TO COMMENT CLICK HERE
Slavery 21st Century
You thought it was over, think again
april 23, 2019
Slavery did not end it was merely outsourced,
reconfigured, and made politically correct
The Global Slavery Index
published on Thursday by Walk Free Foundation, describes modern slavery as a complex and often hidden crime that crosses borders, sectors and jurisdictions. The US number, the study estimates, is almost one hundredth of the estimated 40.3 million global total number of people it defines as being enslaved.
headlines and issues
*States Are Trying to Stop Cities From Raising Minimum Wage
(ARTICLE BELOW)
*THE WORLD'S LARGEST HEDGE FUND BREAKS DOWN HOW THE US WORKFORCE GOT SCREWED OVER THE PAST 20 YEARS
(ARTICLE BELOW)
*'We're Broke, and Amazon Is Shouting About How Amazing They Are Because of This Raise'
(ARTICLE BELOW)
*Stop & Shop hit by strike as 31,000 workers walk off job
(ARTICLE BELOW)
*US union seeks $100m in largest wage theft case involving federal contractor
(ARTICLE BELOW)
*Harley Davidson workers in Wisconsin reject new labor contract
(ARTICLE BELOW)
*Trump’s Labor Department Does McDonald’s Another Solid
(ARTICLE BELOW)
*Trump-Appointed Board Proposes Major Blow to Air and Rail Unions
(ARTICLE BELOW)
*Illinois Manufacturing Workers Locked Out and Fired for One-Hour Strike
(ARTICLE BELOW)
*‘I made $3.75 an hour’: Lyft and Uber drivers push to unionize for better pay
(ARTICLE BELOW)
*“We Demand Food for Thought”: UIC Grad Workers On Strike for Living Wages and Respect
(ARTICLE BELOW)
*Will New Mexico’s Historic Labor Win Spark Change in Other States?
(ARTICLE BELOW)
*Whole Foods cuts workers' hours after Amazon introduces minimum wage
(ARTICLE BELOW)
funnies(at the end)
States Are Trying to Stop Cities From Raising Minimum Wage
BY Mike Ludwig, Truthout
PUBLISHED April 23, 2019
Earlier this month, the New Orleans City Council took a big first step: It unanimously approved a resolution aimed at raising the city’s minimum wage. However, the resolution will be entirely symbolic unless Louisiana’s Republican state legislature gets out of the way. Instead of raising wages, the resolution urges legislators in Baton Rouge to change state law, which has prevented local governments from setting their own minimum wage since 1997.
Conservative state lawmakers have blocked efforts to raise the statewide minimum ever since, leaving Louisiana cities and towns stuck with the rock-bottom federal minimum of $7.25 an hour. These cities are home to some of the nation’s highest poverty rates. In 2016, more than one in four Louisiana children were living in poverty.
“It’s kind of like being in a bad relationship,” said Rep. Joyce Duplessis, a Louisiana state legislator who is cosponsoring legislation that would allow local minimum wage hikes, during a rally in New Orleans earlier this month. “You see, the state hasn’t been willing to do right by the cities.”
Preventing towns and cities from passing their own reforms and regulations is broadly known as “state preemption,” and it has swept across conservative legislatures nationwide in response to local campaigns for affordable housing, better labor standards and higher pay.
As of 2018, 28 states prevented local governments from raising the minimum wage, and 23 states had laws preventing cities from requiring employers to provide paid sick and maternity leave, according to the National League of Cities. A few states have longstanding provisions preventing local governments from raising the wage floor beyond the state minimum, but most preemption laws grew out of debates over “local control” in the past two decades.
Louisiana became the first state to pass a minimum wage preemption law in 1997. Similar laws have since passed in 24 other states, including Alabama, Ohio and North Carolina, which passed minimum wage preemption laws in 2016 as movements to raise wages spread, making their way to ballot initiatives and city councils. At the time, calls for raising the minimum wage to $15 were reaching a fever pitch, thanks in part to the Fight for $15 movement and Sen. Bernie Sanders’s presidential campaign.
The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a right-wing group that works closely with conservative state lawmakers, has circulated model legislation to preempt local minimum wage hikes since 2002. The National League of Cities reports that Alabama’s 2016 minimum wage preemption law “bore a striking resemblance” to ALEC’s model legislation.
“Corporate interests and reactionary lawmakers are aligned and have strategy across state lines and across the country, and if we are serious about building power to be able to improve the standard of living in our communities, we need to be as united and as strategic as their corporate greed,” said Ben Zucker, co-founder of the progressive group Step Up Louisiana, in an interview.
State preemption is a big deal in New Orleans, a liberal oasis in a red state where local leaders often find their hands tied by state preemption when attempting to address the city’s rampant inequality and a well-documented housing crisis. Housing costs have steadily risen over the past decade while wages stagnated, pushing working-class artists, cooks, musicians and other culture bearers out of the city’s historic core, according to local housing justice groups.
New Orleans has the highest poverty rate of the nation’s 50 largest metropolitan areas and the second-highest rate of income inequality. Most New Orleans residents are renters, and 60 percent — including 72 percent of women of color — spend more than 30 percent of their income on rent and utilities. This is the amount considered by the federal government to be enough of a cost-burden that food, clothes, health care and other necessities become difficult to afford. New Orleans renters are evicted from their homes at a rate twice the national average, and eviction rates are alarmingly higher in neighborhoods of color.
The New Orleans City Council recently passed an inclusionary zoning ordinance to encourage affordable housing construction, but only after Louisiana Gov. John Bel Edwards vetoed legislation passed by the Republican legislature that gutted a state law that allows for local inclusionary zoning. (Edwards, a socially conservative Democrat who supports some fiscally liberal policies, warned New Orleans policymakers to act fast because he would not block inclusionary zoning preemption again.)
Indeed, state preemption goes far beyond the minimum wage issue. In Louisiana and many other red states, it has a major impact on housing and labor policy, as cities are barred from establishing rent controls and requiring public contractors to meet local wage and labor standards. A number of other states preempt local regulations of the gig economy and “fair scheduling” laws that would protect workers from abusive labor practices by requiring employers to give advance notice of work-house and schedule changes, according to the Economic Policy Institute.
ALEC and conservative lawmakers claim minimum wage increases cause businesses to raise prices and hire fewer workers, but advocates for the working poor say states like Louisiana are proof that the wage floor must be raised from time to time in order to keep people out of poverty.
“If these policies worked, if these policies that prevented local democracy actually worked, then why would New Orleans have almost half of the children in our town born into poverty?” Zucker said. “If they worked, then why do Black women make 48 cents for every dollar that white men make in our state?”
A number of states are moving forward toward a statewide living wage regardless of preemption laws. Eighteen states started 2019 with higher minimum wages, either due to automatic cost-of-living increases or previously approved legislation or ballot initiatives, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Despite Republican opposition, Illinois, New Jersey and Maryland enacted legislation this year that will gradually increase the state minimum wage to $15 an hour over the next five to six years. Democrats in Vermont are pushing for a $15 minimum.
In Louisiana, state lawmakers may not be keen on raising wages, but the people are. Recent state polling shows that 88 percent of Louisiana voters — including nearly three-quarters of Republicans — support a minimum wage hike to $8.50 an hour, even though Republican lawmakers have blocked efforts by Edwards and other Democrats to make the small increase for three years straight, according to The Advocate newspaper.
Louisiana residents are not alone: The majority of Americans support living wages. In January, national polling showed that 55 percent of US voters support a $15 per hour minimum wage, with another 27 percent supporting a wage increase of a lesser amount. In fact, 70 percent of GOP voters want some kind of increase in the minimum wage.
While Republican leaders on the national level have consistently pushed back against calls for a higher minimum wage, Sanders and other Democratic presidential hopefuls want to gradually phase up to $15. Trump has not taken a clear position on the minimum wage, and his opponents are expected to pounce on the issue during the presidential race.
Back in Louisiana, people from all walks of life are eager to see the pay scale increase, because wages intersect with so many other issues impacting individual communities. If state lawmakers won’t raise the minimum wage, local communities want the power to do it themselves.
“Race and gender equality is on fire in Louisiana, and one of the few tools we have to really combat that is letting local governing authorities and local communities be able to decide what’s best for them,” Zucker said.
Conservative state lawmakers have blocked efforts to raise the statewide minimum ever since, leaving Louisiana cities and towns stuck with the rock-bottom federal minimum of $7.25 an hour. These cities are home to some of the nation’s highest poverty rates. In 2016, more than one in four Louisiana children were living in poverty.
“It’s kind of like being in a bad relationship,” said Rep. Joyce Duplessis, a Louisiana state legislator who is cosponsoring legislation that would allow local minimum wage hikes, during a rally in New Orleans earlier this month. “You see, the state hasn’t been willing to do right by the cities.”
Preventing towns and cities from passing their own reforms and regulations is broadly known as “state preemption,” and it has swept across conservative legislatures nationwide in response to local campaigns for affordable housing, better labor standards and higher pay.
As of 2018, 28 states prevented local governments from raising the minimum wage, and 23 states had laws preventing cities from requiring employers to provide paid sick and maternity leave, according to the National League of Cities. A few states have longstanding provisions preventing local governments from raising the wage floor beyond the state minimum, but most preemption laws grew out of debates over “local control” in the past two decades.
Louisiana became the first state to pass a minimum wage preemption law in 1997. Similar laws have since passed in 24 other states, including Alabama, Ohio and North Carolina, which passed minimum wage preemption laws in 2016 as movements to raise wages spread, making their way to ballot initiatives and city councils. At the time, calls for raising the minimum wage to $15 were reaching a fever pitch, thanks in part to the Fight for $15 movement and Sen. Bernie Sanders’s presidential campaign.
The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a right-wing group that works closely with conservative state lawmakers, has circulated model legislation to preempt local minimum wage hikes since 2002. The National League of Cities reports that Alabama’s 2016 minimum wage preemption law “bore a striking resemblance” to ALEC’s model legislation.
“Corporate interests and reactionary lawmakers are aligned and have strategy across state lines and across the country, and if we are serious about building power to be able to improve the standard of living in our communities, we need to be as united and as strategic as their corporate greed,” said Ben Zucker, co-founder of the progressive group Step Up Louisiana, in an interview.
State preemption is a big deal in New Orleans, a liberal oasis in a red state where local leaders often find their hands tied by state preemption when attempting to address the city’s rampant inequality and a well-documented housing crisis. Housing costs have steadily risen over the past decade while wages stagnated, pushing working-class artists, cooks, musicians and other culture bearers out of the city’s historic core, according to local housing justice groups.
New Orleans has the highest poverty rate of the nation’s 50 largest metropolitan areas and the second-highest rate of income inequality. Most New Orleans residents are renters, and 60 percent — including 72 percent of women of color — spend more than 30 percent of their income on rent and utilities. This is the amount considered by the federal government to be enough of a cost-burden that food, clothes, health care and other necessities become difficult to afford. New Orleans renters are evicted from their homes at a rate twice the national average, and eviction rates are alarmingly higher in neighborhoods of color.
The New Orleans City Council recently passed an inclusionary zoning ordinance to encourage affordable housing construction, but only after Louisiana Gov. John Bel Edwards vetoed legislation passed by the Republican legislature that gutted a state law that allows for local inclusionary zoning. (Edwards, a socially conservative Democrat who supports some fiscally liberal policies, warned New Orleans policymakers to act fast because he would not block inclusionary zoning preemption again.)
Indeed, state preemption goes far beyond the minimum wage issue. In Louisiana and many other red states, it has a major impact on housing and labor policy, as cities are barred from establishing rent controls and requiring public contractors to meet local wage and labor standards. A number of other states preempt local regulations of the gig economy and “fair scheduling” laws that would protect workers from abusive labor practices by requiring employers to give advance notice of work-house and schedule changes, according to the Economic Policy Institute.
ALEC and conservative lawmakers claim minimum wage increases cause businesses to raise prices and hire fewer workers, but advocates for the working poor say states like Louisiana are proof that the wage floor must be raised from time to time in order to keep people out of poverty.
“If these policies worked, if these policies that prevented local democracy actually worked, then why would New Orleans have almost half of the children in our town born into poverty?” Zucker said. “If they worked, then why do Black women make 48 cents for every dollar that white men make in our state?”
A number of states are moving forward toward a statewide living wage regardless of preemption laws. Eighteen states started 2019 with higher minimum wages, either due to automatic cost-of-living increases or previously approved legislation or ballot initiatives, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Despite Republican opposition, Illinois, New Jersey and Maryland enacted legislation this year that will gradually increase the state minimum wage to $15 an hour over the next five to six years. Democrats in Vermont are pushing for a $15 minimum.
In Louisiana, state lawmakers may not be keen on raising wages, but the people are. Recent state polling shows that 88 percent of Louisiana voters — including nearly three-quarters of Republicans — support a minimum wage hike to $8.50 an hour, even though Republican lawmakers have blocked efforts by Edwards and other Democrats to make the small increase for three years straight, according to The Advocate newspaper.
Louisiana residents are not alone: The majority of Americans support living wages. In January, national polling showed that 55 percent of US voters support a $15 per hour minimum wage, with another 27 percent supporting a wage increase of a lesser amount. In fact, 70 percent of GOP voters want some kind of increase in the minimum wage.
While Republican leaders on the national level have consistently pushed back against calls for a higher minimum wage, Sanders and other Democratic presidential hopefuls want to gradually phase up to $15. Trump has not taken a clear position on the minimum wage, and his opponents are expected to pounce on the issue during the presidential race.
Back in Louisiana, people from all walks of life are eager to see the pay scale increase, because wages intersect with so many other issues impacting individual communities. If state lawmakers won’t raise the minimum wage, local communities want the power to do it themselves.
“Race and gender equality is on fire in Louisiana, and one of the few tools we have to really combat that is letting local governing authorities and local communities be able to decide what’s best for them,” Zucker said.
The world's largest hedge fund breaks down how the US workforce got screwed over the past 20 years
Allana Akhtar - business insider
4/17/19
- Bridgewater, the world's most successful hedge fund, released a report that states the main reason corporate profit margins have increased rapidly in the last 20 years is due to declining labor shares.
- In industries where unionization decreased, wages fell as well. Union members went from being around one-fourth of the workforce to just over 10% today.
- "We are in the midst of a populist backlash," the report states.
Corporations may have hit peak profits over the last 25 years — but workers did not see that in their wages.
Bridgewater Associates, the world's largest hedge fund, is run by billionaire Ray Dalio. It recently released a report on how US corporations have seen profit margins soar over the last two decades.
In what Bridgewater calls "the most pro-corporate environment in history," the last two decades have seen corporate taxes and labor bargaining power fall, as globalization and automation increased.
The biggest driving factor behind soaring profits, Bridgewater reports, is the decline in the share of profit that workers receive. The decline in unionization among US workers, and to a lesser extent the advance of technology and outsourcing of jobs, are driving worker wages down.
In companies that had union membership decline, wages fell at a greater level than sectors where union membership remained in tact. Transportation, manufacturing, and construction jobs were hit the hardest: these three industries had union membership decline by as much as 9%, while national wages grew only around 1.7% to 2.5% since 2000. Jobs in the financial sector, meanwhile, had the most growth in union membership since 2000, and saw wages increase by nearly 3%.
As a whole, union members went from being around one-fourth of the workforce to just over 10% today.
"While changes in union activity have been smaller in recent years, even small moves toward or away from unionization can be linked to changes in how much firms pay their employees," the report states.
Earlier this year, Dalio called current levels of income inequality a "national emergency," warning that these conditions will ultimately weaken the US economy and reduce the country's strength relative to other global leaders.
Solutions Dalio offered to fix income inequality include increasing taxes on the wealthy and increased coordination between the White House, the Federal Reserve, and Congress.
The call to raise taxes on the ultra-rich is becoming more mainstream. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez recently proposed that the marginal tax rate on income of more than $10 million be raised to 70%, bringing it back to levels last seen in the 1970s. Two Democratic presidential candidates' plans to increase taxes on the rich are polling well among Americans.
Because of this, Bridgewater warns the margin growth may not persist, due to more people recognizing that the power of big companies has come at the expense of worker pay. The firm predicts more government regulation of corporations, and says survey data suggests people feel growing animosity toward globalization and the sweeping power of companies.
"We are in the midst of a populist backlash against rising inequality and increasingly seeing a move toward more protectionism," the report states.
'We're Broke, and Amazon Is Shouting About How Amazing They Are Because of This Raise'
Hamilton Nolan- splinternews.com
4/16/19
Last week, Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos (net worth: $150 billion) boasted abouthis company’s recent decision to raise its minimum wage to $15 an hour. For some useful perspective on what that means for actual humans, we now bring you the thoughts of a longtime Amazon customer service employee.
This employee wrote to us last week after reading about Bezos’s annual letter to shareholders, in which America’s richest man took a jab at his competitors, challenging them to raise their own wages as well, and wrote, rather beatifically “we decided it was time to lead – to offer wages that went beyond competitive. We did it because it seemed like the right thing to do.”
Amazon—no doubt reading the political mood of the nation—raised its minimum wage to $15 an hour last October, but saved itself some money at the same time by ending its program of stock grants and incentive pay for its lowest-paid workers. Its move came after more than a decade of concerted action by the Fight For 15 movement to make the $15 wage a national issue. For Bezos, the cost of the wage increase could be written off as a PR expense. But for Amazon employees themselves, the takeaway is decidedly mixed.
The following note is from a current Amazon customer service agent (CSA):
I work in customer service on a specialty team. I’ve been here for several years. When the raise happened, they got rid of bonuses and stock grants. (For the stock grants, you were given more the longer you were with Amazon, but you have to wait for them to vest.) Sometimes you might get a small gift card as a pat on the back.
The bonuses were based on numbers. Specifically, the number of YES-es you got on the email survey after a contact. It’s hard to calculate because it was applied to everyone, but different departments do better than others depending on the complexity of the contacts they take. I know of many who relied on those bonuses to make up for income shortfall.
Our employee discount is 10%, until we’ve spent $1,000. So, it’s really only $100 per year total.
Everyone hired new gets the $15 per hour. Those of us who have been here got either an extra $2.50 per hour, or a raise to $16.50 per hour, whichever was higher.
We have no idea what our new income cap is. There has been no mention of our twice-annual merit increase of .25 per hour.
When the raise kicked in, I was earning more than $2.50 over my starting pay. I feel they should have given me the same amount over the new starting pay. They did not.
The $16.50 I now make means I can’t get food stamps anymore, but the new pay isn’t really enough to make up the difference.
My department takes difficult calls all day. We are often slammed with back-to-back contacts because Amazon is getting crazy about productivity and starting to treat reps like robots. We’re tired. We’re broke, and Amazon is shouting about how amazing they are because of this raise. It’s hard to watch.
So, no bonuses, no stocks, pitiful discount, extra workload with very little or no time between calls, a raise that really wasn’t, and no idea if we will ever be able to make more than what we do now. I don’t want to seem greedy but we get screamed at by people who really DO expect their orders in two days no matter what. We also get perverts who call because they know we have to be polite (Though, we can hang up.) Then there are the freebie abusers who call demanding compensation for their distress.
We are timed on EVERYTHING. We are way more restricted in what we do than people who work in an office.
Yes, I work from home, but I can’t pay my bills with that. It wasn’t always horrible. I really used to like my job, but the last few years things have really changed. The problem is I NEED my job.
We get 6 paid holidays per year, chances are we WILL have to work on all of them. While it means extra money in overtime, I would rather have time off with my family. I haven’t had a full holiday off in years. You haven’t lived until you’ve taken an angry call on Christmas morning.
This employee wrote to us last week after reading about Bezos’s annual letter to shareholders, in which America’s richest man took a jab at his competitors, challenging them to raise their own wages as well, and wrote, rather beatifically “we decided it was time to lead – to offer wages that went beyond competitive. We did it because it seemed like the right thing to do.”
Amazon—no doubt reading the political mood of the nation—raised its minimum wage to $15 an hour last October, but saved itself some money at the same time by ending its program of stock grants and incentive pay for its lowest-paid workers. Its move came after more than a decade of concerted action by the Fight For 15 movement to make the $15 wage a national issue. For Bezos, the cost of the wage increase could be written off as a PR expense. But for Amazon employees themselves, the takeaway is decidedly mixed.
The following note is from a current Amazon customer service agent (CSA):
I work in customer service on a specialty team. I’ve been here for several years. When the raise happened, they got rid of bonuses and stock grants. (For the stock grants, you were given more the longer you were with Amazon, but you have to wait for them to vest.) Sometimes you might get a small gift card as a pat on the back.
The bonuses were based on numbers. Specifically, the number of YES-es you got on the email survey after a contact. It’s hard to calculate because it was applied to everyone, but different departments do better than others depending on the complexity of the contacts they take. I know of many who relied on those bonuses to make up for income shortfall.
Our employee discount is 10%, until we’ve spent $1,000. So, it’s really only $100 per year total.
Everyone hired new gets the $15 per hour. Those of us who have been here got either an extra $2.50 per hour, or a raise to $16.50 per hour, whichever was higher.
We have no idea what our new income cap is. There has been no mention of our twice-annual merit increase of .25 per hour.
When the raise kicked in, I was earning more than $2.50 over my starting pay. I feel they should have given me the same amount over the new starting pay. They did not.
The $16.50 I now make means I can’t get food stamps anymore, but the new pay isn’t really enough to make up the difference.
My department takes difficult calls all day. We are often slammed with back-to-back contacts because Amazon is getting crazy about productivity and starting to treat reps like robots. We’re tired. We’re broke, and Amazon is shouting about how amazing they are because of this raise. It’s hard to watch.
So, no bonuses, no stocks, pitiful discount, extra workload with very little or no time between calls, a raise that really wasn’t, and no idea if we will ever be able to make more than what we do now. I don’t want to seem greedy but we get screamed at by people who really DO expect their orders in two days no matter what. We also get perverts who call because they know we have to be polite (Though, we can hang up.) Then there are the freebie abusers who call demanding compensation for their distress.
We are timed on EVERYTHING. We are way more restricted in what we do than people who work in an office.
Yes, I work from home, but I can’t pay my bills with that. It wasn’t always horrible. I really used to like my job, but the last few years things have really changed. The problem is I NEED my job.
We get 6 paid holidays per year, chances are we WILL have to work on all of them. While it means extra money in overtime, I would rather have time off with my family. I haven’t had a full holiday off in years. You haven’t lived until you’ve taken an angry call on Christmas morning.
Stop & Shop hit by strike as 31,000 workers walk off job
*Talks break down over healthcare, wages and pensions
*Customers respect picket lines at 240 stores in New England
Sarah Betancourt in Boston
the guardian
Mon 15 Apr 2019 08.37 EDT
The Democratic presidential candidate Senator Elizabeth Warren greets striking Stop & Shop workers while also bringing coffee and donuts on Friday in Somerville, Massachusetts. Photograph: Scott Eisen/Getty Images
More than 31,000 employees of the grocery chain Stop & Shop walked off the job across New England last week, after the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union (UFCW) and management reached an impasse in negotiations.
At the weekend, as the strikers attracted support from among others Senator Elizabeth Warren and former vice-president Joe Biden, the two sides restarted efforts to find a compromise over healthcare, wages and pensions.
Many stores opened on Friday with severely reduced staff and management working registers. In parking lots at the 240 stores affected, longtime customers refused to cross picket lines. At one location in Somerville, Massachusetts, a staffing agency brought in temporary workers to cover missed shifts, much to the chagrin of strikers.
In a video circulated on Facebook, Tyrone Housey, president of UFCW Local 1459 in Springfield, Massachusetts, encouraged union members to ask shoppers not to do business with the company until the strike ends.
The strikers come from all roles, from cashiers to bakers, butchers and deli employees. Their three-year contract expired on 23 February. Several local chapters of the union voted to strike. A Stop & Shop spokeswoman, Jennifer Brogan, said the company had been trying to negotiate.
“Throughout negotiations, Stop & Shop continuously has been available to bargain, every day, for nearly three months,” she said. “The company’s current offer is substantially enhanced, better for associates than most recent UFCW contract settlements, provides overall pay and benefits that are better than what most of our competitors provide, and represents improvements for our associates.”
For Paul Tritto, 59, the strike is about providing the best care for his autistic grandson. An 18-year employee, now a meat manager, Tritto drives more than 40 miles across state lines for his job, in order to support the 16-year-old and his own wife, who is retired and handicapped.
“We were actually in the process of getting him on my health insurance,” Tritto told the Guardian, adding that the proposal the company is pushing would drastically increase his monthly contributions.
“For a family plan right now,” he said, “the deductible is $2,500. With what they’re pushing, it will go up to $5,000.” He and his wife would pay more than $300 a month for coverage, he said, not factoring in additional care and adding his grandson to the mix.
Management is also axing overtime pay on holidays and Sundays, which would mean Tritto would make $20 an hour on Sundays, instead of $30.
“I’d be forced to take a part-time job,” he said. “And that takes more time away from my grandson Seth and wife, who can’t drive.”
The latest proposal from Stop & Shop includes pay increases for associates and an increase of $2 to $4 on health insurance premiums. The pay increase is 50 cents an hour. According to the union, it would not offset higher healthcare costs.
The UFCW national spokeswoman, Erikka Knuti, told the Guardian the average full-time employee would pay $900 in weekly health premiums over three years. Part-timers would pay $600.
Monday is day five of a strike workers think could be successful. Kristen Johnson, a 34-year-old deli manager at a store near McGrath Highway in Massachusetts, said the location usually had about $100,000 in sales on an average Saturday.
“They’ll be lucky if they make $10,000,” she said, describing customers who have joined strikers, delivered pizza and shared coffee. Despite the cuts proposed by the company, Johnson said she was not considering a move.
“We love what we do,” she said, “or else we wouldn’t be here. We love our customers. They’re like our second family. I’m in it for the long haul.”
Johnson said strikers “loved it” when Warren, a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, joined them on the picket line on Friday and urged her audience to not cross it.
“This is a company that made $2bn in profits, that then got a fancy tax break in Washington from the Republicans and now wants to squeeze our workers right here in Massachusetts,” she said.
Last year, Stop & Shop’s parent company, Ahold Delhaize, reported profits of more than $2bn.
Other unions have been supporting the Stop & Shop workers. The Teamsters Council 10, for example, is cutting off supplies like produce and perishables and stopping trash pick-up.
At the weekend, as the strikers attracted support from among others Senator Elizabeth Warren and former vice-president Joe Biden, the two sides restarted efforts to find a compromise over healthcare, wages and pensions.
Many stores opened on Friday with severely reduced staff and management working registers. In parking lots at the 240 stores affected, longtime customers refused to cross picket lines. At one location in Somerville, Massachusetts, a staffing agency brought in temporary workers to cover missed shifts, much to the chagrin of strikers.
In a video circulated on Facebook, Tyrone Housey, president of UFCW Local 1459 in Springfield, Massachusetts, encouraged union members to ask shoppers not to do business with the company until the strike ends.
The strikers come from all roles, from cashiers to bakers, butchers and deli employees. Their three-year contract expired on 23 February. Several local chapters of the union voted to strike. A Stop & Shop spokeswoman, Jennifer Brogan, said the company had been trying to negotiate.
“Throughout negotiations, Stop & Shop continuously has been available to bargain, every day, for nearly three months,” she said. “The company’s current offer is substantially enhanced, better for associates than most recent UFCW contract settlements, provides overall pay and benefits that are better than what most of our competitors provide, and represents improvements for our associates.”
For Paul Tritto, 59, the strike is about providing the best care for his autistic grandson. An 18-year employee, now a meat manager, Tritto drives more than 40 miles across state lines for his job, in order to support the 16-year-old and his own wife, who is retired and handicapped.
“We were actually in the process of getting him on my health insurance,” Tritto told the Guardian, adding that the proposal the company is pushing would drastically increase his monthly contributions.
“For a family plan right now,” he said, “the deductible is $2,500. With what they’re pushing, it will go up to $5,000.” He and his wife would pay more than $300 a month for coverage, he said, not factoring in additional care and adding his grandson to the mix.
Management is also axing overtime pay on holidays and Sundays, which would mean Tritto would make $20 an hour on Sundays, instead of $30.
“I’d be forced to take a part-time job,” he said. “And that takes more time away from my grandson Seth and wife, who can’t drive.”
The latest proposal from Stop & Shop includes pay increases for associates and an increase of $2 to $4 on health insurance premiums. The pay increase is 50 cents an hour. According to the union, it would not offset higher healthcare costs.
The UFCW national spokeswoman, Erikka Knuti, told the Guardian the average full-time employee would pay $900 in weekly health premiums over three years. Part-timers would pay $600.
Monday is day five of a strike workers think could be successful. Kristen Johnson, a 34-year-old deli manager at a store near McGrath Highway in Massachusetts, said the location usually had about $100,000 in sales on an average Saturday.
“They’ll be lucky if they make $10,000,” she said, describing customers who have joined strikers, delivered pizza and shared coffee. Despite the cuts proposed by the company, Johnson said she was not considering a move.
“We love what we do,” she said, “or else we wouldn’t be here. We love our customers. They’re like our second family. I’m in it for the long haul.”
Johnson said strikers “loved it” when Warren, a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, joined them on the picket line on Friday and urged her audience to not cross it.
“This is a company that made $2bn in profits, that then got a fancy tax break in Washington from the Republicans and now wants to squeeze our workers right here in Massachusetts,” she said.
Last year, Stop & Shop’s parent company, Ahold Delhaize, reported profits of more than $2bn.
Other unions have been supporting the Stop & Shop workers. The Teamsters Council 10, for example, is cutting off supplies like produce and perishables and stopping trash pick-up.
CIRCA 1870: A CARTOON SATIRISING THE SWEATSHOPS OF THE CLOTHING INDUSTRY. ORIGINAL ARTIST: BY JOHN LEECH FROM PUNCH MAGAZINE. (PHOTO BY RISCHGITZ/GETTY IMAGES)
US union seeks $100m in largest wage theft case involving federal contractor
Labor department is reviewing several complaints against General Dynamics, which operates call centers across the Us
Michael Sainato
the guardian
Thu 4 Apr 2019 03.00 EDT
An American union is seeking to win more than $100m in back wages from a private call center firm in a move that, if successful, would win the largest wage theft case involving federal contractors in history.
The Department of Labor is currently reviewing several complaints filed by the Communications Workers of America against the federal contractor General Dynamics, a company that operated several call centers across the US under federal contracts.
The CWA estimates thousands of current and former workers at the company stand to receive back pay dating from 2013 – and the case has energized a move to unionize the firm’s workforce. Wage theft is defined as not paying workers the compensation they deserve through things like unpaid overtime or mis-classifying workers.
General Dynamics was acquired in November 2018 by Virginia-based federal contractor Maximus in a $400m deal. Employees argue the working conditions under Maximus haven’t changed since the acquisition, and are pushing to form a union to improve wages, benefits and the work environment.
“Absolutely nothing has changed but the name,” said Railonnie Brooks, a trainer at a Maximus call center in Hattiesburg, Mississippi that focuses on providing customer service for medicare recipients and the Affordable Care Act marketplace.
She has worked at the call center since it opened in October 2013, from when General Dynamics operated it through the acquisition by Maximus. About 2,000 workers are employed at the call center.
“We are not paid what we’re worth,” added Brooks, who noted base employees at the call center make just $10.35 an hour.
Things are not much better further up the management chain, workers say. Tiandra Robinson has also worked at the Maximus call center in Hattiesburg, Mississippi, as an instructor since it opened under General Dynamics in 2013. “Right off the bat, things started to go downhill. My position was reclassified and I ended up making $16.83 an hour and that is the wage I have remained at since 2013,” said Robinson.
She referred to the work conditions at her call center as “deplorable” and cited examples of bed bug infestations in her instruction classrooms.
At Maximus’s call center in Bogalusa, Louisiana, workers who focus on responding to queries about government healthcare services, explained their work environment and restrooms are not kept clean or properly stocked and maintained.
Sylvia Walker has worked at the Bogalusa call center since 2013, and has been reprimanded by management for distributing union flyers in the parking lot.
“I want to be able to organize, not be criticized, not be antagonized or made to feel like someone is watching me. As long as I do my job, in the parking lot I should be able to say whatever I want about the union,” said Walker. “I believe if I give you my best on the job, and I come every day to give my best, you can compensate me with a decent wage. I should not have to go without basic necessities.”
On 20 March 2019, workers attended Maximus’ shareholder meeting in Reston, Virginia, to voice their concerns over how call center workers are treated and to push the company to allow workers to organize a union without intimidation and interference.
“The deck is really stacked against workers because employers have fairly free rein to conduct an anti-union campaign that can be very intimidating for workers and that’s what we’ve seen at General Dynamics and Maximus,” said Alex Van Schaick, an attorney at the Communications Workers of America.
The basis of the complaints revolve around how workers are classified, with the CWA arguing the call center workers are misclassified in lower-paying job titles, given the responsibilities and complexities their jobs entail. Under the law, minimum prevailing wages are set for federal contractors based on location and job duties.
An October 2018 report published by the Kalmanovitz Initiative for Labor and the Working Poor at Georgetown University found properly classifying Maximus call center workers in Hattiesburg, Mississippi, would inject $9.7m annually in the local community through wage increases, and help create nearly 200 jobs over the next four years.
“Call center workers need fairly reclassified jobs, as well as a real freedom to form unions and negotiate higher pay,” said Dr Patrick Dixon, research analyst at the Kalmanovitz Initiative who authored the report. “Our research shows that these steps would raise area families out of poverty and tackle historical racial and gender pay inequities.”
The Department of Labor declined to comment on the wage theft complaints still in litigation.
A spokesperson for Maximus told the Guardian in an email: “We comply with all wage rates and employee classifications as established by the [Department of Labor]. We are proud of the fact that we provide employees with fair treatment, personal dignity and respect, good working conditions, competitive wages and an excellent benefits package, in addition to opportunities for career advancement.”
The Department of Labor is currently reviewing several complaints filed by the Communications Workers of America against the federal contractor General Dynamics, a company that operated several call centers across the US under federal contracts.
The CWA estimates thousands of current and former workers at the company stand to receive back pay dating from 2013 – and the case has energized a move to unionize the firm’s workforce. Wage theft is defined as not paying workers the compensation they deserve through things like unpaid overtime or mis-classifying workers.
General Dynamics was acquired in November 2018 by Virginia-based federal contractor Maximus in a $400m deal. Employees argue the working conditions under Maximus haven’t changed since the acquisition, and are pushing to form a union to improve wages, benefits and the work environment.
“Absolutely nothing has changed but the name,” said Railonnie Brooks, a trainer at a Maximus call center in Hattiesburg, Mississippi that focuses on providing customer service for medicare recipients and the Affordable Care Act marketplace.
She has worked at the call center since it opened in October 2013, from when General Dynamics operated it through the acquisition by Maximus. About 2,000 workers are employed at the call center.
“We are not paid what we’re worth,” added Brooks, who noted base employees at the call center make just $10.35 an hour.
Things are not much better further up the management chain, workers say. Tiandra Robinson has also worked at the Maximus call center in Hattiesburg, Mississippi, as an instructor since it opened under General Dynamics in 2013. “Right off the bat, things started to go downhill. My position was reclassified and I ended up making $16.83 an hour and that is the wage I have remained at since 2013,” said Robinson.
She referred to the work conditions at her call center as “deplorable” and cited examples of bed bug infestations in her instruction classrooms.
At Maximus’s call center in Bogalusa, Louisiana, workers who focus on responding to queries about government healthcare services, explained their work environment and restrooms are not kept clean or properly stocked and maintained.
Sylvia Walker has worked at the Bogalusa call center since 2013, and has been reprimanded by management for distributing union flyers in the parking lot.
“I want to be able to organize, not be criticized, not be antagonized or made to feel like someone is watching me. As long as I do my job, in the parking lot I should be able to say whatever I want about the union,” said Walker. “I believe if I give you my best on the job, and I come every day to give my best, you can compensate me with a decent wage. I should not have to go without basic necessities.”
On 20 March 2019, workers attended Maximus’ shareholder meeting in Reston, Virginia, to voice their concerns over how call center workers are treated and to push the company to allow workers to organize a union without intimidation and interference.
“The deck is really stacked against workers because employers have fairly free rein to conduct an anti-union campaign that can be very intimidating for workers and that’s what we’ve seen at General Dynamics and Maximus,” said Alex Van Schaick, an attorney at the Communications Workers of America.
The basis of the complaints revolve around how workers are classified, with the CWA arguing the call center workers are misclassified in lower-paying job titles, given the responsibilities and complexities their jobs entail. Under the law, minimum prevailing wages are set for federal contractors based on location and job duties.
An October 2018 report published by the Kalmanovitz Initiative for Labor and the Working Poor at Georgetown University found properly classifying Maximus call center workers in Hattiesburg, Mississippi, would inject $9.7m annually in the local community through wage increases, and help create nearly 200 jobs over the next four years.
“Call center workers need fairly reclassified jobs, as well as a real freedom to form unions and negotiate higher pay,” said Dr Patrick Dixon, research analyst at the Kalmanovitz Initiative who authored the report. “Our research shows that these steps would raise area families out of poverty and tackle historical racial and gender pay inequities.”
The Department of Labor declined to comment on the wage theft complaints still in litigation.
A spokesperson for Maximus told the Guardian in an email: “We comply with all wage rates and employee classifications as established by the [Department of Labor]. We are proud of the fact that we provide employees with fair treatment, personal dignity and respect, good working conditions, competitive wages and an excellent benefits package, in addition to opportunities for career advancement.”
Harley Davidson workers in Wisconsin reject new labor contract
by Rajesh Kumar Singh - Reuters - raw story
02 APR 2019 AT 15:43 ET
Harley-Davidson Inc’s workers in Milwaukee and Tomahawk, Wisconsin, have rejected the motorcycle maker’s proposal for a five-year contract, their union said on Tuesday, citing non-financial issues such as temporary workers and job security.
The current contract was set to expire on April 1. But Harley and the United Steelworkers (USW) union, which represents more than 1,000 hourly employees at the two facilities, said they had agreed to extend the contract through April 14.
The union is pressing the Milwaukee-based company to address issues related to temporary workers, job security, scheduling, and seniority and temporary workers rights.
A USW official told Reuters the union wants to protect full-time workers from layoffs. While it is asking for a roadmap that would allow temporary workers to become full time workers, it is opposed to the company using temporary workers to pull work away from full-time employees.
Harley did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the non-financial issues.
In a statement earlier, the company said it was disappointed with the union’s decision to reject a “competitive” offer. The company, however, said production would continue as usual at all of its facilities.
Under the proposed agreement, Harley’s employees would have received a 14 percent wage increase during the contract period as well as a $2,250 signing bonus.
The proposal also included no changes to healthcare and significant pension enhancements for current employees, along with a retirement incentive for those eligible to retire, Harley said.
The average wage for current, regular full-time employees under the first year of the agreement was proposed to be over $25 an hour in Tomahawk and over $33 per hour in the Milwaukee area.
The statement did not quantify the financial impact of the proposal for a company that has been struggling to revive demand in the United States, which accounts for nearly 60 percent of total bike sales.
Adding to its troubles, it is estimated that a tariff war waged by U.S. President Donald Trump will cost the company between $100 million and $120 million in 2019 and contribute to a 6-percentage-point drop in operating margins in the quarter that just ended.
To avoid fallout from the tariff war, Harley is spending $15 million to expand a facility in Thailand to serve European markets.
A decision to shift production out of the United States for European markets was announced last summer after the EU slapped tariffs on U.S. imports in response to Trump’s duties on steel and aluminum imports from the trading bloc.
Trump had blasted Harley’s decision and publicly backed a boycott of the company.
The current contract was set to expire on April 1. But Harley and the United Steelworkers (USW) union, which represents more than 1,000 hourly employees at the two facilities, said they had agreed to extend the contract through April 14.
The union is pressing the Milwaukee-based company to address issues related to temporary workers, job security, scheduling, and seniority and temporary workers rights.
A USW official told Reuters the union wants to protect full-time workers from layoffs. While it is asking for a roadmap that would allow temporary workers to become full time workers, it is opposed to the company using temporary workers to pull work away from full-time employees.
Harley did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the non-financial issues.
In a statement earlier, the company said it was disappointed with the union’s decision to reject a “competitive” offer. The company, however, said production would continue as usual at all of its facilities.
Under the proposed agreement, Harley’s employees would have received a 14 percent wage increase during the contract period as well as a $2,250 signing bonus.
The proposal also included no changes to healthcare and significant pension enhancements for current employees, along with a retirement incentive for those eligible to retire, Harley said.
The average wage for current, regular full-time employees under the first year of the agreement was proposed to be over $25 an hour in Tomahawk and over $33 per hour in the Milwaukee area.
The statement did not quantify the financial impact of the proposal for a company that has been struggling to revive demand in the United States, which accounts for nearly 60 percent of total bike sales.
Adding to its troubles, it is estimated that a tariff war waged by U.S. President Donald Trump will cost the company between $100 million and $120 million in 2019 and contribute to a 6-percentage-point drop in operating margins in the quarter that just ended.
To avoid fallout from the tariff war, Harley is spending $15 million to expand a facility in Thailand to serve European markets.
A decision to shift production out of the United States for European markets was announced last summer after the EU slapped tariffs on U.S. imports in response to Trump’s duties on steel and aluminum imports from the trading bloc.
Trump had blasted Harley’s decision and publicly backed a boycott of the company.
promoting wage thief!!!
Trump’s Labor Department Does McDonald’s Another Solid
The Trump administration is rolling out a plan that would help insulate big franchisers from allegations of wage theft.
By Dave Jamieson - huffpost
04/01/2019 01:20 pm ET
The fast-food president is serving up another regulatory rollback for his favorite burger chains.
The Labor Department announced Monday that it plans to implement a new rule restricting the circumstances under which a company can be legally considered a joint employer. The proposed rule would be a boon to McDonald’s and other big companies whose restaurants tend to be operated by franchisees.
The Obama administration interpreted joint employer status in a way that could put the chains on the hook for labor violations at franchised stores ― a legal position that infuriated the fast-food industry, which argues that only franchisees should be liable. The Trump administration ditched that Obama guidance in 2017 and would now go a step further by writing a new rule.
Labor Secretary Alexander Acosta said in a statement that the proposal would “reduce uncertainty” and “clarify for workers who is responsible for their employment protections” ― that is, who is culpable if they haven’t been paid the minimum wage or overtime pay.
The measure would have to go through a public comment period before the administration may implement it. The administration’s plans were first reported by Bloomberg Law.
If it ends up on the books, judges would consider the rule as they evaluate the merits of wage theft lawsuits brought by workers. It would affect not only the fast food industry but also any one in which there is outsourcing or subcontracting and the lines of employment can get blurry, including the hospitality business, where the Trump family makes much of its money.
Under the proposal, there would be four factors to consider when determining whether a company qualifies as a joint employer: whether it can hire or fire the employee in question, controls the work schedule, sets the rate of pay or maintains the employment records.
Those criteria would be tighter than under the Obama administration, which took a broad reading of what it means to be an employer, so that a company that uses a temp firm, for instance, can’t dodge responsibility if workers don’t get paid for their work. The franchise lobby called the Obama administration’s wide interpretation of the law “one of the most costly and burdensome regulations” for its industry.
David Weil, who led the Labor Department’s wage and hour division under Obama, told HuffPost in 2016 that many companies use subcontracting and franchising arrangements to avoid accountability.
“What we’re trying to do is sort of rebuild — particularly in industries that employ low-wage, vulnerable workers — a foundation for basic labor standards by making people understand their fundamental responsibilities,” he said. “The real problems arise when people make business decisions hoping they can shift responsibilities to some other party.”
The Labor Department isn’t the only agency reversing Obama-era regulations on employment. The National Labor Relations Board, which referees disputes between unions and employers, has also moved to undo a broad reading of joint employment, drawing plaudits from business groups.
The NLRB issued a ruling in 2015 that could have paved the way for McDonald’s workers to band together even if they worked under different franchisees. But when the board fell under Republican control in 2017, the new majority issued a ruling overturning the rule set by Democratic members.
The Labor Department announced Monday that it plans to implement a new rule restricting the circumstances under which a company can be legally considered a joint employer. The proposed rule would be a boon to McDonald’s and other big companies whose restaurants tend to be operated by franchisees.
The Obama administration interpreted joint employer status in a way that could put the chains on the hook for labor violations at franchised stores ― a legal position that infuriated the fast-food industry, which argues that only franchisees should be liable. The Trump administration ditched that Obama guidance in 2017 and would now go a step further by writing a new rule.
Labor Secretary Alexander Acosta said in a statement that the proposal would “reduce uncertainty” and “clarify for workers who is responsible for their employment protections” ― that is, who is culpable if they haven’t been paid the minimum wage or overtime pay.
The measure would have to go through a public comment period before the administration may implement it. The administration’s plans were first reported by Bloomberg Law.
If it ends up on the books, judges would consider the rule as they evaluate the merits of wage theft lawsuits brought by workers. It would affect not only the fast food industry but also any one in which there is outsourcing or subcontracting and the lines of employment can get blurry, including the hospitality business, where the Trump family makes much of its money.
Under the proposal, there would be four factors to consider when determining whether a company qualifies as a joint employer: whether it can hire or fire the employee in question, controls the work schedule, sets the rate of pay or maintains the employment records.
Those criteria would be tighter than under the Obama administration, which took a broad reading of what it means to be an employer, so that a company that uses a temp firm, for instance, can’t dodge responsibility if workers don’t get paid for their work. The franchise lobby called the Obama administration’s wide interpretation of the law “one of the most costly and burdensome regulations” for its industry.
David Weil, who led the Labor Department’s wage and hour division under Obama, told HuffPost in 2016 that many companies use subcontracting and franchising arrangements to avoid accountability.
“What we’re trying to do is sort of rebuild — particularly in industries that employ low-wage, vulnerable workers — a foundation for basic labor standards by making people understand their fundamental responsibilities,” he said. “The real problems arise when people make business decisions hoping they can shift responsibilities to some other party.”
The Labor Department isn’t the only agency reversing Obama-era regulations on employment. The National Labor Relations Board, which referees disputes between unions and employers, has also moved to undo a broad reading of joint employment, drawing plaudits from business groups.
The NLRB issued a ruling in 2015 that could have paved the way for McDonald’s workers to band together even if they worked under different franchisees. But when the board fell under Republican control in 2017, the new majority issued a ruling overturning the rule set by Democratic members.
Trump-Appointed Board Proposes Major Blow to Air and Rail Unions
BY Michael Arria, Truthout
PUBLISHED March 29, 2019
Flight attendants played a crucial role in forcing an end to the government shutdown. Now the survival of their unions is being quietly threatened by Trump appointees on the National Mediation Board (NMB), an independent agency that was established in 1934 to resolve labor-management disputes in the airline and railroad industries.
Since November 2017, the three-member panel that oversees the NMB has been controlled by Republicans, as the Senate confirmed both of Trump’s nominees, Gerald W. Fauth III and Kyle Fortson. Trump was also required to nominate one Democrat by law and he chose Linda Puchala, an Obama appointee who has served on the NMB since 2009.
The board is currently targeting the Railway Labor Act (RLA). That’s a federal law that was established in 1926 to govern labor disputes in the railroad industry and give workers the right to engage in collective bargaining. Although originally created specifically for railroad workers, it was extended to cover the airline industry in 1936. According to the RLA, any employee who wants to decertify their union must first get signatures from half of the workforce. After the signatures have been obtained, a “straw man” is established to run against the union. Workers then get to vote either for the union, for the straw man, or for no representation at all. The rule is designed to give workers the option to vote for new representation if they have an issue with the direction of the union, as opposed to getting rid of the union altogether.
In a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) issued on January 31, Fauth and Fortson made it clear that they’re seeking to create a “straightforward election process” and get rid of the strawman rule. Under the new criteria, workers would only be able to vote for the union, vote for no union or write in a vote. This would effectively make it much easier for a worker to decertify their union. Under the new rule, the workforce couldn’t be unionized again for two years, which is an increase to the current one-year ban that comes after decertification.
A Shameless Attack on a Strongly Unionized Sector
The NMB’s move fits into the Trump administration’s consistent pro-employer agenda, but the appointees’ January 31 offensive against the rail and air unions could easily come across as a form of retaliation, whether that was the conscious intention or not.
Flight attendant Sara Nelson — the president of the Association of Flight Attendants-CWA union — publicly called for a general strike on January 20 to end President Trump’s government shutdown. Less than a week later, Trump agreed to endorse a stopgap bill to temporarily open the government back up so that lawmakers could negotiate an appropriations bill to end the shutdown. Nelson’s declaration coincided with a number of airport workers calling in sick because they weren’t being paid. The labor movement had effectively forced the president to act.
Eleven days after Nelson’s momentous declaration, Trump appointees proposed a potential major blow for the airline and railroad industries, introducing a new rule that would make it easier for the union in these industries to be decertified.
Beyond the Trump administration’s view of the flight attendants’ union, there is also a more general reason why anti-labor forces are eager to target these industries: their unionization percentages are higher than other sectors. Eighty-two percent of Class 1 railroad workers belong to a union in the U.S., and according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the majority of overall railroad workers belong to a union. Not only is the majority of the airline industry unionized, their power has led to real victories for their employees: wages and benefits have increased by 46 percent since 2010.
“There is no legal authority for this NMB proposal to create a more ‘direct’ decertification process and no groundswell of support among airline employees for a new decertification procedure,” Sara Nelson told Truthout. “Airline employees understand the critical importance of having a contract. There is absolutely no interest expressed by workers to decertify and give up their union contract.”
Nelson also attributed the move to Wall Street pressure on airlines to cut costs and weaken union power in the industry. “The proposal is coming from ideologues who fantasize about weakening labor in the most unionized industry in America,” said Nelson. “This is an absurd waste of time and resources across the board.”
Right-to-Work for the Skies?
The proposed rule came just a couple of months after Trump’s National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) threw out a unionization vote by baggage handlers at a Portland airport, a vote which had been approved by Obama’s NLRB. Republicans on the current board ruled that the votes of contract workers at ABM Onsite Services-West were invalid because the company was connected to air transport and thus their unionization effort shouldn’t have been decided by the NLRB, but the NMB. This also means that baggage handlers and other airport workers fall under the jurisdiction of the RLA, which makes organizing employees a much trickier endeavor. Under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), which covers the majority of private sector companies, workers can organize smaller “micro units” while attempting to unionize. Under the RLA, bargaining takes place over a system-wide basis, as opposed to a facility by facility one, and every employee for a given job type gets to vote, even if they work in a different state.
Airport workers have been on the forefront of the Fight for $15 movement and groups like the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) have helped them win notable victories in recent years. Last fall, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey voted to raise the wages of airport employees to $19 an hour by 2023. Héctor Figueroa is the president of 32BJ SEIU, which launched the organizing campaign back in 2011.
“The 175,000 property service workers with 32BJ SEIU stand with all our brothers and sisters in labor against President Trump’s relentless attacks on working families,” Figueroa told Truthout in a statement. “Washington seems determined to chip away at good union jobs for regular people while rigging the system to benefit the wealthy few. Our elected leaders should be making it easier, not harder, for workers to join unions and win better benefits, as this would boost our economy and ultimately benefit all of us. We will not let Washington deter us from working to achieve a just and fair society.”
At the same time the NMB looks to make the decertification process in these industries easier, a right-wing Michigan-based think tank is pushing a lawsuit that would essentially make the railroad and airline industries “right to work” and enable employees to refrain from paying any union dues at all.
The plaintiffs in the case of Rizzo-Rupon are Lin Rizzo-Rupon, Noemieo Oliveira and Susan Marshall, all customer service employees for United Airlines. However, their lawsuit was filed by the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, a right-wing think tank and member of the infamous American Legislative Exchange Council. Since the Supreme Court ruled that that nonunion workers can’t be forced to pay union fees last June in Janus v. AFSCME, conservative groups have spearheaded dozens of similar lawsuits to further erode the power of unions. In many ways Rizzo-Rupon is a retread of Serna v. TWU, a 2016 lawsuit that was funded and pushed by the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation. The Supreme Court wouldn’t hear the case, but that was before the Janus decision and before Brett Kavanaugh became a justice.
Public comments on the NMB move are being sought through April 1.
Since November 2017, the three-member panel that oversees the NMB has been controlled by Republicans, as the Senate confirmed both of Trump’s nominees, Gerald W. Fauth III and Kyle Fortson. Trump was also required to nominate one Democrat by law and he chose Linda Puchala, an Obama appointee who has served on the NMB since 2009.
The board is currently targeting the Railway Labor Act (RLA). That’s a federal law that was established in 1926 to govern labor disputes in the railroad industry and give workers the right to engage in collective bargaining. Although originally created specifically for railroad workers, it was extended to cover the airline industry in 1936. According to the RLA, any employee who wants to decertify their union must first get signatures from half of the workforce. After the signatures have been obtained, a “straw man” is established to run against the union. Workers then get to vote either for the union, for the straw man, or for no representation at all. The rule is designed to give workers the option to vote for new representation if they have an issue with the direction of the union, as opposed to getting rid of the union altogether.
In a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) issued on January 31, Fauth and Fortson made it clear that they’re seeking to create a “straightforward election process” and get rid of the strawman rule. Under the new criteria, workers would only be able to vote for the union, vote for no union or write in a vote. This would effectively make it much easier for a worker to decertify their union. Under the new rule, the workforce couldn’t be unionized again for two years, which is an increase to the current one-year ban that comes after decertification.
A Shameless Attack on a Strongly Unionized Sector
The NMB’s move fits into the Trump administration’s consistent pro-employer agenda, but the appointees’ January 31 offensive against the rail and air unions could easily come across as a form of retaliation, whether that was the conscious intention or not.
Flight attendant Sara Nelson — the president of the Association of Flight Attendants-CWA union — publicly called for a general strike on January 20 to end President Trump’s government shutdown. Less than a week later, Trump agreed to endorse a stopgap bill to temporarily open the government back up so that lawmakers could negotiate an appropriations bill to end the shutdown. Nelson’s declaration coincided with a number of airport workers calling in sick because they weren’t being paid. The labor movement had effectively forced the president to act.
Eleven days after Nelson’s momentous declaration, Trump appointees proposed a potential major blow for the airline and railroad industries, introducing a new rule that would make it easier for the union in these industries to be decertified.
Beyond the Trump administration’s view of the flight attendants’ union, there is also a more general reason why anti-labor forces are eager to target these industries: their unionization percentages are higher than other sectors. Eighty-two percent of Class 1 railroad workers belong to a union in the U.S., and according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the majority of overall railroad workers belong to a union. Not only is the majority of the airline industry unionized, their power has led to real victories for their employees: wages and benefits have increased by 46 percent since 2010.
“There is no legal authority for this NMB proposal to create a more ‘direct’ decertification process and no groundswell of support among airline employees for a new decertification procedure,” Sara Nelson told Truthout. “Airline employees understand the critical importance of having a contract. There is absolutely no interest expressed by workers to decertify and give up their union contract.”
Nelson also attributed the move to Wall Street pressure on airlines to cut costs and weaken union power in the industry. “The proposal is coming from ideologues who fantasize about weakening labor in the most unionized industry in America,” said Nelson. “This is an absurd waste of time and resources across the board.”
Right-to-Work for the Skies?
The proposed rule came just a couple of months after Trump’s National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) threw out a unionization vote by baggage handlers at a Portland airport, a vote which had been approved by Obama’s NLRB. Republicans on the current board ruled that the votes of contract workers at ABM Onsite Services-West were invalid because the company was connected to air transport and thus their unionization effort shouldn’t have been decided by the NLRB, but the NMB. This also means that baggage handlers and other airport workers fall under the jurisdiction of the RLA, which makes organizing employees a much trickier endeavor. Under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), which covers the majority of private sector companies, workers can organize smaller “micro units” while attempting to unionize. Under the RLA, bargaining takes place over a system-wide basis, as opposed to a facility by facility one, and every employee for a given job type gets to vote, even if they work in a different state.
Airport workers have been on the forefront of the Fight for $15 movement and groups like the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) have helped them win notable victories in recent years. Last fall, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey voted to raise the wages of airport employees to $19 an hour by 2023. Héctor Figueroa is the president of 32BJ SEIU, which launched the organizing campaign back in 2011.
“The 175,000 property service workers with 32BJ SEIU stand with all our brothers and sisters in labor against President Trump’s relentless attacks on working families,” Figueroa told Truthout in a statement. “Washington seems determined to chip away at good union jobs for regular people while rigging the system to benefit the wealthy few. Our elected leaders should be making it easier, not harder, for workers to join unions and win better benefits, as this would boost our economy and ultimately benefit all of us. We will not let Washington deter us from working to achieve a just and fair society.”
At the same time the NMB looks to make the decertification process in these industries easier, a right-wing Michigan-based think tank is pushing a lawsuit that would essentially make the railroad and airline industries “right to work” and enable employees to refrain from paying any union dues at all.
The plaintiffs in the case of Rizzo-Rupon are Lin Rizzo-Rupon, Noemieo Oliveira and Susan Marshall, all customer service employees for United Airlines. However, their lawsuit was filed by the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, a right-wing think tank and member of the infamous American Legislative Exchange Council. Since the Supreme Court ruled that that nonunion workers can’t be forced to pay union fees last June in Janus v. AFSCME, conservative groups have spearheaded dozens of similar lawsuits to further erode the power of unions. In many ways Rizzo-Rupon is a retread of Serna v. TWU, a 2016 lawsuit that was funded and pushed by the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation. The Supreme Court wouldn’t hear the case, but that was before the Janus decision and before Brett Kavanaugh became a justice.
Public comments on the NMB move are being sought through April 1.
What It Will Take to Build Union Support for the Green New Deal—Despite the AFL-CIO
BY SARAH LAZARE - in these times
TUESDAY, MAR 26, 2019, 12:35 PM
As the sun was still rising last Friday morning, employees from Headly Manufacturing outside of Chicago participated in a 6:00 a.m. hour-long unfair labor practice strike. But when the approximately 25 workers tried to return to their jobs, they were locked out of the building, unable to complete what was many of their last days or collect their final paychecks.
According to a press release from the workers’ justice organization Arise Chicago, Headly had threatened individual employees that they would be fired, which inspired them to take collective action.
“We strike for ourselves because we don't have anything to support our families, because we need our jobs to put food on the table,” striking worker Mario Albor told In These Times. “Right now, we don't have jobs. We don't know what to do.”
For seven years, Albor has worked for the Broadview-based Headly Manufacturing, which produces precision-drawn metal stamps. He said he was laid off with many of his co-workers with no written explanation. Headly did not return phone and email requests for comment from In These Times.
Albor, who says he worked for the quality-control department, assumes Headly wants to rehire staffers without benefits like insurance and vacation that employees currently receive. Crain’s Chicago Business reported that recent job postings include slightly higher wages with fewer benefits.
The workers aren't unionized, but they are supported by Arise Chicago. They marked their strike with a large Arise Chicago banner stating, “Worker Rights = Immigrant Rights = Human Rights.”
“There was a lot of confusion going around, and the workers were scared that today was going to be their last day,” Shelly Ruzicka, communications director for Arise Chicago, told In These Times. She added, “The reason they did this together was so that it would be protected ‘concerted activity,’ trying to save their jobs saying that this supposed announcement of firing was unjust firing.”
After the shock of sudden unemployment, Albor said it felt good to fight for justice collectively. During the demonstration, Headly called the police, which delayed strikers’ ability to access their workplace, according to Albor. Albor said that when the police allowed them to make an unconditional return to work, they were locked out, a common practice in labor disputes. Co-director of the National Legal Advocacy Network Chris Williams, who is serving as the workers’ legal representative, corroborated Albor’s version of events.
“It's frustrating because we want answers,” Albor said. “And they're not willing to give us any answers or speak with us and they closed the door.”
Williams filed a complaint with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), arguing that the workers’ non-economic strike about discrimination and unfair treatment is protected under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), the law governing private sector employees’ collective bargaining rights. He said this situation is a “pretty clear-cut violation” of NLRA Section 8(a)(1) prohibiting interference with the right to organize and Section 8(a)(3) concerning adverse actions like a lockout. He said it usually takes a few weeks to hear back from the NLRB about interviewing affected workers, but he is optimistic based on existing precedent.
“The Fight for $15 regularly holds short-term strikes on non-economic issues and [strikers] go back to work unconditionally,” he said. “The employer is not allowed to terminate people on that basis and they did in this case.”
While Albor hopes to get his job at Headly back, he’s already thinking about his future and the struggle to find a position with a similar salary and benefits. He and his wife had a baby four months ago and they own a home with a mortgage.
“They could at least pay us some money so we can support ourselves in the meantime until we find a new job,” he said. “Right now, we don't have money because they didn't give us our last paycheck and we still got to pay rent because bills won't wait.”
It’s a sentiment echoed by many striking Headly employees, some of whom have been with the company for over 20 years. Quoted in the Arise Chicago press release, worker Genaro Garcia said, “We have families to feed, and if we’re fired, now we’ll be short on funds and unable to support our families. We are demanding that the company keep us employed or minimally give us more notice in order to be able to look for new jobs. It’s not easy to find work.”
With both the University of Illinois at Chicago graduate workers and the Chicago Symphony Orchestra on strike, Ruzicka of Arise Chicago is hopeful about the power of organized labor. “When workers take bold action, you can win,” she said. “We like to say when you strike, you win.”
She said an important lesson of Friday’s strike is even without the backing of a union, employees can still work together to advance their rights.
“We know a majority of workers in this country don't have a union,” she said. “It's very important that workers know even if you don't have a union you can still take collective action and you are protected. Better yet, organize and get union.”
According to a press release from the workers’ justice organization Arise Chicago, Headly had threatened individual employees that they would be fired, which inspired them to take collective action.
“We strike for ourselves because we don't have anything to support our families, because we need our jobs to put food on the table,” striking worker Mario Albor told In These Times. “Right now, we don't have jobs. We don't know what to do.”
For seven years, Albor has worked for the Broadview-based Headly Manufacturing, which produces precision-drawn metal stamps. He said he was laid off with many of his co-workers with no written explanation. Headly did not return phone and email requests for comment from In These Times.
Albor, who says he worked for the quality-control department, assumes Headly wants to rehire staffers without benefits like insurance and vacation that employees currently receive. Crain’s Chicago Business reported that recent job postings include slightly higher wages with fewer benefits.
The workers aren't unionized, but they are supported by Arise Chicago. They marked their strike with a large Arise Chicago banner stating, “Worker Rights = Immigrant Rights = Human Rights.”
“There was a lot of confusion going around, and the workers were scared that today was going to be their last day,” Shelly Ruzicka, communications director for Arise Chicago, told In These Times. She added, “The reason they did this together was so that it would be protected ‘concerted activity,’ trying to save their jobs saying that this supposed announcement of firing was unjust firing.”
After the shock of sudden unemployment, Albor said it felt good to fight for justice collectively. During the demonstration, Headly called the police, which delayed strikers’ ability to access their workplace, according to Albor. Albor said that when the police allowed them to make an unconditional return to work, they were locked out, a common practice in labor disputes. Co-director of the National Legal Advocacy Network Chris Williams, who is serving as the workers’ legal representative, corroborated Albor’s version of events.
“It's frustrating because we want answers,” Albor said. “And they're not willing to give us any answers or speak with us and they closed the door.”
Williams filed a complaint with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), arguing that the workers’ non-economic strike about discrimination and unfair treatment is protected under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), the law governing private sector employees’ collective bargaining rights. He said this situation is a “pretty clear-cut violation” of NLRA Section 8(a)(1) prohibiting interference with the right to organize and Section 8(a)(3) concerning adverse actions like a lockout. He said it usually takes a few weeks to hear back from the NLRB about interviewing affected workers, but he is optimistic based on existing precedent.
“The Fight for $15 regularly holds short-term strikes on non-economic issues and [strikers] go back to work unconditionally,” he said. “The employer is not allowed to terminate people on that basis and they did in this case.”
While Albor hopes to get his job at Headly back, he’s already thinking about his future and the struggle to find a position with a similar salary and benefits. He and his wife had a baby four months ago and they own a home with a mortgage.
“They could at least pay us some money so we can support ourselves in the meantime until we find a new job,” he said. “Right now, we don't have money because they didn't give us our last paycheck and we still got to pay rent because bills won't wait.”
It’s a sentiment echoed by many striking Headly employees, some of whom have been with the company for over 20 years. Quoted in the Arise Chicago press release, worker Genaro Garcia said, “We have families to feed, and if we’re fired, now we’ll be short on funds and unable to support our families. We are demanding that the company keep us employed or minimally give us more notice in order to be able to look for new jobs. It’s not easy to find work.”
With both the University of Illinois at Chicago graduate workers and the Chicago Symphony Orchestra on strike, Ruzicka of Arise Chicago is hopeful about the power of organized labor. “When workers take bold action, you can win,” she said. “We like to say when you strike, you win.”
She said an important lesson of Friday’s strike is even without the backing of a union, employees can still work together to advance their rights.
“We know a majority of workers in this country don't have a union,” she said. “It's very important that workers know even if you don't have a union you can still take collective action and you are protected. Better yet, organize and get union.”
‘I made $3.75 an hour’: Lyft and Uber drivers push to unionize for better pay
Drivers for the rideshare companies are seeing much of their pay go to expenses while Lyft and Uber prepare for their IPOs
Michael Sainato
the guardian
Fri 22 Mar 2019 02.00 EDT
For over a year Rob Mead has worked as an Uber driver in Reno, Nevada, to supplement his income as a public sector worker. Now he’s wondering if it is worth it. “After gas, added monthly rideshare insurance, wear-and-tear, constant oil changes and taxes that $300 for 30 hours of work I thought I made in a week actually averages down to about $90 after expenses,” said Mead.
“A few weeks ago I drove four passengers in a one-hour period. I looked at my profits and I made only $12 It was snowing, traffic was crazy and I basically risked my life to make that $12. After expenses I made $3.75 that entire hour.”
Mead’s wages contrast sharply with the fortunes that the executives at the rideshare companies Uber and Lyft are about to reap. This week Lyft startedits investor roadshow as it prepares for its stock market listing. Lyft’s cofounders, Logan Green and John Zimmer, stand to make hundreds of millions from the sale, currently valued at $23bn. Uber plans to follow Lyft’s initial public offering (IPO) in April – a share sale estimated to be worth $125bn that will create a new generation of millionaires and billionaires from its executive class.
Both companies plan to use some of that money to develop autonomous vehicles – technology Lyft has conceded is likely to lead to the “loss of income to human drivers”.
Uber and Lyft are planning to give some long-term drivers money to buy stock, granting them access to the hotly anticipated IPOs. But only a minority will be eligible and in the meantime drivers are organizing for better wages rather than bonuses.
“I’m not interested in what stingy package they’re going to offer,” said James Hicks, an Uber driver in Los Angeles for about four years. He has not heard anything from Uber regarding stock grants for drivers, but said he had recently had his pay slashed by the company. “You can’t tell me a billion-dollar company can’t afford to pay their drivers when all they really need to worry about is marketing and upkeep of the app.”
According to Uber, there are currently 900,000 active Uber drivers throughout the United States (and close to 3 million globally), many of whom have reported often making less than minimum wage and struggling to cover the expenses associated with driving.
A May 2018 report published by the Economic Policy Institute found the median wage for Uber drivers after expenses and fees is $9.21 an hour. The low pay and high expenses have resulted in high employee turnover. An April 2017 report found only 4% of Uber drivers continue driving for the rideshare company after one year on the job.
“If I didn’t owe so much on the car I bought just to do Uber I would stop driving for them,” said Baron Migs, who has worked in San Francisco, California, as a full-time Uber driver for three years. Uber recently changed the bonus scale for drivers, a move Migs said drastically reduced his pay. His Uber employee account has been hacked twice, and Migs spent several weeks without pay while the issue was sorted.
Efforts by drivers across the United States to organize and push for better working conditions and wages have been met with significant resistance from the companies.
“Transportation network drivers have no rights or protections on the job,” said Beverley Brakeman, the director of United Auto Workers (UAW) region 9A. The UAW is currently backing a bill in Connecticut to increase wages for rideshare drivers and protect them from retaliation for organizing to improve working conditions.
The companies have hired well-paid lobbyists to kill the bill, she said. “I’m confident the drivers will prevail as they advocate for a level playing field with other transportation workers and seek to make a living wage for their families.”
In 2015, Seattle became the first city to pass an ordinance to allow rideshare drivers to unionize, but it has faced ongoing legal challenges from Uber and the US Chamber of Commerce to invalidate the law.
“What we’ve seen is the combination of Uber and other corporate interests, the US Chamber of Commerce and the Trump administration in a sense ganging up on this effort to unionize,” said the Seattle city council member Kshama Sawant, who was involved in passing the ordinance in 2015. “No matter what law we succeed in passing in city hall, we know Uber is not going to lie still. Obviously they will go after it yet again and again.”
Sawant said her office is focusing on meeting with and organizing Uber drivers to build a movement of rideshare workers similar to the one in New York City, where drivers have won several victories due to their organizing efforts.
In January 2019, New York City enacted a $17.22 minimum wage after expenses for all rideshare drivers. The Independent Drivers Guild, which represents around 70,000 rideshare drivers in New York City, estimate the wage increase will boost the annual salaries of drivers by $9,600. The wage increase is the first in the US for rideshare drivers and comes in the wake of a July
2018 report commissioned by the New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission that found nearly 20% of rideshare drivers receive food stamps, 40% receive Medicaid and 16% have no health insurance.
“This raise is long overdue,” said Aziz Bah, a rideshare driver for five years currently working for Uber, Lyft and Juno. “Drivers are making more money and spending some of that time to work less and spend time with their families, so that makes a big difference.”
New York’s success has encouraged other drivers to act. In Los Angeles, 2,700 rideshare drivers are currently organizing themselves under Rideshare Drivers United to fight for higher wages, a grievance procedure against deactivation and for rideshare companies to recognize the union to negotiate with them on behalf of drivers.
“There is no reason this job should be the fastest-growing low-wage job in America,” said Nicole Moore, who has driven for Uber and currently for Lyft while organizing with Rideshare Drivers United. “Some days we’re lucky after expenses to make $8 an hour.”
She doesn’t expect the companies’ share sale to benefit drivers.
“Uber is getting ready for their IPO, they want to look really good for their investors, and are creating situations where people may be put on the street homeless because they can’t pay their rent,” added Moore. “That’s why we’re organizing.”
“A few weeks ago I drove four passengers in a one-hour period. I looked at my profits and I made only $12 It was snowing, traffic was crazy and I basically risked my life to make that $12. After expenses I made $3.75 that entire hour.”
Mead’s wages contrast sharply with the fortunes that the executives at the rideshare companies Uber and Lyft are about to reap. This week Lyft startedits investor roadshow as it prepares for its stock market listing. Lyft’s cofounders, Logan Green and John Zimmer, stand to make hundreds of millions from the sale, currently valued at $23bn. Uber plans to follow Lyft’s initial public offering (IPO) in April – a share sale estimated to be worth $125bn that will create a new generation of millionaires and billionaires from its executive class.
Both companies plan to use some of that money to develop autonomous vehicles – technology Lyft has conceded is likely to lead to the “loss of income to human drivers”.
Uber and Lyft are planning to give some long-term drivers money to buy stock, granting them access to the hotly anticipated IPOs. But only a minority will be eligible and in the meantime drivers are organizing for better wages rather than bonuses.
“I’m not interested in what stingy package they’re going to offer,” said James Hicks, an Uber driver in Los Angeles for about four years. He has not heard anything from Uber regarding stock grants for drivers, but said he had recently had his pay slashed by the company. “You can’t tell me a billion-dollar company can’t afford to pay their drivers when all they really need to worry about is marketing and upkeep of the app.”
According to Uber, there are currently 900,000 active Uber drivers throughout the United States (and close to 3 million globally), many of whom have reported often making less than minimum wage and struggling to cover the expenses associated with driving.
A May 2018 report published by the Economic Policy Institute found the median wage for Uber drivers after expenses and fees is $9.21 an hour. The low pay and high expenses have resulted in high employee turnover. An April 2017 report found only 4% of Uber drivers continue driving for the rideshare company after one year on the job.
“If I didn’t owe so much on the car I bought just to do Uber I would stop driving for them,” said Baron Migs, who has worked in San Francisco, California, as a full-time Uber driver for three years. Uber recently changed the bonus scale for drivers, a move Migs said drastically reduced his pay. His Uber employee account has been hacked twice, and Migs spent several weeks without pay while the issue was sorted.
Efforts by drivers across the United States to organize and push for better working conditions and wages have been met with significant resistance from the companies.
“Transportation network drivers have no rights or protections on the job,” said Beverley Brakeman, the director of United Auto Workers (UAW) region 9A. The UAW is currently backing a bill in Connecticut to increase wages for rideshare drivers and protect them from retaliation for organizing to improve working conditions.
The companies have hired well-paid lobbyists to kill the bill, she said. “I’m confident the drivers will prevail as they advocate for a level playing field with other transportation workers and seek to make a living wage for their families.”
In 2015, Seattle became the first city to pass an ordinance to allow rideshare drivers to unionize, but it has faced ongoing legal challenges from Uber and the US Chamber of Commerce to invalidate the law.
“What we’ve seen is the combination of Uber and other corporate interests, the US Chamber of Commerce and the Trump administration in a sense ganging up on this effort to unionize,” said the Seattle city council member Kshama Sawant, who was involved in passing the ordinance in 2015. “No matter what law we succeed in passing in city hall, we know Uber is not going to lie still. Obviously they will go after it yet again and again.”
Sawant said her office is focusing on meeting with and organizing Uber drivers to build a movement of rideshare workers similar to the one in New York City, where drivers have won several victories due to their organizing efforts.
In January 2019, New York City enacted a $17.22 minimum wage after expenses for all rideshare drivers. The Independent Drivers Guild, which represents around 70,000 rideshare drivers in New York City, estimate the wage increase will boost the annual salaries of drivers by $9,600. The wage increase is the first in the US for rideshare drivers and comes in the wake of a July
2018 report commissioned by the New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission that found nearly 20% of rideshare drivers receive food stamps, 40% receive Medicaid and 16% have no health insurance.
“This raise is long overdue,” said Aziz Bah, a rideshare driver for five years currently working for Uber, Lyft and Juno. “Drivers are making more money and spending some of that time to work less and spend time with their families, so that makes a big difference.”
New York’s success has encouraged other drivers to act. In Los Angeles, 2,700 rideshare drivers are currently organizing themselves under Rideshare Drivers United to fight for higher wages, a grievance procedure against deactivation and for rideshare companies to recognize the union to negotiate with them on behalf of drivers.
“There is no reason this job should be the fastest-growing low-wage job in America,” said Nicole Moore, who has driven for Uber and currently for Lyft while organizing with Rideshare Drivers United. “Some days we’re lucky after expenses to make $8 an hour.”
She doesn’t expect the companies’ share sale to benefit drivers.
“Uber is getting ready for their IPO, they want to look really good for their investors, and are creating situations where people may be put on the street homeless because they can’t pay their rent,” added Moore. “That’s why we’re organizing.”
“We Demand Food for Thought”: UIC Grad Workers On Strike for Living Wages and Respect
BY HANNAH STEINKOPF-FRANK - in these times
WEDNESDAY, MAR 20, 2019, 1:42 PM
Graduate employees at the University of Illinois at Chicago began an indefinite strike on March 19, demanding livable wages and better working conditions as part of a national wave of educator-lead organized labor efforts. (Photo: Hannah Steinkopf-Frank)
In front of the historic Jane Addams Hull-House Museum on March 19, University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC) graduate workers began an indefinite strike. The union is joining a national movement of higher education employees demanding livable wages and better working conditions in the often-unstable field of academia.
The strike is the result of more than a year of negotiations between UIC Graduate Employees Organization (GEO) Local 6297 and the university administration. Since September 2018, over 1,500 teaching and graduate assistants have worked without a contract. An overwhelming 99.5 percent of UIC GEO members authorized a strike last month, as part of a wave of educator work actions, from public school teachers in Los Angeles and West Virginia to faculty at Rutgers University and Wright State University. Jeff Schuhrke, co-president of the UIC GEO and labor history Ph.D. candidate, said the strike exemplifies the vital labor graduate students provide.
“The University of Illinois system just seems to not care about its employees and is always very hostile to collective bargaining and to unions,” Schuhrke told In These Times. “They just try to lowball us and they disrespect us. We're fed up with it, obviously.”
UIC graduate employees make a minimum salary of $18,065 for two semesters of 20-hour work weeks, with $13,502 in fee and tuition waivers. Schuhrke said this doesn’t account for the amount and quality of labor, which can include teaching classes for up to 60 students. He said since the union was recognized by the university in 2004, “modest” raises haven’t accounted for increasing university fees, which cut into graduate employees’ salaries. Currently, UIC GEO is seeking a 24 percent pay increase over three years, with the university offering 11.5 percent.
“They can give us raises all they want," he said, "but as long as they can just introduce new fees any time they feel like it or increase the fees, that just serves as a back door pay cut.”
In recent years, the university has boasted record-high enrollment and projects to improve existing infrastructure and invest in academic expansions, including recently acquiring the John Marshall Law School. Schuhrke said, “The reason students come here is for an education, not the shiny new buildings, and we're the ones providing that education.”
The strike is already having an impact on campus with some classes canceled. On the sunny Tuesday afternoon outside the bustling UIC Student Centers, hundreds of graduate students and allies picketed with clever signs like, “We Demand Food for Thought,” and classic protest chants, such as, “This is what democracy looks like.” A giant inflatable Mother Jones representing the iconic socialist labor organizer watched over the crowd. UIC GEO also organized a GoFundMe to cover strike costs and potential docks in salary, which Schuhrke said the university might use as a scare tactic.
Many striking students said they don’t make enough to pay for living expenses and rely on food aid and other assistance. A Ph.D. student in the biology department who prefers to remain anonymous said he’s working on getting Medicaid for his young child, as he can’t afford campus health care, even with a waiver.
“Better salaries is an important step: lower fees, lower tuition,” he said. “Those things really impact us because we don't have huge salaries, so every small amount that we can save is a huge help.”
International students who, according to Schuhrke, make up a little under half of the GEO UIC members, are also central to bargaining. They face an additional fee each semester, as well as work limitations, particularly during the summer.
Dominican Republic-native Natalia Ruiz-Vargas came to Chicago to complete a Ph.D. in biology, but said the financial strains can be alienating for people who are not U.S. nationals. “If you have family back home and you're alone over here and someone gets sick, you can't really find the money to go back, so it can be a little lonelier,” she said. “We can't apply for any financial aid outside of what we already have from the university.”
When reached for comment, the university sent a press release that highlighted the union’s right to demonstrate, but stated, “We believe that this work stoppage is not in the best interest of the University, or our students.” While striking graduate assistants aren’t completing instruction, mentoring and coursework revision, many of their students are expressing solidarity.
English and political science undergraduate Joseph Strom is part of the UIC Student and Worker Advocacy Network. A resident assistant on campus, Strom said the strike is an opportunity to educate students about labor issues instead of pairing co-eds against their educators. He said some of his professors are expressing support by giving online work so they don’t have to cross the picket line. The UIC United Faculty union is also currently in negotiations, having worked without a contract since last fall.
GEO Co-President Schuhrke said, “We talked to a lot of our students beforehand and let them know why we're doing this, that our working conditions are their learning conditions.”
Members of GEO University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (UIUC) in Southern Illinois are coming to Chicago to increase demonstration numbers, as they go up against the same administration. In February 2018, the UIUC GEO led an almost two-week long strike for higher salaries and guaranteed tuition waivers.
The plastic buckets that provided a soundtrack to their picket are now being used by UIC students. UIUC GEO treasurer Allan Axelrod, who studies agricultural and biological engineering, is spending spring break making multiple trips with fellow graduate students.
“We understand all the issues that are going on there, especially things like the higher incidence of mental health issues that is a product of the poor working conditions of graduate employees,” said Axelrod. “When we show solidarity, we actually are paving the path toward improving our own working conditions because we're under the same threat each bargaining cycle.”
For Axelrod and others, this extends beyond the public university system. A 2016 National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) decision granting private university students employee status has galvanized student workers to organize through collective labor. Only a few miles from UIC’s Near West Side campus, University of Chicago graduate students have fought since 2007 for recognition of their Graduate Student Union (GSU). Last fall, they participated in one of their school’s biggest demonstrations in recent years, a response to their overwhelming vote in favor of unionization despite administrative pushback.
GSU brought its case to the NLRB, but withdrew along with Yale University and Boston College, worried that under President Trump, a business-friendly Republican majority would overturn the 2016 precedent. Further, last year’s Janus Supreme Court decision prevents public sectors unions from collecting dues from nonmembers. Co-President Schuhrke said they saw a slight membership decrease following Janus, but it “made them more militant and more angry.” No matter how long the UIC strike lasts, graduate students are clearly using it as a teachable moment.
“This [university] administration has a great responsibility,” said Schuhrke. “We hope our students are learning by participating in this and watching this how to stand up for your rights, stand up for justice and organize.”
The strike is the result of more than a year of negotiations between UIC Graduate Employees Organization (GEO) Local 6297 and the university administration. Since September 2018, over 1,500 teaching and graduate assistants have worked without a contract. An overwhelming 99.5 percent of UIC GEO members authorized a strike last month, as part of a wave of educator work actions, from public school teachers in Los Angeles and West Virginia to faculty at Rutgers University and Wright State University. Jeff Schuhrke, co-president of the UIC GEO and labor history Ph.D. candidate, said the strike exemplifies the vital labor graduate students provide.
“The University of Illinois system just seems to not care about its employees and is always very hostile to collective bargaining and to unions,” Schuhrke told In These Times. “They just try to lowball us and they disrespect us. We're fed up with it, obviously.”
UIC graduate employees make a minimum salary of $18,065 for two semesters of 20-hour work weeks, with $13,502 in fee and tuition waivers. Schuhrke said this doesn’t account for the amount and quality of labor, which can include teaching classes for up to 60 students. He said since the union was recognized by the university in 2004, “modest” raises haven’t accounted for increasing university fees, which cut into graduate employees’ salaries. Currently, UIC GEO is seeking a 24 percent pay increase over three years, with the university offering 11.5 percent.
“They can give us raises all they want," he said, "but as long as they can just introduce new fees any time they feel like it or increase the fees, that just serves as a back door pay cut.”
In recent years, the university has boasted record-high enrollment and projects to improve existing infrastructure and invest in academic expansions, including recently acquiring the John Marshall Law School. Schuhrke said, “The reason students come here is for an education, not the shiny new buildings, and we're the ones providing that education.”
The strike is already having an impact on campus with some classes canceled. On the sunny Tuesday afternoon outside the bustling UIC Student Centers, hundreds of graduate students and allies picketed with clever signs like, “We Demand Food for Thought,” and classic protest chants, such as, “This is what democracy looks like.” A giant inflatable Mother Jones representing the iconic socialist labor organizer watched over the crowd. UIC GEO also organized a GoFundMe to cover strike costs and potential docks in salary, which Schuhrke said the university might use as a scare tactic.
Many striking students said they don’t make enough to pay for living expenses and rely on food aid and other assistance. A Ph.D. student in the biology department who prefers to remain anonymous said he’s working on getting Medicaid for his young child, as he can’t afford campus health care, even with a waiver.
“Better salaries is an important step: lower fees, lower tuition,” he said. “Those things really impact us because we don't have huge salaries, so every small amount that we can save is a huge help.”
International students who, according to Schuhrke, make up a little under half of the GEO UIC members, are also central to bargaining. They face an additional fee each semester, as well as work limitations, particularly during the summer.
Dominican Republic-native Natalia Ruiz-Vargas came to Chicago to complete a Ph.D. in biology, but said the financial strains can be alienating for people who are not U.S. nationals. “If you have family back home and you're alone over here and someone gets sick, you can't really find the money to go back, so it can be a little lonelier,” she said. “We can't apply for any financial aid outside of what we already have from the university.”
When reached for comment, the university sent a press release that highlighted the union’s right to demonstrate, but stated, “We believe that this work stoppage is not in the best interest of the University, or our students.” While striking graduate assistants aren’t completing instruction, mentoring and coursework revision, many of their students are expressing solidarity.
English and political science undergraduate Joseph Strom is part of the UIC Student and Worker Advocacy Network. A resident assistant on campus, Strom said the strike is an opportunity to educate students about labor issues instead of pairing co-eds against their educators. He said some of his professors are expressing support by giving online work so they don’t have to cross the picket line. The UIC United Faculty union is also currently in negotiations, having worked without a contract since last fall.
GEO Co-President Schuhrke said, “We talked to a lot of our students beforehand and let them know why we're doing this, that our working conditions are their learning conditions.”
Members of GEO University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (UIUC) in Southern Illinois are coming to Chicago to increase demonstration numbers, as they go up against the same administration. In February 2018, the UIUC GEO led an almost two-week long strike for higher salaries and guaranteed tuition waivers.
The plastic buckets that provided a soundtrack to their picket are now being used by UIC students. UIUC GEO treasurer Allan Axelrod, who studies agricultural and biological engineering, is spending spring break making multiple trips with fellow graduate students.
“We understand all the issues that are going on there, especially things like the higher incidence of mental health issues that is a product of the poor working conditions of graduate employees,” said Axelrod. “When we show solidarity, we actually are paving the path toward improving our own working conditions because we're under the same threat each bargaining cycle.”
For Axelrod and others, this extends beyond the public university system. A 2016 National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) decision granting private university students employee status has galvanized student workers to organize through collective labor. Only a few miles from UIC’s Near West Side campus, University of Chicago graduate students have fought since 2007 for recognition of their Graduate Student Union (GSU). Last fall, they participated in one of their school’s biggest demonstrations in recent years, a response to their overwhelming vote in favor of unionization despite administrative pushback.
GSU brought its case to the NLRB, but withdrew along with Yale University and Boston College, worried that under President Trump, a business-friendly Republican majority would overturn the 2016 precedent. Further, last year’s Janus Supreme Court decision prevents public sectors unions from collecting dues from nonmembers. Co-President Schuhrke said they saw a slight membership decrease following Janus, but it “made them more militant and more angry.” No matter how long the UIC strike lasts, graduate students are clearly using it as a teachable moment.
“This [university] administration has a great responsibility,” said Schuhrke. “We hope our students are learning by participating in this and watching this how to stand up for your rights, stand up for justice and organize.”
progress occurs when you remove the gop trash!!!
Will New Mexico’s Historic Labor Win Spark Change in Other States?
BY
Bryce Covert, Truthout
PUBLISHED
March 13, 2019
The New Mexico legislature just dealt a huge blow to the racist, sexist exclusion of domestic and home care workers from basic workplace rights, one that advocates hope will spark change throughout the country. With a 52 to 14 vote, lawmakers in the state House passed a billon Tuesday evening providing these workers with basic protections like minimum wage and overtime pay in state law for the first time. With prior passage in the Senate, it now heads to the governor’s desk.
In 2013, the U.S. Department of Labor announced a rule change that brought home care workers under the protections of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), ending a longstanding “companionship exemption” that had excluded them from basic workplace rights like making a minimum wage or being owed overtime pay for extra hours. It followed a change in 1974 that expanded the FLSA to cover domestic workers.
But according to advocates, 17 states still don’t fully include home care and domestic workers in their labor laws. New Mexico has been one of those holdouts, whose state law explicitly excludes domestic workers from the basics of a minimum wage and other job protections offered to nearly all other workers. That means state law doesn’t require that they be paid the minimum wage or overtime for extra hours, nor protect them from retaliation or discrimination.
While federal law may offer those protections, “the real issue is enforcement,” said Stephanie Welch, supervising attorney of workers’ rights at the New Mexico Center on Law and Poverty. Home care and domestic workers in New Mexico could make a complaint to the Department of Labor if their rights are denied, but those complaints too often go uninvestigated and unenforced. “If they were covered under state law, they would have a state agency that enforces state workers’ rights,” Welch explained. The state agency “has a duty under state law to investigate state wage claims … and to recover wages that are owed.”
---
Other workers said they had been misclassified as independent contractors, which meant they had to pay their own employment taxes, further lowering their meager incomes and depriving them of other basic rights. Others still simply aren’t paid for all of the hours they work. Once the law goes into effect, “they’ll have that money and they’ll have higher incomes,” Welch pointed out.
Currently, average pay for the 61,000 people in the state employed in this work is just $9.51 an hour. More than half earn so little that they fall below 200 percent of the federal poverty line, and about half qualify for public assistance. Yet it’s the fastest-growing occupation in the state, and one that will become even more critical as the population ages. The state is projected to rank fourth in the country for the share of its population age 65 and over by 2030, and the need for care workers is projected to grow by 40 percent by 2024.
Without stronger protections, though, people are fleeing the industry. Workers have told stories of people leaving care work to work at McDonald’s or other fast food jobs because it’s less demanding and they can expect a stable wage. The hope is that the new law will reduce turnover and even attract people to a high-demand job.[...]
In 2013, the U.S. Department of Labor announced a rule change that brought home care workers under the protections of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), ending a longstanding “companionship exemption” that had excluded them from basic workplace rights like making a minimum wage or being owed overtime pay for extra hours. It followed a change in 1974 that expanded the FLSA to cover domestic workers.
But according to advocates, 17 states still don’t fully include home care and domestic workers in their labor laws. New Mexico has been one of those holdouts, whose state law explicitly excludes domestic workers from the basics of a minimum wage and other job protections offered to nearly all other workers. That means state law doesn’t require that they be paid the minimum wage or overtime for extra hours, nor protect them from retaliation or discrimination.
While federal law may offer those protections, “the real issue is enforcement,” said Stephanie Welch, supervising attorney of workers’ rights at the New Mexico Center on Law and Poverty. Home care and domestic workers in New Mexico could make a complaint to the Department of Labor if their rights are denied, but those complaints too often go uninvestigated and unenforced. “If they were covered under state law, they would have a state agency that enforces state workers’ rights,” Welch explained. The state agency “has a duty under state law to investigate state wage claims … and to recover wages that are owed.”
---
Other workers said they had been misclassified as independent contractors, which meant they had to pay their own employment taxes, further lowering their meager incomes and depriving them of other basic rights. Others still simply aren’t paid for all of the hours they work. Once the law goes into effect, “they’ll have that money and they’ll have higher incomes,” Welch pointed out.
Currently, average pay for the 61,000 people in the state employed in this work is just $9.51 an hour. More than half earn so little that they fall below 200 percent of the federal poverty line, and about half qualify for public assistance. Yet it’s the fastest-growing occupation in the state, and one that will become even more critical as the population ages. The state is projected to rank fourth in the country for the share of its population age 65 and over by 2030, and the need for care workers is projected to grow by 40 percent by 2024.
Without stronger protections, though, people are fleeing the industry. Workers have told stories of people leaving care work to work at McDonald’s or other fast food jobs because it’s less demanding and they can expect a stable wage. The hope is that the new law will reduce turnover and even attract people to a high-demand job.[...]
Whole Foods cuts workers' hours after Amazon introduces minimum wage
An email shared with the Guardian by a Whole Foods employee cites the shift cuts as a ‘direct result of guidance from our regional team’
Michael Sainato
the guardian
Wed 6 Mar 2019 06.00 EST
In response to public pressure and increasing scrutiny over the pay of its warehouse workers, Amazon enacted a $15 minimum wage for all its employees on 1 November, including workers at grocery chain Whole Foods which it purchased in 2017.
All Whole Foods employees paid less than $15 an hour saw their wages increase to at least that, while all other team members received a $1-an-hour wage increase and team leaders received a $2-an-hour increase.
But since the wage increase, Whole Food employees have told the Guardian that they have experienced widespread cuts that have reduced schedule shifts across many stores, often negating wage gains for employees.
“My hours went from 30 to 20 a week,” said one Whole Foods employee in Illinois.
Workers interviewed for this story were reluctant to speak on the record for fear of retaliation.
The Illinois-based worker explained that once the $15 minimum wage was enacted, part-time employee hours at their store were cut from an average of 30 to 21 hours a week, and full-time employees saw average hours reduced from 37.5 hours to 34.5 hours. The worker provided schedules from 1 November to the end of January 2019, showing hours for workers in their department significantly decreased as the department’s percentage of the entire store labor budget stayed relatively the same.
“We just have to work faster to meet the same goals in less time,” the worker said.
An internal email shared by the employee from their department manager cited the across-the-board shift cuts as “the direct result of guidance from our regional team”.
In Maryland, another Whole Foods worker said their regional management is forcing stores to cut full-time employee schedules by four hours, to 36 hours a week. “This hours cut makes that raise pointless as people are losing more than they gained and we rely on working full shifts,” the worker said.
Another Whole Foods employee in Oregon noted: “At my store all full-time team members are 36 to 38 hours per week now. So what workers do if they want a full 40 hours is take a little bit of their paid time off each week to fill their hours to 40. Doing the same thing myself.”
The labor budget and schedule cuts at Whole Foods in the wake of the minimum wage increase appear to be similar to changes Amazon made after it raised the pay of warehouse workers to a minimum wage of $15 an hour. That move was widely praised but Amazon also cut stock vesting plans and bonuses that had provided extra pay to some workers.
Some Whole Foods workers say the cuts have led to understaffing issues. “Things that have made it more noticeable are the long lines, the need to call for cashier and bagging assistance, and customers not being able to find help in certain departments because not enough are scheduled, and we are a big store,” said one worker in California.
“Just about every person on our team has complained about their hours being cut. Some have had to look for other jobs as they can’t make ends meet” they added.
In September 2018, several Whole Foods workers organized the group, Whole Worker, with the goals of forming a union and providing workers a resource to organize since Amazon took over. Whole Foods began trainingmanagement to fight back against union organization shortly after the group went public with a mass email to Whole Foods employees throughout the United States.
“There are many team members working at Whole Foods today whose total compensation is actually less than what it was before the wage increase due to these labor reductions,” said a Whole Worker spokesperson in an email to the Guardian.
Whole Foods did not respond to multiple requests for comment on this story.
Amazon also did not respond to requests for comment.
All Whole Foods employees paid less than $15 an hour saw their wages increase to at least that, while all other team members received a $1-an-hour wage increase and team leaders received a $2-an-hour increase.
But since the wage increase, Whole Food employees have told the Guardian that they have experienced widespread cuts that have reduced schedule shifts across many stores, often negating wage gains for employees.
“My hours went from 30 to 20 a week,” said one Whole Foods employee in Illinois.
Workers interviewed for this story were reluctant to speak on the record for fear of retaliation.
The Illinois-based worker explained that once the $15 minimum wage was enacted, part-time employee hours at their store were cut from an average of 30 to 21 hours a week, and full-time employees saw average hours reduced from 37.5 hours to 34.5 hours. The worker provided schedules from 1 November to the end of January 2019, showing hours for workers in their department significantly decreased as the department’s percentage of the entire store labor budget stayed relatively the same.
“We just have to work faster to meet the same goals in less time,” the worker said.
An internal email shared by the employee from their department manager cited the across-the-board shift cuts as “the direct result of guidance from our regional team”.
In Maryland, another Whole Foods worker said their regional management is forcing stores to cut full-time employee schedules by four hours, to 36 hours a week. “This hours cut makes that raise pointless as people are losing more than they gained and we rely on working full shifts,” the worker said.
Another Whole Foods employee in Oregon noted: “At my store all full-time team members are 36 to 38 hours per week now. So what workers do if they want a full 40 hours is take a little bit of their paid time off each week to fill their hours to 40. Doing the same thing myself.”
The labor budget and schedule cuts at Whole Foods in the wake of the minimum wage increase appear to be similar to changes Amazon made after it raised the pay of warehouse workers to a minimum wage of $15 an hour. That move was widely praised but Amazon also cut stock vesting plans and bonuses that had provided extra pay to some workers.
Some Whole Foods workers say the cuts have led to understaffing issues. “Things that have made it more noticeable are the long lines, the need to call for cashier and bagging assistance, and customers not being able to find help in certain departments because not enough are scheduled, and we are a big store,” said one worker in California.
“Just about every person on our team has complained about their hours being cut. Some have had to look for other jobs as they can’t make ends meet” they added.
In September 2018, several Whole Foods workers organized the group, Whole Worker, with the goals of forming a union and providing workers a resource to organize since Amazon took over. Whole Foods began trainingmanagement to fight back against union organization shortly after the group went public with a mass email to Whole Foods employees throughout the United States.
“There are many team members working at Whole Foods today whose total compensation is actually less than what it was before the wage increase due to these labor reductions,” said a Whole Worker spokesperson in an email to the Guardian.
Whole Foods did not respond to multiple requests for comment on this story.
Amazon also did not respond to requests for comment.
funnies
