Outten & Golden: Empowering Employees in the Workplace

Posts Tagged ‘Employment’

A Better Trade Deal: The Working People Weekly List

Friday, June 21st, 2019

Here’s the latest edition of the Working People Weekly List.

Strive for a Better Trade Deal: “The North American Free Trade Agreement has been nothing short of a disaster for working people. For a quarter-century, Michiganians have watched as corporations shuttered plants, raided pensions and steadily eroded communities that had come to embody the promise of the American Dream. NAFTA is a disaster. But it was no accident. Politicians and corporate executives saw trade as a way to further tilt the economy in their favor. They sold out jobs and livelihoods here at home and sacrificed workers’ rights abroad. Nothing was off limits so long as they could sniff out fatter profit margins.”

Passaic County Central Labor Council Encourages Education with Awards for High Schoolers: “Last night I was a part of something so truly amazing I am still having a hard time putting it into words. And for those of you that know me, words are usually my thing. There is so much that I am grateful for and want to share. It was an incredible night and to me, it was more than 100 years in the making.”

Save Our VA!: What Working People Are Doing This Week: “Welcome to our regular feature, a look at what the various AFL-CIO unions and other working family organizations are doing across the country and beyond. The labor movement is big and active—here’s a look at the broad range of activities we’re engaged in this week.”

‘State of the Unions’ Podcast: Union Proud: “On the latest episode of ‘State of the Unions,’ Julie and Tim talked with Pride At Work Executive Director Jerame Davis as the AFL-CIO constituency group celebrates its 25th anniversary. They discussed the progress made by LGBTQ working people over the past quarter-century and the work still left to be done.”

Governor Murphy Signs ‘Panic Button’ Bill to Protect Hotel Workers from Assaults, Harassment: “Hundreds of hotel workers, union leaders and elected officials gathered at Harrah’s Resort in Atlantic City today to witness the signing of a bill requiring hotels to equip certain employees with ‘panic buttons’ for their protection against inappropriate conduct by guests.”

Pride Month Profiles: Irene Soloway: “For Pride Month, the AFL-CIO is spotlighting various LGBTQ Americans who have worked and continue to work at the intersection of civil and labor rights. Our first profile this year is Irene Soloway.”

Stop the War on Working People: In the States Roundup: “It’s time once again to take a look at the ways working people are making progress in the states.”

Get to Know the AFL-CIO’s Affiliates: “Throughout the year, we’ve been profiling each of our affiliates. Let’s take a look back at the profiles we’ve already published.”

Get to Know AFL-CIO’s Affiliates: Fire Fighters: “Next up in our series, which takes a deeper look at each of our affiliates, is the Fire Fighters.”

The TWU Celebrates Its 20th Organizing Victory!: “The TWU organizing machine is in full swing. Under this new leadership, the Transport Workers union has just won our 20th new worker organizing drive. We continue to grow and thrive across the entire transport sector. Since 2017, our membership has increased from 137,000 to 151,000.”

Economy Gains 75,000 Jobs in May; Unemployment Steady at 3.6%: “The U.S. economy gained 75,000 jobs in May, and the unemployment rate remained at 3.6%, according to figures released this morning by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Wage growth of 3.1% was lower than last month’s 3.4% and, a downward revision of 75,000 for the job numbers for March and April signals that the Federal Reserve’s Open Market Committee needs to inch down interest rates.”

AFL-CIO President Hosts NAFTA Town Halls in Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania: “The president of the nation’s largest labor union announced Tuesday that he will hold a series of town halls about ‘union members’ struggles under NAFTA, and what working people want to see from the administration’s proposed USMCA [United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement].’ The AFL-CIO’s Richard Trumka will travel to Pennsylvania, Ohio and Michigan over the course of three days in mid-June to speak with union members as the President Trump administration pushes Congress to ratify his replacement for the much-maligned North American Free Trade Agreement.”

This blog was originally published by the AFL-CIO on June 18, 2019. Reprinted with permission. 

About the Author: Kenneth Quinnell 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.

Renewable industry employed 11 million people in 2018

Friday, June 14th, 2019

The number of workers employed by the renewable energy industry keeps growing. In 2018, at least 11 million people around the world held jobs across the renewables sector, from manufacturing and trading to installation.

According to the sixth annual jobs report by the International Renewable Energy Agency, the majority of these jobs are concentrated in China, the European Union, Brazil, and the United States.

The figures show a steady increase over the years. In 2017, there were 10.3 million jobs. This was up from 9.8 million in 2016 and 8.1 million in 2015.

This growth comes at the same time as countries are setting clean energy generation records. The U.K. recently went at least 10 days without generating any coal power, while last month in the U.S. renewable energy generation surpassed coal generation for the first time in history.

11 million people were employed in the renewables industry in 2018. Credit: IRENA.
11 MILLION PEOPLE WERE EMPLOYED IN THE RENEWABLES INDUSTRY IN 2018. CREDIT: IRENA.

In the United States, the number of people working in renewables is just under the amount employed by the fossil fuel industry. Last year saw a slight uptick in these jobs, with just over 1.1 million people employed in petroleum fuels, natural gas, coal, and biomass across the country.

According to the IRENA report, solar power remains the top employer within the renewables industry, providing 3.6 million jobs last year, accounting for a third of the entire industry’s workflow. This is in part due to expansion in India and Southeast Asia as well as Brazil. China, however, remains the leading solar employer, representing 61% of all jobs in 2018.

Meanwhile, 2.1 million people worked in the biofuel industry, another 2.1 million jobs were in hydropower, and wind employed 1.2 million people.

A third of all renewable jobs globally, the report states, are held by women. This is compared to a 22% average in the oil and gas industry. However, previous reports have shown that at least in the solar industry in the United States, the majority of jobs still go white men.

President Donald Trump has repeatedly said that tackling climate change means losing jobs. But as this report shows, in fact the opposite is true.

The findings in IRENA’s latest report support a study released last December by the International Labour Review which found that accelerating the transition to clean energy could add 24 million jobs globally by 2030.

In a press statement Thursday, Francesco La Camera, the director-general of IRENA, said countries are investing in renewables not just because of climate concerns, but also because it makes economic sense.

“Beyond climate goals,” he said, “governments are prioritizing renewables as a driver of low-carbon economic growth in recognition of the numerous employment opportunities created by the transition to renewables.”

This article was originally published at AFL-CIO on June 13, 2019. Reprinted with permission.

About the Author: Kyla Mandel is the editor for the climate team. Her work has appeared in National Geographic, Mother Jones, and Vice. She has a master’s degree from Columbia University’s Graduate School of Journalism, specializing in science, health, and environment reporting. You can reach her at kmandel@thinkprogress.org, or on Twitter at .

Economy Gains 75,000 Jobs in May; Unemployment Steady at 3.6%

Monday, June 10th, 2019

The U.S. economy gained 75,000 jobs in May, and the unemployment rate remained at 3.6%, according to figures released this morning by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Wage growth of 3.1% was lower than last month’s 3.4% and, a downward revision of 75,000 for the job numbers for March and April signals that the Federal Reserve’s Open Market Committee needs to inch down interest rates.

In response to the May job numbers, AFL-CIO Chief Economist William Spriggs tweeted:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

View image on Twitter

Last month’s biggest job gains were in professional and business services (33,000), health care (16,000) and construction (4,000). Employment in other major industries, including mining, manufacturing, wholesale trade, retail trade, transportation and warehousing, information, financial activities, leisure and hospitality, and government, showed little change over the month.

Among the major worker groups, the unemployment rates fell for blacks (6.2%). The unemployment rates for teenagers (12.7%), Hispanics (4.2%), adult men (3.3%), whites (3.3%), adult women (3.2%) and Asians (2.5%) showed little or no change in May.

The number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks or more) was little changed in May and accounted for 22.4% of the unemployed.

This blog was originally published by the AFL-CIO on June 7, 2019. Reprinted with permission. 

About the Author: Kenneth Quinnell 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.

Why Has the U.S. Economy Been Doing So Well?

Monday, June 3rd, 2019

arthurmacewan_cla_fall2012_hb_bio

This question immediately invites a couple of additional questions: What does it mean to say the economy has been “doing so well”? And: Has the U.S. economy really been doing so well?

Long and Slow

The most widely used measure of how well an economy is doing is the growth of gross domestic product (GDP). On the one hand, GDP has been growing for an unusually long time. Since the economic expansion began in June of 2009, it has continued for 118 months, as of April 2019. If the expansion continues into the summer, it will surpass the longest expansion on record, which lasted for 120 months in the 1990s.

On the other hand, it has been an historically slow expansion, with GDP averaging about 2.24% per year. In the two years since Trump took office, GDP grew 2.22% in 2017 and 2.86% in 2018, the latter almost as fast as the 2.88% in 2015. This is quite slow compared to the 3.6% rate in the 1990s, and the 4.8% rate in the 106-month expansion of the 1960s. (All figures are adjusted for inflation.) It is remarkable that, in spite of this comparison with the rates of growth in other long expansions, media reports frequently refer to the economy as “roaring” or “sizzling.”

The employment situation also has its positive and negative aspects. On the one hand, the unemployment rate has fallen almost steadily since its 2009 peak at 10% during the Great Recession. And the rate has been at the historically unusual rate of less than 4% for the past year. Relatively few people who want jobs are unable to get them. On the other hand, in spite of the low unemployment rate, wages have risen quite slowly. Between mid-2009 and today, the average hourly rate for all private employees on private payrolls has gone up by only slightly over 4%; about half of that increase has come in the last two years.

Even with many more people employed than at the time of the Great Recession, the very slow increase in wages has meant a rise in income inequality. In 2007, the average income of households in the top 5% was 25 times as great as the average income of households in the bottom 20%. By 2017, the average income in the top 5% was 29 times that in the bottom 20%. (These figures are for pre-tax income. The after tax distribution was slightly less unequal, but changed in the same way. Moreover, the tax cut at the end of 2017 surely has made the after-tax distribution of income more unequal.)

Perhaps the combination of the slow increase of GDP and the rising income inequality can be summarized as: The economy is doing well, but the people aren’t.

What Keeps the GDP Growing?

In the spring of 2019 it appears that the growth of GDP is slowing. Still, even if the economy tanks soon, the current expansion will be the longest on record. A record requires some explanation. Part of the explanation, ironically, is that the expansion has been so long because it has been so slow. Because growth was slow and the unemployment rate, while falling, came down slowly, wages have risen very slowly. This limited the extent to which wage costs were cutting into firms’ profits.

Another factor, also easing cost pressures on profits, was that commodity prices fell and remained low—that is, prices of basic raw materials, everything from copper and oil to soy beans and corn. In 2017, the Bloomberg index of commodity prices was only 43% of its 2011 peak. While it has gone up and down in recent months, at the beginning of April 2019 the index was still only 46% of its 2011 high. These price changes were partly affected by the large increase of U.S. production of oil, but also by the slowdown in the growth of demand in the United States, relative stagnation in Europe, and even weakening of the Chinese economy. Still another factor keeping businesses’ costs down and the recovery growing, however slowly, was the low interest rate policy of the U.S. Federal Reserve. From the Great Recession until 2018, the real interest rate at which banks could borrow was effectively zero, or even negative. (The “real” interest rate is the nominal rate less the anticipated inflation rate.)

These factors affecting firms’ costs kept the economy growing. However, the government provided only limited stimulus to demand, so the growth has been slow. The federal government provided some stimulus in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of early 2009. The Act did help boost the economy out of the recession, but was neither large enough nor lasting enough to sustain strong growth in subsequent years.

Now and Going Forward

The large tax cuts put in place by the Republicans at the end of 2017 do appear to have had some stimulatory impact, as people spent the gain they received. But the tax cut greatly favored the very rich, and the rich tend not to spend at a high rate. So the growth impact was limited. Also, while the Republicans promised that the tax cut for corporations would lead to a surge of investment, the surge never materialized. Instead, major corporations used their windfalls from the tax cut to buy back large amounts of their stock, an action which enhanced the incomes of their executives and other stockholders, but has had created no lasting stimulus for the overall economy.

Then there is the developing trade war with China. All indications are that this conflict will not be resolved soon and will have a negative impact on economic growth—not only on the U.S. and China, but possibly on the global economy.

We are left, then, in early 2019, with an impending economic slowdown of an already slowly growing economy. While many things can happen in the coming months, it is unlikely that a year from now anyone will be asking, “Why has the U.S. economy been doing so well?”

 is professor emeritus at UMass Boston and a Dollars & Sense Associate.

 Arthur MacEwan and John Miller, “The U.S. Economy: What is Going On?” New Labor Forum, Vol. 27, Issue 2, Spring 2018; Census Bureau, “Income and Poverty in the United States: 2017” (census.gov); Bureau of Economic Analysis, “National Income and Product Accounts” (bea.gov); Investing.com, “Bloomberg Commodity Historical Data” (investing.com); Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Real Earnings Archived” (bls.gov).

This article originally appeared at dollarsandsense.org on May 30, 2019. Reprinted with permission.

 is professor emeritus of economics at UMass-Boston and a Dollars & Sense Associate.

How People with Disabilities Can Find the Best Job Opportunities Out There

Thursday, March 7th, 2019

Though the number of people with disabilities in the workforce is still lower than the number of those without, things are changing. There are now more good job opportunities for people with disabilities than ever before. As the Brookings Institute notes, “the number of people who cite disability as a reason for not working has recently fallen, reversing a decades-long trend.” If you’re looking to be a part of the workforce, here are some things you need to know.

Consider home-based employment if your disability demands it

Only you can know if your particular disability more or less necessitates that you work from home, but if it does, you should know that the options for this type of employment are better now than they have ever been. One option is to turn your existing skills into an online venture. This could be writing, editing, accounting, consulting, or any number of highly-marketable skills you have from previous employment.

Even without prior marketable skills, finding work from home is possible. Setting up your own online store and becoming a “professional seller” on auction, craft, or other sales sites is a good option. As is work with affiliate marketing, call centers, and survey work.

Don’t let a disability prevent you from a career outside the home

If your particular disability isn’t debilitating enough to require working from home, it’s important to know that mobility issues should not preclude you from a rewarding career outside the home (nor does it, as over 10 million Americans with disabilities find this type of work). Jobs in administration, pharmacy services, and paralegal work are good career options for those with mobility issues or visual or hearing impairments.

Hone your networking skills

 Monster.com says your primary objective when job hunting is to alert others that you’re seeking employment and to opt for a targeted networking campaign to make inroads. To this end, you need to cast wide nets. First sit down and make a list of any business or personal contacts you know that could possibly be a lead on a quality job. You need to contact as many as possible and inquire about potential openings. It’s also smart to develop relationships with hiring managers and HR professionals at companies and in fields you desire to work — even if they’re not currently hiring. That’s networking at its finest.

Impress with your resume

A good resume will be flawless, will contain a concise but informative executive summary, won’t be too long (but will contain all pertinent information), and will contain specific keywords that hiring managers want to see.

You should try an online resume template even if you have resume-building experience. It’s smarter to have a guide that’ll help you create the perfect, eye-catching resume. You don’t want to miss anything and you want it to be as professional as possible. This is what will land you that coveted interview.

Don’t forget to check out these great resources

Thanks to the internet, you have a ton of resources out there to help you search for jobs, find information about hiring, develop your skills, and learn about your rights as a person with a disability. Check out the federal government’s USA Jobs site, giant disability jobs search site abilityJOBS, and USA.gov’s disability jobs educational hub for starters.

Don’t think your disability only allows for marginal, bare-bones employment. You can find lucrative and rewarding work either inside or outside the home. With some targeted effort through networking and trying to determine the best fit for you, your dream job could be on the horizon.

About the Author: A former banker with thirty years of experience, Jim uses his knowledge and skills to provide advice and resources to anyone seeking help with their financial literacy.

Missouri Supreme Court opens the door to LGBTQ nondiscrimination protections

Tuesday, February 26th, 2019

The Missouri Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that a gay employee’s case alleging sex discrimination in the workplace could proceed, reversing a lower court ruling and establishing a new precedent that could help protect embattled non-heterosexual workers in the future.

The court also ruled on a separate but similar case involving a transgender student who claimed his school discriminated against him by blocking him from bathrooms and other facilities, saying the student deserved a fair hearing.

At stake in the first case is the extent to which gay, lesbian, and bi people in Missouri are protected on the basis of their sex. State law does not extend employment nondiscrimination protections on the basis of “sexual orientation,” meaning it’s fully legal to fire someone based on their sexuality. But in this case, while the plaintiff acknowledged that he is gay, he claimed that he faced discrimination because of sex stereotyping, not because of his sexual orientation.

Harold Lampley, an employee in the state’s Department of Social Services Child Support Enforcement Division, filed a complaint arguing that he was harassed at work for his non-stereotypical behaviors, noting that employees with stereotypical behaviors were not similarly treated. He claimed to have experienced regular verbal abuse and forced closed-door meetings about his performance. After he complained, he also alleged that he experienced retaliation in the form of poor performance evaluations not consistent with his work.

Advertisement

Lampley’s friend and coworker Rene Frost likewise claimed that she suffered discrimination merely for her affiliation with Lampley. The employer allegedly violated her privacy by publicly announcing her performance review. After she complained, she said she faced retaliation, such as having her desk moved away from Lampley’s and other coworkers with whom she collaborated. Frost claimed she was also banned from eating lunch with Lampley and allegedly faced similar verbal abuse and harassment.

The Missouri Commission on Human Rights concluded this discrimination wasn’t actionable because Lampley’s sexual orientation isn’t protected, and a lower court agreed. It relied on a similar ruling against a recycling company employee named James Pittman, who claimed he had been called a “cocksucker,” asked if he had AIDS, and harassed for having a same-sex partner. The Western District Missouri Court of Appeals ruled in 2015 that Pittman could find no relief under state law, and a circuit court concluded the same must be true for Lampley and Frost.

But in Tuesday’s ruling, the Missouri Supreme Court concluded that being gay does not preclude an employee from protection on the basis of “sex,”which includes sex stereotyping. “[A]n employee who suffers an adverse employment decision based on sex-based stereotypical attitudes of how a member of the employee’s sex should act can support an inference of unlawful sex discrimination,” the majority wrote.

“Sexual orientation is incidental and irrelevant to sex stereotyping. Sex discrimination is discrimination, it is prohibited by the Act, and an employee may demonstrate this discrimination through evidence of sexual stereotyping,” they explained. The Commission was wrong not to give them an opportunity to demonstrate their sex-stereotyping claim, and the Court ordered it to issue Lampley and Frost right-to-sue letters.

Advertisement

The second case on which the Court ruled this week similarly focused on the debate over protections on the basis of sex.

Student “R.M.A.” filed a complaint against Blue Springs School District for denying him access to the boys’ restrooms and locker rooms. The school initially countered both that “gender identity” was not protected under the state’s “sex” protections and also that it should not be considered a “public accommodation” and thus the nondiscrimination law should not apply to it at all. Without specifying which reasoning informed its opinion, a lower court dismissed R.M.A.’s complaint outright.

In a 5-2 ruling this week, the state Supreme Court reached a different conclusion. Rather than considering sex stereotyping, the majority recognized that once a transgender individual has legal changed their sex, as R.M.A. has, they are protected on the basis of that sex. In a footnote, the majority called out the dissenting justices for relying on a distinction between “legal sex” and “biological sex” that is not actually found anywhere in the law. R.M.A. is a boy, and if he’s not being allowed to use boys’ facilities, then he deserves his day in court.

This pair of rulings opens the door to far greater protection for LGBTQ people under Missouri state law — but with some limitations.

The first ruling, for example, accepts the premise that sexual orientation is not itself connected to sex stereotyping, even though expectations about the gender of a person’s romantic partners are obvious stereotypes themselves. This means that while Lampley and other gay, lesbian, and bi workers will now have an opportunity to pursue discrimination claims moving forward, it will require them to prove that they were targeted because of sex stereotypes not directly connected to their sexual orientation.

Likewise, the ruling in favor of R.M.A. seems to rely on transgender people legally changing their sex designation before they are eligible for protection. State law requires transgender people provide proof of surgery to update their birth certificates, although some judges have granted the new gender markers without that requirement. This means that there may still be inconsistent financial and medical obstacles to qualifying for legal protection.

Advertisement

Neither ruling weighs the merits of the discrimination claims, so it also remains to be seen whether Lampley or R.M.A. will prevail once their complaints are given due consideration.

This article was originally published at ThinkProgress on February 26, 2019. Reprinted with permission. 

About the Author: Zack Ford is the LGBTQ Editor at ThinkProgress.org, where he has covered issues related to marriage equality, transgender rights, education, and “religious freedom,” in additional to daily political news.

Trump wants to dismantle decades of discrimination protections

Monday, January 7th, 2019

The Trump administration is looking to either eliminate or severely restrict regulations designed to protect people from discrimination in a number of categories, the Washington Post reported Thursday.

The Department of Justice is asking federal agencies to assess ways to scale back regulations that allow for “disparate impact” legal challenges to discrimination.

Disparate impact refers to discrimination that occurs against a group even when there is no clear evidence of an intent to discriminate.

For example, an employer might implement a broad restriction on hiring people who have criminal records. Such a policy might not mention race at all, but because of racial disparities in the criminal justice system, it could end up leading to far more discrimination against people of color.

Disparate impact litigation would be a vehicle for challenging that policy as racial discriminatory, even if there’s no evidence that the employer put the policy in place in an attempt to give white candidates an advantage.

The approach is not new; in fact, it’s been a practice dating back a half-century to when civil rights laws were first put on the books. And litigation based on showing a disparate impact has been used to combat discrimination in just about every way, including employment, housing, education, and credit.

The administration has already demonstrated a willingness to gut this important tool for combatting discrimination.

Last month, the Federal Commission on School Safety recommended rolling back disparate impact policies in education. These policies sought to minimize the amount of punitive discipline for minor infractions, because such discipline was disproportionately applied to students of color and students with disabilities — fueling the so-called “school-to-prison pipeline.” The commission claimed without a clear explanation that allowing such discipline would somehow protect students from gun violence.

There are many inconsistencies in terms of when courts will consider disparate impact claims. For example, the Supreme Court ruled in 2015 that disparate impact claims are viable in terms of housing complaints. But there are other forms of discrimination where the Court has not guaranteed that the claims can be heard.

Tom Silverstein, associate counsel at the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights, explained to ThinkProgress that where the Supreme Court has not resolved the issue, the administration will try to prohibit bringing disparate impact claims at all. Where the Supreme Court has said such claims are viable, the administration could place many limitations on them that make it far harder for them to succeed.

In that 2015 case, the Court may have upheld disparate impact claims in housing, “but there was no holding on how you prove a disparate impact claim or what the standard of proof is,” Silverstein explained. New regulations could heighten the standard for showing a causal relationship between a company’s policy and its disparate impact, or they could burden plaintiffs with having to prove that a less discriminatory policy would still serve the company’s interests. These would shift the advantage more to the company discriminating and make it harder to bring successful claims against them.

The Department of Housing and Urban Development already has indicated that it is seeking to undo its disparate impact rule, which would make it easier for insurance companies to implement policies that discriminate against minorities.

In the case of lending, the Supreme Court has not weighed in on whether disparate impact claims are viable under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act. Silverstein offered a hypothetical situation in which a company’s car purchase loans resulted in people of color disproportionately paying higher interest rates on their vehicles. “If it’s not an instance of intentional discrimination — or it is but you can’t prove that without going through discovery — it makes it harder to challenge that kind of discrimination.”

Sasha Samberg-Champion, a civil rights lawyer at Relman, Dane & Colfax, told ThinkProgress that the proposed changes are “harmful” because they will make it far harder to prove discrimination is taking place. An insurance company, for example, might be relying on a certain automated algorithm that ends up making it harder for people of color to obtain coverage, but it might not be possible to trace that algorithm back to specific individuals or any intent to discriminate.

“There may be some bad intent going on as well,” he said, “but it’s virtually unknowable when you begin investigating and begin litigation. You know there’s a bad practice that has a severe disparate impact on minority populations, and you know it’s irrational and has no justification. But you don’t know why unless they’re stupid enough to announce that they’re bigots.”

The administration’s restrictions could lead to a situation where plaintiffs basically have to find some clear evidence that a company was trying to discriminate, not just show that they happened to be discriminating. “If you make it a requirement that you prove intent, you’re making it impossible to bring litigation for practical purposes, even if in the real world there is bad intent,” he said.

There has long been a partisan divide on disparate impact litigation, with Republican presidential administrations dating back to Ronald Reagan opting simply not to pursue such cases. But completely dismantling the regulations that allow for them is a substantial change.

“This is a major attack on civil rights enforcement,” said Joe Rich, who recently retired from the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights. “In the past, they would not use disparate impact, but they would not try to change the regulation. They would not try to destroy it,” he told ThinkProgress. “If you get rid of the regulation, there will be nothing to enforce.”

This article was originally published at ThinkProgress on January 3, 2019. Reprinted with permission.

About the Author: Zack Ford is the LGBTQ Editor at ThinkProgress.org, where he has covered issues related to marriage equality, transgender rights, education, and “religious freedom,” in additional to daily political news. 

Supreme Court poised to drastically reverse LGBTQ equality

Tuesday, November 27th, 2018

There are now six different cases implicating LGBTQ rights sitting before the Supreme Court. While the conservative-majority Court has not yet agreed to hear any of them, a circuit split between two of the cases and the fact that President Trump’s transgender military ban is at the heart of another strongly suggest at least one of them will advance to oral arguments.

The cases span a variety of different issues, including employment, education, military service, and public discrimination. At the heart at most of them is a question about whether discrimination against LGBTQ people counts as discrimination on the basis of “sex.” If the Court rules against queer people in just one of them, it could set a precedent that hinders LGBTQ equality across all of the different issues.

Such a decision would be the largest blow to queer rights since the Court upheld sodomy laws 32 years ago.

Employment discrimination

Two of the cases before the Court address the question of whether it’s legal to fire someone for being gay. Two different federal appellate courts arrived at different conclusions, increasing the likelihood that the Supreme Court will hear the cases to resolve the dispute.

In Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, a gay man argued that he was fired because of his sexual orientation. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit dismissed Gerald Lynn Bostock’s case over a 1979 precedent, even though several Supreme Court cases since then have undermined that ruling, including a case that recognized “sex stereotyping” as a form of sex discrimination as well as a case that recognized same-sex sexual harassment as sex discrimination. The Eleventh Circuit insisted that “sexual orientation” enjoys no recognition under Title VII’s employment protections on the basis of sex.

Meanwhile, this past February, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit arrived at the exact opposite conclusion in Zarda v. Altitude Express. In that case, the appellate court found that skydiving instructor Donald Zarda, now deceased, was illegally fired for being gay under Title VII. The Trump administration had argued otherwise.

With this split in how to interpret federal law, it seems highly likely that the Supreme Court will want to resolve the conflict. While there are several compelling arguments that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation inherently requires making determinations on the basis of sex, it’s not clear that there are five justices who will agree.

While they’re at it, the Court may also consider R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, a similar case about whether Title VII’s “sex” protections include discrimination on the basis of gender identity. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit agreed this past March that a Michigan funeral home violated the law when it fired employee Aimee Stephens for being transgender.

The Trump administration recently filed a brief in this case arguing that the Supreme Court should overturn the Sixth Circuit’s decision and rule that it’s legal to fire someone for being trans. But the administration also argued that the Court should consider Zarda or Bostock first — in other words, that it should resolve the question of whether sexual orientation is protected before it takes up gender identity.

In any of these cases, a ruling narrowly defining “sex” could set back employment rights for the entire LGBTQ community.

Trans military ban

On Friday, the Trump administration asked the Supreme Court to take the reins on the four different court battles over President Trump’s ban on transgender people serving in the military. The administration has lost in all of these different cases, including before two appellate courts, but it is now asking the Court to combine them all into the case Trump v. Karnoski.

The request is an unusual step, one that attempts to skip over the standard appeals process. LGBTQ groups chided the administration for being so desperate to discriminate that they’re willing to flout judicial norms and procedures. Nevertheless, given the Court’s willingness to cater to executive power in the Muslim ban cases, it might similarly be charitable to Trump’s claim that banning transgender people somehow improves military readiness, even though there’s no evidence to support that claim.

Another bakery

Just months after the Supreme Court granted a one-off victory to an anti-gay baker from Colorado, another bakery from Oregon is again asking the Court to grant it special permission to refuse service to same-sex couples. The details of Klein v. Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries are almost identical to the Masterpiece Cakeshop case.

As ThinkProgress previously explained, Aaron and Melissa Klein — owners of Sweet Cakes by Melissa — are asking for even more from the Court than Jack Phillips did last year. They argue that business owners have a right to discriminate based on their religious beliefs — against any group, not just on the basis of sexual orientation. A ruling along those lines would not only greatly undermine LGBTQ protections, but nondiscrimination protections for all vulnerable groups.

Transgender students

While the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) is not defending the Kleins as it did Phillips last year, the anti-LGBTQ hate group is still heavily involved in this year’s round of cases. In addition to defending the funeral home in the transgender employment case, ADF is also representing a group of families challenging a Pennsylvania school’s inclusive policies.

In Doe v. Boyertown Area School District, ADF contends that allowing transgender students to use restrooms and locker rooms consistent with their gender identity somehow violates the privacy of other students. As such, they’re asking for a mandate that schools segregate trans students to single-use restrooms. Like in the employment cases with Title VII, ADF is also asking the Court to rule that Title IX’s sex protections don’t extend to transgender students.

If the Supreme Court were to take all of these cases and the conservative majority were to prevail in them all, 2019 could look radically different for LGBTQ people. Nationwide, it’d become legal to fire them for who they are, to discriminate against them in schools, and to discriminate against them in public spaces — and several thousand transgender service members would lose their jobs.

For now, the Court is delaying making any decisions.

This article was originally published at ThinkProgress on November 27, 2018. Reprinted with permission.

About the Author: Zack Ford is the LGBTQ Editor at ThinkProgress.org, where he has covered issues related to marriage equality, transgender rights, education, and “religious freedom,” in additional to daily political news.

New Arizona law pushes unemployed people to work at poverty wages or else

Thursday, May 17th, 2018

Arizona Republicans have hit on a way to make life worse for unemployed people. Currently, to collect unemployment insurance, people have to be looking for work and to accept “suitable” work if it’s offered. Under a new law, scratch that “suitable” part. People will have to accept any job they’re offered as long as it pays more than 20 percent more than their unemployment check—which means any job paying $288 a week or more.

You could be an engineer or a graphic designer or a skilled carpenter, but if McDonald’s or Walmart says they’ll have you, you have to take it or lose your benefits. Forget about looking for a job in your field that will pay you a living wage. You also don’t get to consider what’s suitable in terms of the “risk involved to the individual’s health, safety and morals.”

[Republican Gov. Doug Ducey’s] press aide Daniel Scarpinato called it “common-sense reform.”

“It’s a job that the individual’s been offered, and it pays,” he noted, adding that Ducey supports the idea of people finding employment “who are getting off of benefits and finding value in work.”

Bear in mind that people don’t get unemployment insurance automatically: anyone collecting unemployment in Arizona was laid off or fired for reasons that weren’t their fault. No one just walked off the job to collect that sweet $240-a-week check. No one was fired for dealing drugs at work.

These are people who had jobs within the last few months and lost them without doing anything wrong. To keep getting UI, they are spending four days a week looking for work. They should be the poster children for the Republican obsession with the value of work. But instead, they’re being devalued and treated as shirkers whose professional skills do not matter—because in fact, Republicans just hate anyone who’s struggling. And they’d rather sentence people to low-wage jobs that don’t make use of their specific skills than pay for a few extra weeks or months of unemployment insurance to make sure that people’s skills are maximized in the economy.

This blog was originally published at DailyKos on May 17, 2018. Reprinted with permission.

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

Union membership rose in 2017

Friday, January 26th, 2018

This is somewhat unexpected: overall union membership rose by 262,000 workers in 2017, while union density stayed at 10.7 percent. The Economic Policy Institute’s Lawrence Mishel warns against reading too much into the numbers, but pulls out the following interesting data points:

  • Union membership became more common among men: some 32 percent of the net increase in male employment in 2017 went to men who were union members, leading union membership to rise from 11.2 to 11.4 percent of all male employment. Growth of union membership for men was strong in both the public and private sectors and for Hispanic and for non-Hispanic white men.
  • Correspondingly, union membership dipped slightly among women because women’s union membership did not rise in the private sector although employment overall did rise—private sector employment growth for women was concentrated in nonunion sectors. Union membership growth, however, was strong among Hispanic women.
  • Union membership grew in manufacturing despite an overall decline in manufacturing employment. Union membership was also strong in the wholesale and retail sectors, in the public sector and in information sector (where union membership density rose 1.9 percentage points).
  • Union membership density was stable or grew in a number of Southern states: Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, and Virginia with especially strong growth in Texas.

That last point is particularly interesting, since the South has long been such a challenge to union organizing, and since Republicans are bent on making the union organizing environment in the rest of the nation much more like the South has historically been.

This blog was originally published at DailyKos on January 27, 2018. Reprinted with permission.

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

Your Rights Job Survival The Issues Features Resources About This Blog