions are campaigning for him in early states, the pro-Biden Fire Fighters are blanketing the same areas. In Iowa, international leaders are meeting with locals and educating them about the caucus process, including how to persuade people during the second alignment.

“That is when you can use the influence, the voice, your reputation with your neighbors to say, ‘Come stand with us. Stand with your firefighters and stand with Joe Biden,’” said Harold Schaitberger, president of the IAFF. “They trust you, they admire you, they hold you in high regard.”

This article was originally published by Politico on January 24, 2020. Reprinted with permission. 

About the Author: Holly Otterbein is a reporter.

How a 15-Hour Workweek Could Change Our Lives for the Better

Thursday, January 23rd, 2020
15-hour work • week
noun

1. Exactly what it sounds like—less work for the same money

I work nearly three times that much now. Is this normal?

Sadly, yes. The Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development shows that American workers put in an average of 1,786 hours annually, 200 more hours than their British and French peers. Yet study after study reveals that working more hours doesn’t increase productivity—just stress, health issues and carbon emissions.

How much less should I be working?

An often-cited 2016 study found that workers performed best when they were clocking in just three days a week, five hours a day. Advocates of a 15-hour workweek, such as Dutch author Rutger Bregman, argue that much of the work we do now is pointless at best and harmful at worst, so we should do much less of it. Major trade unions in Germany, the Netherlands, Ireland and the U.K. have all backed a four-day workweek, and the British Labour Party’s shadow chancellor, John McDonnell, has promised to reduce the average workweek to 32 hours within the next decade, proclaiming, “We should work to live, not live to work.” Microsoft Japan experimented with a shorter workweek and trumpeted that it actually boosted productivity and cut down on time-wasting.

What about in the United States?

Thanks perhaps to a national case of workaholism, until recently it was self-proclaimed do-gooder CEOs talking about why we should work less (to increase their profits, naturally). But there are signs the American labor movement could once again take up the fight for fewer hours. Notably, Bernie Sanders said he would consider a 32-hour workweek (for the same pay) at the United Food and Commercial Workers 2019 fall forum in Iowa.

Sounds great to me. Is there a catch?

Some progressive economists worry that enforcing a shorter workweek could lead to an economic contraction and pay cuts. One proposal for a “leisure agenda” from the People’s Policy Project recommends a mix of measures instead, including more federal holidays, more guaranteed vacation time, and more paid parental and sick leave. However we get there, the end goal is clear: We need to get a life.

This is part of “The Big Idea,” a monthly series offering brief introductions to progressive theories, policies, tools and strategies that can help us envision a world beyond capitalism. For recent In These Times coverage of reducing hours and raising pay in action, see, ”How Working Less Can Help Prevent Climate Catastrophe and Promote Women’s Equality,” “California Workers Win Equal Overtime: ‘This Bill Corrects 78 Years of Discrimination’” and “Long Hours, No Rest: Overworked Americans Still Dream of Vacation.”

This article was originally published at In These Times on January 22, 2020 by the editors of In These Times. Reprinted with permission.

Childcare costs are sucking U.S. parents dry and still leaving early childhood teachers in poverty

Thursday, January 23rd, 2020

Parents in the U.S. pay a staggering amount for care for their young children—and here, as in so many other areas, the support they get from their government falls short of what peer nations provide. A new report from the Economic Policy Institute shows just how big the problem is, and what it’s costing the economy.

With government spending predictably lagging other countries (as a share of GDP), parents spend $42 billion a year on early care and education. It’s so expensive that many parents leave the paid workforce or scale back their hours, losing $30-35 billion in the process.

Meanwhile, the patchwork early care and education system leaves many teachers wildly underpaid, with a median of $25,218 a year in salry. Almost one in five live in poverty. The teacher at a preschool makes dramatically less than the kindergarten teacher who gets the same kids a year later.

Several of the Democrats running for president have proposed major overhauls of this broken system: universal childcare was one of Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s first policy plans, Sen. Bernie Sanders has endorsed universal childcare in broader strokes, and Pete Buttigieg has an ambitious plan as well.

Check out the details of early care and education funding for your state.

This article was originally published at Daily Kos on January 20, 2020. Reprinted with permission.

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

Marriott's 'green choice' isn't so green, and it's hurting workers

Thursday, January 23rd, 2020

Why would environmental organizations like the Sierra Club, the Union of Concerned Scientists, and 350.org have signed a pledge that they wouldn’t use a hotel chain’s environmental program? Because Marriott’s “Make a Green Choice” program, in which hotel guests are asked to opt out of having their rooms cleaned during a stay, is a classic case of greenwashing, and one that hurts workers.

According to Sierra magazine, Marriott won’t disclose the environmental benefits of not having rooms cleaned as often, while UNITE HERE Local 2 President Anand Singh told the magazine that “when housekeepers do get into a room that hasn’t been serviced in days, they report needing to use more water and chemicals, and they experience pain and injury from having to push their bodies to the limit to get the job done.” At the same time, they’re losing work hours, and income, to people doing what they think is the right thing.

Marriott has pushed “Make a Green Choice,” but it hasn’t pushed larger environmental efforts. “Despite setting a goal of acquiring 30 percent of its overall electricity consumption from renewable sources by 2025, the hotel chain did not report purchasing any of its millions of megawatt-hours of energy from renewable resources in 2018” Sierra reports. “That same year, Marriott’s $33 million investment in energy savings initiatives like LED lighting retrofit projects were dwarfed by the $3.4 billion that Marriott returned to shareholders.” Marriott’s climate goals are also less ambitious than those of rival Hilton.

Meanwhile, 91% of Marriott housekeepers told the union that they’ve lost hours since “Make a Green Choice” was put into place, with some having lost so many hours that they’re no longer eligible for health care.

We should all be making green choices. This isn’t the one, though.

This article was originally published at Daily Kos on January 20, 2020. Reprinted with permission.

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

Pregnant Workers Fairness Act takes a step forward in the House, this week in the war on workers

Thursday, January 23rd, 2020

The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act took a step toward a full House vote on Wednesday when it passed in the House Committee on Education and Labor. “The federal Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA) would explicitly require employers to make reasonable accommodations for women with pregnancy-related limitations absent undue hardship to the employer—the same familiar process in place for workers with disabilities under the ADA,” A Better Balance co-president Dina Bakst explained in The Hill.

The good news is that 27 states have passed similar laws to this one that is unlikely to get a vote in Mitch McConnell’s Senate. The bad news (aside from the final clause in that previous sentence) is that in other states, women continue to be forced between their jobs and a healthy pregnancy. CBS News reported on some typical cases: a paramedic whose ambulance company employer refused to transfer her to a desk job, even though there were some available; and an airport passenger services agent who had to go to the ER after she was pulled onto a luggage belt while moving a suitcase, and whose employer similarly refused to reassign her.

These are not isolated experiences. According to an ACLU attorney, “Roughly a quarter of a million women a year don’t get the accommodations they need to keep working.”

Congress needs to pass—and some president needs to sign—the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act.

This article was originally published at Daily Kos on January 18, 2020. Reprinted with permission.

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

Trump Labor Department gives big companies the go-ahead to exploit franchise workers

Thursday, January 23rd, 2020

The Trump Labor Department is taking action to protect massive corporations from their low-wage workers seeking justice in court, because the Trump Labor Department, currently headed by Eugene Scalia, is all about putting a boot on the neck of workers. The department is finalizing a rule making it more difficult for workers at franchise businesses or contractors—like fast food workers or warehouse workers technically employed by staffing agencies—to sue the companies they actually work for for wage theft and other such violations.

The Labor Department is tightening up the joint employer standard that the Obama administration had made more worker friendly. Under Obama, companies would have counted as joint employers if they substantially set the terms of employment even if they only exerted indirect control over any individual worker. So McDonald’s, which exerts incredibly tight control over every detail of its franchisee-owned restaurants and has even told some franchisees they were paying workers too much, would count as a joint employer of McDonald’s workers. Under Trump, McDonald’s is off the hook unless it directly hires and fires workers, directly supervises the workers and sets their schedules, directly sets their pay, and manages their employment records.

But that’s the point—McDonald’s and other big companies that want to keep wages and working conditions at rock bottom while maintaining plausible deniability have gotten really good at getting franchisees and contractors to do their dirty work. They claim—and the Trump administration will back them up on this—that it’s not McDonald’s or Walmart engaging in wage theft and forcing workers into unsafe working conditions, even as the wage theft and working conditions are found across dozens of franchisees and contractors with McDonald’s or Walmart as the common factor. The common employer, in fact, exerting significant control over the places where its business is conducted.

This is a plan to let major companies abuse and exploit their workers without any legal risk for the labor law violations involved. Or, in Republican-speak via Scalia, “This final rule furthers President Trump’s successful, governmentwide effort to address regulations that hinder the American economy and to promote economic growth.” Economic growth for multi-billion-dollar companies at the expense of low-wage workers, that is.

This article was originally published at Daily Kos on January 15, 2020. Reprinted with permission.

About the Author: Laura Clawson is a Daily Kos contributor at Daily Kos editor since December 2006. Full-time staff since 2011, currently assistant managing editor.
Your Rights Job Survival The Issues Features Resources About This Blog