TO COMMENT CLICK HERE
Slavery 21st Century
You thought it was over, think again
june 13, 2018
Slavery did not end it was merely outsourced,
reconfigured, and made politically correct
headlines and issues
*A minimum-wage worker can’t afford a 2-bedroom apartment anywhere in the U.S.
*Boeing Workers in S.C. Have Finally Unionized. But Trump’s Labor Board Could Kibosh It.(ARTICLE BELOW)
*Workers not paid legally by Amazon contractor in China
(ARTICLE BELOW)
*Teamsters are preparing for what could be the nation’s largest strike in decades
(ARTICLE BELOW)
*Minnesota Amazon workers seek better workplace conditions
(ARTICLE BELOW)
*West Virginia Miners File Class Action Lawsuit Against Governor Over Bounced Checks(ARTICLE BELOW)
*Bernie Sanders: Disney needs 'moral defense' for having hungry workers while making billions(ARTICLE BELOW)
*Former Houston Texans cheerleaders sue team over low pay and harassment
(ARTICLE BELOW)
*Disneyland Rolls Out Wage Bump Proposal for Hourly Employees
(ARTICLE BELOW)
*SURE, MORE PEOPLE ARE WORKING, BUT WHAT GOOD DOES IT DO?
(ARTICLE BELOW)
*"This Is a Democracy, Not a Dictatorship": Federal Workers Union Sues Donald Trump
(ARTICLE BELOW)
*The Supreme Court workers' rights ruling already may hurt Chipotle workers in wage theft case(ARTICLE BELOW)
*These U.S. Workers Are Being Paid Like It’s the 1980s
(ARTICLE BELOW)
*American CEOs Now Clock in at 361 Times the Pay of the Average Worker
(ARTICLE BELOW)
*A new study reveals how shockingly easy it would be for Walmart to boost workers’ wages(ARTICLE BELOW)
*Cheating workers out of wages is easier than ever
(ARTICLE BELOW)
*Supreme Court: Workers Can’t Organize to Sue Their Bosses
(ARTICLE BELOW)
*Employer Power in Labor Markets Further Sidelines Women and People of Color in Today's Economy(ARTICLE BELOW)
*Exclusive: how rightwing groups wield secret 'toolkit' to plot against US unions
(ARTICLE BELOW)
funnies(at the end)
A minimum-wage worker can’t afford a 2-bedroom apartment anywhere in the U.S.
Tracy Jan - washington post
6/13/18
The economy’s booming. Some states have raised minimum wages. But even with recent wage growth for the lowest-paid workers, there is still nowhere in the country where someone working a full-time minimum wage job could afford to rent a modest two-bedroom apartment, according to an annual report released Wednesday by the National Low Income Housing Coalition.
Not even in Arkansas, the state with the cheapest housing in the country. One would need to earn $13.84 an hour — about $29,000 a year — to afford a two-bedroom apartment there. The minimum wage in Arkansas is $8.50 an hour.
Even the $15 living wage championed by Democrats would not make a dent in the vast majority of states.
In Hawaii, the state with the most expensive housing, one would have to make $36.13 — about $75,000 a year — to afford a decent two-bedroom apartment. The minimum wage in Hawaii rose to $10.10 an hour this year.
It gets worse in many metropolitan areas. San Francisco, Marin and San Mateo counties top the list of most expensive jurisdictions, where one would need to make $60.02 an hour to afford a modest two-bedroom apartment.
“The housing crisis is growing, especially for the lowest-income workers,” said Diane Yentel, president of the National Low Income Housing Coalition. “The rents are far out of reach from what the average renter is earning.”
Here is how much you would need to afford rent in your state:
Not even in Arkansas, the state with the cheapest housing in the country. One would need to earn $13.84 an hour — about $29,000 a year — to afford a two-bedroom apartment there. The minimum wage in Arkansas is $8.50 an hour.
Even the $15 living wage championed by Democrats would not make a dent in the vast majority of states.
In Hawaii, the state with the most expensive housing, one would have to make $36.13 — about $75,000 a year — to afford a decent two-bedroom apartment. The minimum wage in Hawaii rose to $10.10 an hour this year.
It gets worse in many metropolitan areas. San Francisco, Marin and San Mateo counties top the list of most expensive jurisdictions, where one would need to make $60.02 an hour to afford a modest two-bedroom apartment.
“The housing crisis is growing, especially for the lowest-income workers,” said Diane Yentel, president of the National Low Income Housing Coalition. “The rents are far out of reach from what the average renter is earning.”
Here is how much you would need to afford rent in your state:
Downsizing to a one-bedroom apartment will only help so much.
According to the report, a one-bedroom is affordable for minimum-wage workers in only 22 counties in five states: Arizona, California, Colorado, Oregon and Washington. Those states all set their minimum wages higher than the federal minimum of $7.25.
Nationally, one would have to earn $17.90 an hour to afford a modest one-bedroom apartment or $22.10 an hour for a two-bedroom rental. That's based on the common budgeting standard of spending a maximum of 30 percent of income on housing.
The report estimates that renters nationally make an average of $16.88 an hour. That means even those making above minimum wage struggle to afford rent.
Housing costs have continued to rise with growing demand for rental housing in the decade since the Great Recession. At the same time, new rental construction has tilted toward the luxury market because of increasingly high development costs, the report said. The number of homes renting for $2,000 or more per month nearly doubled between 2005 and 2015.
“While the housing market may have recovered for many, we are nonetheless experiencing an affordable housing crisis, especially for very low-income families,” Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said in the report.
The low-wage workforce is projected to grow over the next decade, particularly in service-sector jobs such as personal-care aides and food-preparation workers.
According to the report, a one-bedroom is affordable for minimum-wage workers in only 22 counties in five states: Arizona, California, Colorado, Oregon and Washington. Those states all set their minimum wages higher than the federal minimum of $7.25.
Nationally, one would have to earn $17.90 an hour to afford a modest one-bedroom apartment or $22.10 an hour for a two-bedroom rental. That's based on the common budgeting standard of spending a maximum of 30 percent of income on housing.
The report estimates that renters nationally make an average of $16.88 an hour. That means even those making above minimum wage struggle to afford rent.
Housing costs have continued to rise with growing demand for rental housing in the decade since the Great Recession. At the same time, new rental construction has tilted toward the luxury market because of increasingly high development costs, the report said. The number of homes renting for $2,000 or more per month nearly doubled between 2005 and 2015.
“While the housing market may have recovered for many, we are nonetheless experiencing an affordable housing crisis, especially for very low-income families,” Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said in the report.
The low-wage workforce is projected to grow over the next decade, particularly in service-sector jobs such as personal-care aides and food-preparation workers.
Meanwhile, the Trump administration has tried cutting federal housing subsidies for the lowest-income Americans. As it stands, only 1 in 4 households eligible for federal rent assistance gets any help, the report said. Housing and Urban Development Secretary Ben Carson recently proposed tripling rent for the poorest households and making it easier for housing authorities to impose work requirements on those receiving rent subsidies.
Here is how your state stacks up in terms of housing costs:
Here is how your state stacks up in terms of housing costs:
Boeing Workers in S.C. Have Finally Unionized. But Trump’s Labor Board Could Kibosh It.
BY MICHAEL ARRIA - in these times
MONDAY, JUN 11, 2018, 11:34 AM
On May 31, technicians at the Boeing factory in North Charleston, South Carolina voted to unionize and join the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers. However, Boeing has appealed the vote and Donald Trump’s GOP-controlled National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) could reverse the decision by ruling that workers had no right to hold the election to begin with.
Boeing built a Dreamliner factory in South Carolina in 2009, after its Washington workers went on strike four times in a roughly 22-year period at its previous Washington location. South Carolina is a “right to work” state with a small number of unionized workers. The NLRB filed a lawsuit against Boeing after the company moved, claiming that the relocation constituted union busting, targeting the machinists' union in Washington. In 2011, the NLRB dropped the case at the request of the union, after Boeing agreed to raise wages and expand its production back in Washington.
The May 31 labor victory follows two prior attempts to form a union. In 2015, the machinists withdrew a request for a union vote, claiming that a fair election couldn’t be held due to “an atmosphere of threats, harassment and unprecedented political interference.” Last year, the union suffered a huge defeat after employees voted 2,097-731 against joining the union.
This time, the union voted within a smaller bargaining unit, often referred to as a “micro unit,” and secured a 104-65 win on May 31. However, this win could be in jeopardy as Boeing has appealed the vote, arguing that the micro-unit election violates federal labor law. That challenge will be heard by the NLRB, which Trump has filledwith pro-management forces since taking office, tipping the agency back to a 3-2 Republican majority.
There is reason to be concerned that the NLRB will side against workers. In 2017, Trump’s NLRB reversed an Obama-era ruling that made it easier for smaller bargaining units to organize for unionization, the very strategy that Boeing workers used to secure their recent victory.
Under the National Labor Relations Act, workers can petition the NLRB to hold a union election, while the board gets to rule on what constitutes an appropriate bargaining unit. In the 2011 Specialty Healthcare case, the NLRB determined that employers can’t petition to add more workers to a bargaining unit unless the added employees share an “overwhelming community of interest” with the workers already in the unit. The ruling, which made it more difficult for employers to thwart union efforts, was predictably opposed by business groups and large companies. “This makes it almost inevitable that any union target will eventually be organized,” lamented David French, the vice president of the National Retail Federation, in 2016.
In December 2017, Trump’s NLRB reversed the decision when ruling that a group of 100 welders at an Oregon company can’t legally organize without the participation of the other employees. “[Corporations] simply want to make it easier for employers to defeat an organizing campaign, by manipulating who is in a bargaining unit,” wrotethe Economic Policy Institute’s Associate labor counsel Marni von Wilpert at the time. “By overturning this rule, the Trump administration has once again shown that it wants to make it harder for workers to organize and join unions.”
This May, an NLRB regional director in Seattle ruled that the welders can establish a union after all, despite the Specialty Healthcare reversal.
Despite the fact that the NLRB denied Boeing’s request for the election to be paused shortly before the vote, there is concern that the agency will side with the employer in response to the May 31 union vote. In addition to the board’s pro-management bent, there’s a looming conflict-of-interest worry. Although he’s been cleared to rule on the case by an NLRB ethics official, board member William Emanuel’s former law firm represented Boeing on a number of occasions.
Emanuel’s potential conflicts of interest were a major component of his confirmation hearing, and this February the NLRB voted to undo the reversal of an Obama-era ruling on joint employers, after it was revealed that Emanuel’s former law firm represented one of the parties involved. In a report on the matter, Inspector General David Berry wrote that “Member Emanuel’s participation … calls into question the validity of that decision and the confidence that the Board is performing its statutory duties.”
South Carolina’s Boeing plant was one of the first companies Trump visited after becoming president. “We're here to day to celebrate American engineering and American manufacturing,” Trump said at the event. “We're also here today to celebrate jobs. Jobs!” Five months later the factory announced a round of layoffs.
Boeing built a Dreamliner factory in South Carolina in 2009, after its Washington workers went on strike four times in a roughly 22-year period at its previous Washington location. South Carolina is a “right to work” state with a small number of unionized workers. The NLRB filed a lawsuit against Boeing after the company moved, claiming that the relocation constituted union busting, targeting the machinists' union in Washington. In 2011, the NLRB dropped the case at the request of the union, after Boeing agreed to raise wages and expand its production back in Washington.
The May 31 labor victory follows two prior attempts to form a union. In 2015, the machinists withdrew a request for a union vote, claiming that a fair election couldn’t be held due to “an atmosphere of threats, harassment and unprecedented political interference.” Last year, the union suffered a huge defeat after employees voted 2,097-731 against joining the union.
This time, the union voted within a smaller bargaining unit, often referred to as a “micro unit,” and secured a 104-65 win on May 31. However, this win could be in jeopardy as Boeing has appealed the vote, arguing that the micro-unit election violates federal labor law. That challenge will be heard by the NLRB, which Trump has filledwith pro-management forces since taking office, tipping the agency back to a 3-2 Republican majority.
There is reason to be concerned that the NLRB will side against workers. In 2017, Trump’s NLRB reversed an Obama-era ruling that made it easier for smaller bargaining units to organize for unionization, the very strategy that Boeing workers used to secure their recent victory.
Under the National Labor Relations Act, workers can petition the NLRB to hold a union election, while the board gets to rule on what constitutes an appropriate bargaining unit. In the 2011 Specialty Healthcare case, the NLRB determined that employers can’t petition to add more workers to a bargaining unit unless the added employees share an “overwhelming community of interest” with the workers already in the unit. The ruling, which made it more difficult for employers to thwart union efforts, was predictably opposed by business groups and large companies. “This makes it almost inevitable that any union target will eventually be organized,” lamented David French, the vice president of the National Retail Federation, in 2016.
In December 2017, Trump’s NLRB reversed the decision when ruling that a group of 100 welders at an Oregon company can’t legally organize without the participation of the other employees. “[Corporations] simply want to make it easier for employers to defeat an organizing campaign, by manipulating who is in a bargaining unit,” wrotethe Economic Policy Institute’s Associate labor counsel Marni von Wilpert at the time. “By overturning this rule, the Trump administration has once again shown that it wants to make it harder for workers to organize and join unions.”
This May, an NLRB regional director in Seattle ruled that the welders can establish a union after all, despite the Specialty Healthcare reversal.
Despite the fact that the NLRB denied Boeing’s request for the election to be paused shortly before the vote, there is concern that the agency will side with the employer in response to the May 31 union vote. In addition to the board’s pro-management bent, there’s a looming conflict-of-interest worry. Although he’s been cleared to rule on the case by an NLRB ethics official, board member William Emanuel’s former law firm represented Boeing on a number of occasions.
Emanuel’s potential conflicts of interest were a major component of his confirmation hearing, and this February the NLRB voted to undo the reversal of an Obama-era ruling on joint employers, after it was revealed that Emanuel’s former law firm represented one of the parties involved. In a report on the matter, Inspector General David Berry wrote that “Member Emanuel’s participation … calls into question the validity of that decision and the confidence that the Board is performing its statutory duties.”
South Carolina’s Boeing plant was one of the first companies Trump visited after becoming president. “We're here to day to celebrate American engineering and American manufacturing,” Trump said at the event. “We're also here today to celebrate jobs. Jobs!” Five months later the factory announced a round of layoffs.
21st century plantation!!!
Workers not paid legally by Amazon contractor in China
US tech giant admits audit of Foxconn factory in Hengyang found irregularities
Gethin Chamberlain
the guardian
Sat 9 Jun 2018 17.10 EDT
Amazon has admitted that thousands of agency workers who make its Echo smart speakers and Kindles in China were hired and paid illegally.
The US giant issued a statement regretting “issues of concern” following an investigation by the Observer and the US-based China Labor Watch into the “unethical and illegal” working conditions at its supplier factory in Hengyang.
Amazon disclosed that its own auditors visited the Foxconn factory in March and found that it had hired an illegally high number of agency workers and was not paying them properly for working overtime.
Agency staff – known as dispatch workers in China – do not get sick pay or holiday pay and can be laid off without wages during lulls in production. China changed its labour laws in 2014 to limit their use to 10% of any workforce in an attempt to stop companies exploiting them to cut costs.
The China Labor Watch investigation – published on Sunday in association with the Observer – found that more than 40% of the staff in the Foxconn factory were agency workers. Those working overtime were being paid at the normal hourly rate instead of the time-and-a-half required by Chinese law and by Amazon’s own supplier code of conduct.
In its statement, Amazon said: “Amazon takes reported violations of our supplier code of conduct extremely seriously. In the case of the Foxconn Hengyang factory, Amazon completed its most recent audit in March 2018 and identified two issues of concern.
“We immediately requested a corrective action plan from Foxconn Hengyang detailing their plan to remediate the issues identified and we are conducting regular assessments to monitor for implementation and compliance with our supplier code of conduct. We are committed to ensuring these issues are resolved.”
The investigation also reveals that the Hengyang workers are paid far less than Foxconn workers in other Chinese cities. They earn a basic monthly wage of 1,750 yuan (£204), while workers at Foxconn’s factory manufacturing for Apple in Shenzhen start on a basic 2,400 yuan (£280).
The investigation produced payslip evidence to show that workers can work up to 80 hours of overtime in a month, rather than the 36 hours normally permitted by law. However, companies can and do secure exemptions. Workers at the factory also have to ask for permission from supervisors to go to the toilet.
Li Qiang, executive director of China Labor Watch, wrote to Amazon’s chief executive, Jeff Bezos, last month, setting out the findings. “This violates Chinese labour law. Foxconn uses a large number of dispatch workers and violates workers’ interests via these dispatch companies. This practice, in and of itself, is unethical and illegal,” he wrote. “I hope that you can compel your suppliers to improve their working situations and to manufacture Amazon products under ethical conditions.”
Kara Hartnett Hurst, Amazon’s head of worldwide sustainability, wrote back saying: “Amazon recognises our responsibility to ensure the wellbeing of factory workers manufacturing products for Amazon.”
China Labor Watch’s investigator – who spent a month at the factory, posing as a dispatch worker – reported workers slumped, exhausted, over their work benches trying to catch a few minutes’ sleep during breaks.
Amazon and Foxconn have both faced repeated criticism for their treatment of workers, but this is the first time Amazon’s manufacturing operation has been investigated.
Bezos is worth an estimated £83bn and the Foxconn chief executive, Terry Gou, has a fortune estimated at £6.1bn.
The investigation found that many workers earn about £233 a month, less than half the national living wage of £530, calculated for China by the Asia Floor Wage Alliance. The standard hourly rate of 14.5 yuan (£1.69) is £1 less than the £2.69-an-hour national average for a factory worker in China.
Li said that the use of agency staff was designed to save money. “The factory employs dispatch workers as a means to cut manufacturing costs,” he said. “Amazon is only concerned about whether or not its supplier factories are completing orders in time and is generally apathetic towards the working conditions.” The result was that workers were left struggling to make a living.
“The wages at Hengyang Foxconn are not enough to sustain a livelihood and workers must put in overtime hours so that they earn a sufficient amount to have a decent standard of living. The factory even cuts the overtime hours of workers as a form of punishment.”
Foxconn said it had a strict company policy of not commenting on matters related to current or potential customers, or any of their products. In a statement, it said that it provided a positive working environment and was committed to ensuring that all aspects of its business complied with industry standards. “Foxconn works hard to comply with all relevant laws and regulations in all markets where we operate,” it said. It added that regular audits were carried out “and if infractions are identified, we work to immediately rectify them”.
RELATED: Underpaid and exhausted The human cost of your Kindle
The US giant issued a statement regretting “issues of concern” following an investigation by the Observer and the US-based China Labor Watch into the “unethical and illegal” working conditions at its supplier factory in Hengyang.
Amazon disclosed that its own auditors visited the Foxconn factory in March and found that it had hired an illegally high number of agency workers and was not paying them properly for working overtime.
Agency staff – known as dispatch workers in China – do not get sick pay or holiday pay and can be laid off without wages during lulls in production. China changed its labour laws in 2014 to limit their use to 10% of any workforce in an attempt to stop companies exploiting them to cut costs.
The China Labor Watch investigation – published on Sunday in association with the Observer – found that more than 40% of the staff in the Foxconn factory were agency workers. Those working overtime were being paid at the normal hourly rate instead of the time-and-a-half required by Chinese law and by Amazon’s own supplier code of conduct.
In its statement, Amazon said: “Amazon takes reported violations of our supplier code of conduct extremely seriously. In the case of the Foxconn Hengyang factory, Amazon completed its most recent audit in March 2018 and identified two issues of concern.
“We immediately requested a corrective action plan from Foxconn Hengyang detailing their plan to remediate the issues identified and we are conducting regular assessments to monitor for implementation and compliance with our supplier code of conduct. We are committed to ensuring these issues are resolved.”
The investigation also reveals that the Hengyang workers are paid far less than Foxconn workers in other Chinese cities. They earn a basic monthly wage of 1,750 yuan (£204), while workers at Foxconn’s factory manufacturing for Apple in Shenzhen start on a basic 2,400 yuan (£280).
The investigation produced payslip evidence to show that workers can work up to 80 hours of overtime in a month, rather than the 36 hours normally permitted by law. However, companies can and do secure exemptions. Workers at the factory also have to ask for permission from supervisors to go to the toilet.
Li Qiang, executive director of China Labor Watch, wrote to Amazon’s chief executive, Jeff Bezos, last month, setting out the findings. “This violates Chinese labour law. Foxconn uses a large number of dispatch workers and violates workers’ interests via these dispatch companies. This practice, in and of itself, is unethical and illegal,” he wrote. “I hope that you can compel your suppliers to improve their working situations and to manufacture Amazon products under ethical conditions.”
Kara Hartnett Hurst, Amazon’s head of worldwide sustainability, wrote back saying: “Amazon recognises our responsibility to ensure the wellbeing of factory workers manufacturing products for Amazon.”
China Labor Watch’s investigator – who spent a month at the factory, posing as a dispatch worker – reported workers slumped, exhausted, over their work benches trying to catch a few minutes’ sleep during breaks.
Amazon and Foxconn have both faced repeated criticism for their treatment of workers, but this is the first time Amazon’s manufacturing operation has been investigated.
Bezos is worth an estimated £83bn and the Foxconn chief executive, Terry Gou, has a fortune estimated at £6.1bn.
The investigation found that many workers earn about £233 a month, less than half the national living wage of £530, calculated for China by the Asia Floor Wage Alliance. The standard hourly rate of 14.5 yuan (£1.69) is £1 less than the £2.69-an-hour national average for a factory worker in China.
Li said that the use of agency staff was designed to save money. “The factory employs dispatch workers as a means to cut manufacturing costs,” he said. “Amazon is only concerned about whether or not its supplier factories are completing orders in time and is generally apathetic towards the working conditions.” The result was that workers were left struggling to make a living.
“The wages at Hengyang Foxconn are not enough to sustain a livelihood and workers must put in overtime hours so that they earn a sufficient amount to have a decent standard of living. The factory even cuts the overtime hours of workers as a form of punishment.”
Foxconn said it had a strict company policy of not commenting on matters related to current or potential customers, or any of their products. In a statement, it said that it provided a positive working environment and was committed to ensuring that all aspects of its business complied with industry standards. “Foxconn works hard to comply with all relevant laws and regulations in all markets where we operate,” it said. It added that regular audits were carried out “and if infractions are identified, we work to immediately rectify them”.
RELATED: Underpaid and exhausted The human cost of your Kindle
Teamsters are preparing for what could be the nation’s largest strike in decades
280,000 UPS employees represented by the Teamsters union may go on strike this summer.
REBEKAH ENTRALGO - thinkprogress
JUN 6, 2018, 1:21 PM
The Teamsters union represents the 280,000 UPS employees who voted overwhelmingly in favor of going on strike if a deal is not reached before the current labor contract expires on August 1. More than 90 percent voted for a strike.
Issuing a strike authorization vote does not necessarily mean UPS workers will order a work stoppage, but it does give the union leverage over management to win their negotiations.
Since UPS began offering regular Saturday delivery service just a year ago, labor demands have increased. While the company hasn’t announced plans for Sunday service, the union claims UPS has made several proposals to expand weekend deliveries.
Both sides have reached tentative agreements on non-economic related issues and have only begun discussions on healthcare and raises. According to CNN, one proposal would create a two-tier wage system that would allow part-time workers currently making $15 an hour to be paid the same wage as a full-time employee. Full-time drivers now earn more than double what part-time employees earn at $36 an hour, or roughly $75,000 a year. The union is divided on the two-tier wage proposal.
The shipments UPS transports comprise an estimated 6 percent of the United States GDP. A labor strike among the company’s workers would have a sizable effect on the economy and would be the largest U.S. labor strike in decades. Three bargaining sessions ago in 1997, UPS workers went on strike for 16 days, and there were 180,000 Teamsters at UPS at that time. There hasn’t been a bigger strike since.
The possibility of one of the largest labor strikes in recent decades comes just weeks after thousands teachers across the country went on strike to demand better wages and healthcare. In almost all the cases, the teachers won their demands from GOP-controlled state governments.
Issuing a strike authorization vote does not necessarily mean UPS workers will order a work stoppage, but it does give the union leverage over management to win their negotiations.
Since UPS began offering regular Saturday delivery service just a year ago, labor demands have increased. While the company hasn’t announced plans for Sunday service, the union claims UPS has made several proposals to expand weekend deliveries.
Both sides have reached tentative agreements on non-economic related issues and have only begun discussions on healthcare and raises. According to CNN, one proposal would create a two-tier wage system that would allow part-time workers currently making $15 an hour to be paid the same wage as a full-time employee. Full-time drivers now earn more than double what part-time employees earn at $36 an hour, or roughly $75,000 a year. The union is divided on the two-tier wage proposal.
The shipments UPS transports comprise an estimated 6 percent of the United States GDP. A labor strike among the company’s workers would have a sizable effect on the economy and would be the largest U.S. labor strike in decades. Three bargaining sessions ago in 1997, UPS workers went on strike for 16 days, and there were 180,000 Teamsters at UPS at that time. There hasn’t been a bigger strike since.
The possibility of one of the largest labor strikes in recent decades comes just weeks after thousands teachers across the country went on strike to demand better wages and healthcare. In almost all the cases, the teachers won their demands from GOP-controlled state governments.
a good ole plantation!!!
Minnesota Amazon workers seek better workplace conditions
chron
Updated 6:20 pm, Tuesday, June 5, 2018
EAGAN, Minn. (AP) — A group of East African employees is asking retail giant Amazon to improve working conditions at an eastern Minnesota warehouse.
Employees at the Eagan facility made the request at a Monday news conference called by the Awood Center, which defends the rights of East African workers, Minnesota Public Radio reported .
The employees allege they have experienced exhaustion, dehydration and injuries while working without air conditioning. Workers said the conditions are particularly difficult for Muslim workers who are celebrating Ramadan and observing a strict fast.
"Recently, I couldn't work because I needed water," Nimo Hirad, an order picker at the facility, said through an interpreter. "I got so thirsty, I couldn't even swallow my saliva. I ended up breaking my fast and drinking water two days in a row."
The center said it has received a few dozen complaints from workers in the past two months, including about work being done by individuals that used to be done in teams.
Amazon spokesman Ernesto Apreza said the company provides a "positive and accommodating workplace." He said the Eagan facility has air conditioned break areas, fans throughout the building and accommodates employees' religious practices. The Eagan facility has a temporary prayer room and a permanent one is being constructed, he said.
Christopher Warren, the facility's general manager, declined to comment.
MPR reports that it's unclear if the complaints have also been filed with Amazon or the state. A Minnesota workplace safety agency has twice investigated the Eagan facility in the past, but it didn't cite Amazon in either case, according to James Honerman, a spokesman for the state Department of Labor and Industry.
One complaint in 2016 was about employees experiencing symptoms of excessive heat, and a 2018 complaint was about braking systems on rolling ladders not functioning, Honerman said. The state's Occupational Safety and Health Administration conducted inspections and did not issue any citations, he said.
In recent years, reports have emerged about difficult working conditions at Amazon's warehouses, including deaths at two Amazon warehouses in 2014. The company also came under fire in 2011 for extreme heat at its warehouses that caused "heat-related injuries." Amazon said at the time that it took emergency actions during heat waves and subsequently installed cooling systems in its warehouses.
Employees at the Eagan facility made the request at a Monday news conference called by the Awood Center, which defends the rights of East African workers, Minnesota Public Radio reported .
The employees allege they have experienced exhaustion, dehydration and injuries while working without air conditioning. Workers said the conditions are particularly difficult for Muslim workers who are celebrating Ramadan and observing a strict fast.
"Recently, I couldn't work because I needed water," Nimo Hirad, an order picker at the facility, said through an interpreter. "I got so thirsty, I couldn't even swallow my saliva. I ended up breaking my fast and drinking water two days in a row."
The center said it has received a few dozen complaints from workers in the past two months, including about work being done by individuals that used to be done in teams.
Amazon spokesman Ernesto Apreza said the company provides a "positive and accommodating workplace." He said the Eagan facility has air conditioned break areas, fans throughout the building and accommodates employees' religious practices. The Eagan facility has a temporary prayer room and a permanent one is being constructed, he said.
Christopher Warren, the facility's general manager, declined to comment.
MPR reports that it's unclear if the complaints have also been filed with Amazon or the state. A Minnesota workplace safety agency has twice investigated the Eagan facility in the past, but it didn't cite Amazon in either case, according to James Honerman, a spokesman for the state Department of Labor and Industry.
One complaint in 2016 was about employees experiencing symptoms of excessive heat, and a 2018 complaint was about braking systems on rolling ladders not functioning, Honerman said. The state's Occupational Safety and Health Administration conducted inspections and did not issue any citations, he said.
In recent years, reports have emerged about difficult working conditions at Amazon's warehouses, including deaths at two Amazon warehouses in 2014. The company also came under fire in 2011 for extreme heat at its warehouses that caused "heat-related injuries." Amazon said at the time that it took emergency actions during heat waves and subsequently installed cooling systems in its warehouses.
strong trump supporter!!!
West Virginia Miners File Class Action Lawsuit Against Governor Over Bounced Checks
By ERIN CORBETT -fortune
6/4/18 1:17 PM EDT
West Virginia miners filed a federal class action lawsuit against their Republican Governor Jim Justice and his family, alleging that the Justice-owned Bluestone Industries, Inc. paid miners in bounced checks, WVVA reported over the weekend. The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia and names the governor’s children, Jay and Jill Justice who are the directors of Bluestone, as well as the company’s secretary and treasurer, James Miller.
According to the lawsuit, Bluestone Industries, Inc. violated the West Virginia Wage Payment and Collection Act and the Fair Labor Standards Act. Hundreds, if not thousands, of West Virginia miners were affected by the bounced paychecks, which allegedly occurred on multiple occasions.
The lawsuit, filed on behalf of miner Kenneth Cozart on March 6 and later amended on April 11, alleged that a paycheck the plaintiff received on Feb. 23 could not be deposited, according to WV Metro News. “The paycheck bounced, causing bad check fees to be charged against the plaintiff’s account,” the lawsuit argues. Plaintiffs were later paid via wire transfer, but were then charged a wire transfer fee for the payment.
“On several prior occasions, the plaintiff was given paychecks for wages earned and deposited said checks in his account and those checks bounced, costing the plaintiff returned check fees. Bluestone would again wire the plaintiff his pay in the same manner as set forth above, again incurring wire transfer fees,” the suit argues.
John Hussell, an attorney who represents Bluestone said the company has already taken the steps to fix the payment problems. “When we became aware of the issue, we immediately took action to ensure that all of the employees received their full pay,” Hussell said. “There was no interruption of their benefits and all of the employees were paid promptly after we became aware of this issue. We are happy to have these miners working with us and are committed to ensuring that they are paid for their hard work.”
Gov. Justice became president of Bluestone in 1993, but sold the company in 2009 to Russian mining company Mechel, OAO for $568 million. Justice re-bought the mines in 2015 and the business was passed on to his children in 2017 once he became governor, though employment took a plunge. Rather than closing the mines, Justice used a regulatory “temporary cessation” loophole for years to keep the idle mines open, at the expense of the environment and community health, according to a Climate Home News investigation.
Miners in West Virginia have been affected by the Black Lung Disease, an epidemic that has had serious health impacts on the Appalachian states of Kentucky, Virginia and West Virginia, NPR reported. The federal Black Lung Disability Trust Fund will see severe cuts in the coming years.
According to the lawsuit, Bluestone Industries, Inc. violated the West Virginia Wage Payment and Collection Act and the Fair Labor Standards Act. Hundreds, if not thousands, of West Virginia miners were affected by the bounced paychecks, which allegedly occurred on multiple occasions.
The lawsuit, filed on behalf of miner Kenneth Cozart on March 6 and later amended on April 11, alleged that a paycheck the plaintiff received on Feb. 23 could not be deposited, according to WV Metro News. “The paycheck bounced, causing bad check fees to be charged against the plaintiff’s account,” the lawsuit argues. Plaintiffs were later paid via wire transfer, but were then charged a wire transfer fee for the payment.
“On several prior occasions, the plaintiff was given paychecks for wages earned and deposited said checks in his account and those checks bounced, costing the plaintiff returned check fees. Bluestone would again wire the plaintiff his pay in the same manner as set forth above, again incurring wire transfer fees,” the suit argues.
John Hussell, an attorney who represents Bluestone said the company has already taken the steps to fix the payment problems. “When we became aware of the issue, we immediately took action to ensure that all of the employees received their full pay,” Hussell said. “There was no interruption of their benefits and all of the employees were paid promptly after we became aware of this issue. We are happy to have these miners working with us and are committed to ensuring that they are paid for their hard work.”
Gov. Justice became president of Bluestone in 1993, but sold the company in 2009 to Russian mining company Mechel, OAO for $568 million. Justice re-bought the mines in 2015 and the business was passed on to his children in 2017 once he became governor, though employment took a plunge. Rather than closing the mines, Justice used a regulatory “temporary cessation” loophole for years to keep the idle mines open, at the expense of the environment and community health, according to a Climate Home News investigation.
Miners in West Virginia have been affected by the Black Lung Disease, an epidemic that has had serious health impacts on the Appalachian states of Kentucky, Virginia and West Virginia, NPR reported. The federal Black Lung Disability Trust Fund will see severe cuts in the coming years.
Bernie Sanders: Disney needs 'moral defense' for having hungry workers while making billions
BY LUIS SANCHEZ - the hill
06/02/18 10:12 PM EDT
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) lambasted Walt Disney Co. on Saturday for making billions of dollars in profits while failing to pay workers "a living wage."
At a rally in Anaheim, Calif., Sanders demanded a "moral defense" for Disney and other billion-dollar corporations that pay their executives high salaries but have made efforts to avoid raising other workers' salaries.
“I want to hear the moral defense of a company that makes $9 billion in profits, $400 million for their CEOs and have a 30-year worker going hungry,” Sanders told the crowd.
“The struggle that you are waging here in Anaheim is not just for you,” Sanders said. “It is a struggle for millions of workers all across this country who are sick and tired of working longer hours for lower wages.”
Sanders was joined on stage by members of a coalition of unions that had gathered about 21,000 signatures to qualify for the November municipal ballot that seeks to require large employers who receive government subsidies to maintain a $15 minimum wage.
To qualify for the ballot only 10 percent, or 13,150, of Anaheim voters needed to provide their signatures.
If adopted, the measure would require a $15 minimum wage starting on Jan. 1, 2019, and a $1 raise every Jan. 1 through 2022. After an employee’s pay reaches $18 an hour, raises would be pegged to the cost of living.
The Disneyland Resort and the Anaheim Chamber of Commerce have opposed the measure, saying such a wage hike would make it more expensive to do business and could discourage subsequent development.
Several Disneyland employees voiced their struggle to live off the company's current wages.
“Disney prides itself on making dreams come true,” Disneyland employee Grace Torres said, on the verge of tears. “Disney, where is my dream?”
Amid ongoing union negotiations, Disney offered to raise the starting salaries of its California park employees Thursday to $15 an hour over the next three years.
According to the offer, entry-level employees would see an immediate pay bump to $13.25 an hour — up from $11 currently. Workers would see wages increase to $15 by 2020, marking a 36 percent increase over three years.
A park spokeswoman told The Hill that Disney plans to develop an education program to allow employees to "pursue skills and degrees to further their careers."
"While Mr. Sanders continues to criticize Disney to keep himself in the headlines, we continue to support our cast members through investments in wages and education,” said Suzi Brown, vice president of Disneyland Resort Communications.
At a rally in Anaheim, Calif., Sanders demanded a "moral defense" for Disney and other billion-dollar corporations that pay their executives high salaries but have made efforts to avoid raising other workers' salaries.
“I want to hear the moral defense of a company that makes $9 billion in profits, $400 million for their CEOs and have a 30-year worker going hungry,” Sanders told the crowd.
“The struggle that you are waging here in Anaheim is not just for you,” Sanders said. “It is a struggle for millions of workers all across this country who are sick and tired of working longer hours for lower wages.”
Sanders was joined on stage by members of a coalition of unions that had gathered about 21,000 signatures to qualify for the November municipal ballot that seeks to require large employers who receive government subsidies to maintain a $15 minimum wage.
To qualify for the ballot only 10 percent, or 13,150, of Anaheim voters needed to provide their signatures.
If adopted, the measure would require a $15 minimum wage starting on Jan. 1, 2019, and a $1 raise every Jan. 1 through 2022. After an employee’s pay reaches $18 an hour, raises would be pegged to the cost of living.
The Disneyland Resort and the Anaheim Chamber of Commerce have opposed the measure, saying such a wage hike would make it more expensive to do business and could discourage subsequent development.
Several Disneyland employees voiced their struggle to live off the company's current wages.
“Disney prides itself on making dreams come true,” Disneyland employee Grace Torres said, on the verge of tears. “Disney, where is my dream?”
Amid ongoing union negotiations, Disney offered to raise the starting salaries of its California park employees Thursday to $15 an hour over the next three years.
According to the offer, entry-level employees would see an immediate pay bump to $13.25 an hour — up from $11 currently. Workers would see wages increase to $15 by 2020, marking a 36 percent increase over three years.
A park spokeswoman told The Hill that Disney plans to develop an education program to allow employees to "pursue skills and degrees to further their careers."
"While Mr. Sanders continues to criticize Disney to keep himself in the headlines, we continue to support our cast members through investments in wages and education,” said Suzi Brown, vice president of Disneyland Resort Communications.
Former Houston Texans cheerleaders sue team over low pay and harassment
"We were harassed, bullied, and body shamed for $7.25 an hour."
KILEY KROH - thinkprogress
JUN 2, 2018, 2:53 PM
Five former Houston Texans cheerleaders are suing the NFL team, claiming they weren’t paid for many hours of work and were subjected to intimidation and harassment on the job.
“We were harassed, bullied, and body shamed for $7.25 an hour,” former cheerleader Ainsley Parish said at a press conference Friday.
The women, who are represented by prominent women’s rights attorney Gloria Allred, accuse the team of failing to pay its cheerleaders minimum wage and overtime, as well as failing to provide a safe working environment.
“I was attacked by a fan at a game leaving abrasions on my shoulder. My attacker was not approached, nor was he removed from the game,” former cheerleader Hannah Turnbow said during the press conference. “I was told to just suck it up.”
The five women aren’t alone; just last month, three other former Houston Texans cheerleaders sued the team and its cheerleading supervisor for failing to adequately compensate the women for hours worked, and accused the supervisor of body-shaming and failing to protect the cheerleaders from physical harm.
The suit alleges that the cheerleader director, Altovise Gary, told one cheerleader that she had a “jelly belly,” and criticized another cheerleader’s hairstyle, threatening to “find another Latina girl to replace her.”
In a statement, the team said it is “proud of the cheerleader program” and “will continue to make adjustments as needed to make the program enjoyable for everyone.”
The legal actions against the Texans are the latest in a growing body of reports and lawsuits detailing the exploitation of cheerleaders across the NFL.
Last month, the New York Times reported on disturbing allegations from former cheerleaders for Washington, D.C.’s NFL team, who claim they were forced to pose topless during a trip to Costa Rica in 2013 while male sponsors and suiteholders watched. Some of the women were then told they had to escort the men to a club later that night.
A former New Orleans Saints cheerleader filed a complaint with the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission earlier this year, claiming she was fired for posting a photo of herself in a bathing suit on her private Instagram account and for attending a party where Saints players may have also been present. Saints cheerleaders are instructed to avoid players in any setting, even on social media, and as ThinkProgress’ Lindsay Gibbs wrote, the onus is fully on the cheerleaders to comply.
In recent years, cheerleaders for the Oakland Raiders, Cincinnati Bengals, Buffalo Bills, Tampa Bay Buccaneers, and New York Jets have all filed lawsuits just to be paid the minimum wage for their work.
“We were harassed, bullied, and body shamed for $7.25 an hour,” former cheerleader Ainsley Parish said at a press conference Friday.
The women, who are represented by prominent women’s rights attorney Gloria Allred, accuse the team of failing to pay its cheerleaders minimum wage and overtime, as well as failing to provide a safe working environment.
“I was attacked by a fan at a game leaving abrasions on my shoulder. My attacker was not approached, nor was he removed from the game,” former cheerleader Hannah Turnbow said during the press conference. “I was told to just suck it up.”
The five women aren’t alone; just last month, three other former Houston Texans cheerleaders sued the team and its cheerleading supervisor for failing to adequately compensate the women for hours worked, and accused the supervisor of body-shaming and failing to protect the cheerleaders from physical harm.
The suit alleges that the cheerleader director, Altovise Gary, told one cheerleader that she had a “jelly belly,” and criticized another cheerleader’s hairstyle, threatening to “find another Latina girl to replace her.”
In a statement, the team said it is “proud of the cheerleader program” and “will continue to make adjustments as needed to make the program enjoyable for everyone.”
The legal actions against the Texans are the latest in a growing body of reports and lawsuits detailing the exploitation of cheerleaders across the NFL.
Last month, the New York Times reported on disturbing allegations from former cheerleaders for Washington, D.C.’s NFL team, who claim they were forced to pose topless during a trip to Costa Rica in 2013 while male sponsors and suiteholders watched. Some of the women were then told they had to escort the men to a club later that night.
A former New Orleans Saints cheerleader filed a complaint with the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission earlier this year, claiming she was fired for posting a photo of herself in a bathing suit on her private Instagram account and for attending a party where Saints players may have also been present. Saints cheerleaders are instructed to avoid players in any setting, even on social media, and as ThinkProgress’ Lindsay Gibbs wrote, the onus is fully on the cheerleaders to comply.
In recent years, cheerleaders for the Oakland Raiders, Cincinnati Bengals, Buffalo Bills, Tampa Bay Buccaneers, and New York Jets have all filed lawsuits just to be paid the minimum wage for their work.
Disneyland Rolls Out Wage Bump Proposal for Hourly Employees
Disneyland Resort said "master services cast members'' would make a $15-per-hour wage by 2020, which would be two years ahead of the state's minimum wage standard
nbc news
Published at 12:56 PM EDT on Jun 1, 2018
Disneyland Resort officials Thursday rolled out a proposed wage offer that they said would amount to a 36 percent increase over a three-year span for its hourly workers, two days before Sen. Bernie Sanders plans to meet with Disneyland unions and rally them during contract negotiations.
Disneyland Resort said "master services cast members'' would make a $15-per-hour wage by 2020, which would be two years ahead of the state's minimum wage standard.
Disney officials said the offer was made in April as part of the resort's ongoing contract negotiations with the Masters Services Council, which consists of four labor unions that collectively represent about 9,500 workers at Disneyland Park, Disney California Adventure Park and Downtown Disney. They work in the areas of attractions, stores, custodial, main entrance, costuming, bakery/confection, resort transportation and parking, and the onsite distribution center.
A representative of the Master Services Council could not immediately be reached.
The company said it would initially increase the minimum rate by 20 percent, which it touted as the "most significant'' increases in its history.
The current minimum rate of $11 would go up to $13.25, to $14.25 in 2019 and $15 in 2020.
"The company has been engaging in successful negotiations since Disneyland Park first opened, and we are proud of our long-standing history with labor unions. Negotiations are focused not only on wages, but also on working together to provide our cast members with a world-class experience,'' said Disneyland Resort President Josh D'Amaro. "We look forward to productive negotiations with our unions as we set a foundation for our exciting future ahead.''
Sanders, who unsuccessfully sought the Democratic nomination for president in 2016, sent a letter to his supporters Thursday that blasted Disney. The senator from Vermont's letter refers to some workers "living in a tent city not far from the park,'' apparently referring to the homeless encampment along the Santa Ana riverbed, which was recently cleared as a federal judge oversees a lawsuit regarding anti-camping laws.
"According to one recent study, nearly 1 in 10 workers employed at the park reported being homeless in the past two years, more than 2 in 3 say they are food insecure, and 3 out of 4 employees say they do not make enough money for their basic needs," Sanders wrote. "This is not what Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck are supposed to be about. This does not sound like the 'happiest place on Earth' to me."
Sanders encouraged his supporters to sign a petition to Disney CEO Bob Iger demanding that "the greed at the Disney Company has got to end.''
A coalition of unions representing the workers recently announced it had collected enough signatures to put a ballot measure before Anaheim voters requiring their employer to pay a "living wage,'' prompting Disneyland officials to refer reporters seeking comment to a coalition of business groups that called the proposal a "job killer."
The measure for the November ballot would ask voters to require Disney and other large Anaheim employers that accept city subsidies to pay workers a minimum of $15 an hour starting Jan. 1, 2019, with salaries rising $1 an hour every Jan. 1 through 2022.
Disneyland Resort said "master services cast members'' would make a $15-per-hour wage by 2020, which would be two years ahead of the state's minimum wage standard.
Disney officials said the offer was made in April as part of the resort's ongoing contract negotiations with the Masters Services Council, which consists of four labor unions that collectively represent about 9,500 workers at Disneyland Park, Disney California Adventure Park and Downtown Disney. They work in the areas of attractions, stores, custodial, main entrance, costuming, bakery/confection, resort transportation and parking, and the onsite distribution center.
A representative of the Master Services Council could not immediately be reached.
The company said it would initially increase the minimum rate by 20 percent, which it touted as the "most significant'' increases in its history.
The current minimum rate of $11 would go up to $13.25, to $14.25 in 2019 and $15 in 2020.
"The company has been engaging in successful negotiations since Disneyland Park first opened, and we are proud of our long-standing history with labor unions. Negotiations are focused not only on wages, but also on working together to provide our cast members with a world-class experience,'' said Disneyland Resort President Josh D'Amaro. "We look forward to productive negotiations with our unions as we set a foundation for our exciting future ahead.''
Sanders, who unsuccessfully sought the Democratic nomination for president in 2016, sent a letter to his supporters Thursday that blasted Disney. The senator from Vermont's letter refers to some workers "living in a tent city not far from the park,'' apparently referring to the homeless encampment along the Santa Ana riverbed, which was recently cleared as a federal judge oversees a lawsuit regarding anti-camping laws.
"According to one recent study, nearly 1 in 10 workers employed at the park reported being homeless in the past two years, more than 2 in 3 say they are food insecure, and 3 out of 4 employees say they do not make enough money for their basic needs," Sanders wrote. "This is not what Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck are supposed to be about. This does not sound like the 'happiest place on Earth' to me."
Sanders encouraged his supporters to sign a petition to Disney CEO Bob Iger demanding that "the greed at the Disney Company has got to end.''
A coalition of unions representing the workers recently announced it had collected enough signatures to put a ballot measure before Anaheim voters requiring their employer to pay a "living wage,'' prompting Disneyland officials to refer reporters seeking comment to a coalition of business groups that called the proposal a "job killer."
The measure for the November ballot would ask voters to require Disney and other large Anaheim employers that accept city subsidies to pay workers a minimum of $15 an hour starting Jan. 1, 2019, with salaries rising $1 an hour every Jan. 1 through 2022.
Sure, More People Are Working, But What Good Does It Do?
Employers Get A Pass on Worker Safety, and Big Banks Are Still Ripping You Off
By Tom Cantlon - dc report
5/31/18
From Daily Kos: Tell me again about how the gender wage gap is because women leave the workforce to stay home with the kids, or whatever the excuse du jour is:
Right out of college, young men are paid more than their women peers—which is surprising given that these recent graduates have the same amount of education and a limited amount of time to gain differential experience. While young men (age 21–24) with a college degree are paid an average hourly wage of $20.87 early in their careers, their female counterparts are paid an average hourly wage of just $17.88, or $2.99 less than men. This gap of $2.99 per hour is particularly striking as young women have higher rates of bachelor’s degree attainment (20.4 percent) than young men (14.9 percent). This difference would translate to an annual wage gap of more than $6,000 for full-time workers.
And the gap has widened since 2000. Read More
Right out of college, young men are paid more than their women peers—which is surprising given that these recent graduates have the same amount of education and a limited amount of time to gain differential experience. While young men (age 21–24) with a college degree are paid an average hourly wage of $20.87 early in their careers, their female counterparts are paid an average hourly wage of just $17.88, or $2.99 less than men. This gap of $2.99 per hour is particularly striking as young women have higher rates of bachelor’s degree attainment (20.4 percent) than young men (14.9 percent). This difference would translate to an annual wage gap of more than $6,000 for full-time workers.
And the gap has widened since 2000. Read More
As the Great Recession fades into memory, the economy is creating more and more jobs. So what? What good does a job do if your employer can mistreat you and get away with it? What good does an income do if your bank can keep ripping you off?
What good is a little more income if your workplace, or your neighborhood or your kids’ school, is in danger of either blowing up or getting doused in toxic chemicals?
The Arizona Supreme Court just ruled that if a company sends its workers home every day covered in asbestos dust, the company bears no responsibility for the family members who get cancer from it. That’s one example of the larger problem, which is decades of a systemic whittling away, in federal law, state laws and corporate behavior, at the well-being of people. Just getting a job or a little more income is not going to fix it. It requires a systemic, wholesale reversal in favor of people. Otherwise, you get the job, but you also get cancer. You get the income, but you get constantly ripped off.
The EPA is trying to undo a rule just recently enacted that would require companies which deal with dangerous chemicals to meet stronger safety guidelines. The rule was enacted in 2016, then suspended in 2017 because EPA head Scott Pruitt says it will save the industry, “roughly $88 million a year.” In the year following the suspension Earth Justice has logged events every week and a half on average that have descriptions such as, “2.5 million pounds of pollutants released,” “kills four workers,” “emissions that cover nearby homes, cars and an elementary school playground,” “Shelter-in-place orders for two elementary schools,” “explosions…evacuation of more than 70 square miles.”
A major phone-support center described as, “the top federal contractor in the call center industry,” was just busted for paying employees below what the contract specified. Employees who had risen to higher level work were still categorized at a lower job level. These aren’t low-wage, blue-collar, casual labor or temp-services workers. These are full-time office jobs that are supposed to be lower-middle income. This contractor was caught, but it’s doubtful they’re the only ones. What good does it do to have a job if the employer rips you off?
The EPA has tried to hide a study detailing how leaks from chemical plants and military installations contaminate water supplies of surrounding communities, because of the “potential public relations nightmare this is going to be.” What good does it do to perhaps afford a home if the water might kill you?
Most companies that provide you a service have in their fine print that you agree to forced arbitration if there are any problems. This even covers violent crimes, as women who were assaulted by Uber drivers learned. They could neither go to court, nor pool together for a group-lawsuit that might be the only way a suit is practical. Uber has changed its tune under public pressure by releasing these women from part of the clause, the part about arbitration, but still won’t release them to bring suit as a group. What good does it do to have a little more income if the rules have been so stacked against you that you can’t even get justice for being violently attacked?
What good does it do to have jobs available if the law allows for pay so low you still need food stamps just to eat? (In some states if you worked full time for the federal minimum wage you would still qualify for food stamps.) Then the GOP Congress, who have kept the minimum wage low, treats everyone on food stamps like leaches and try everything they can to kick people off, as they just attempted in their farm bill.
I understand the reasons behind policy proposals to boost jobs and income, but if they’re not presented in context, as interim patches, as steps along the way, if they’re not accompanied by a clear, burning commitment to much larger change, if the focus is not relentlessly on the overarching goal of full, systemic change of priorities back to what benefits people, then…what good does it do? Helpful policies are good, but undoing all of the bias against people, back to people first, throughout the law and the economy, is the only real fix.
What good is a little more income if your workplace, or your neighborhood or your kids’ school, is in danger of either blowing up or getting doused in toxic chemicals?
The Arizona Supreme Court just ruled that if a company sends its workers home every day covered in asbestos dust, the company bears no responsibility for the family members who get cancer from it. That’s one example of the larger problem, which is decades of a systemic whittling away, in federal law, state laws and corporate behavior, at the well-being of people. Just getting a job or a little more income is not going to fix it. It requires a systemic, wholesale reversal in favor of people. Otherwise, you get the job, but you also get cancer. You get the income, but you get constantly ripped off.
The EPA is trying to undo a rule just recently enacted that would require companies which deal with dangerous chemicals to meet stronger safety guidelines. The rule was enacted in 2016, then suspended in 2017 because EPA head Scott Pruitt says it will save the industry, “roughly $88 million a year.” In the year following the suspension Earth Justice has logged events every week and a half on average that have descriptions such as, “2.5 million pounds of pollutants released,” “kills four workers,” “emissions that cover nearby homes, cars and an elementary school playground,” “Shelter-in-place orders for two elementary schools,” “explosions…evacuation of more than 70 square miles.”
A major phone-support center described as, “the top federal contractor in the call center industry,” was just busted for paying employees below what the contract specified. Employees who had risen to higher level work were still categorized at a lower job level. These aren’t low-wage, blue-collar, casual labor or temp-services workers. These are full-time office jobs that are supposed to be lower-middle income. This contractor was caught, but it’s doubtful they’re the only ones. What good does it do to have a job if the employer rips you off?
The EPA has tried to hide a study detailing how leaks from chemical plants and military installations contaminate water supplies of surrounding communities, because of the “potential public relations nightmare this is going to be.” What good does it do to perhaps afford a home if the water might kill you?
Most companies that provide you a service have in their fine print that you agree to forced arbitration if there are any problems. This even covers violent crimes, as women who were assaulted by Uber drivers learned. They could neither go to court, nor pool together for a group-lawsuit that might be the only way a suit is practical. Uber has changed its tune under public pressure by releasing these women from part of the clause, the part about arbitration, but still won’t release them to bring suit as a group. What good does it do to have a little more income if the rules have been so stacked against you that you can’t even get justice for being violently attacked?
What good does it do to have jobs available if the law allows for pay so low you still need food stamps just to eat? (In some states if you worked full time for the federal minimum wage you would still qualify for food stamps.) Then the GOP Congress, who have kept the minimum wage low, treats everyone on food stamps like leaches and try everything they can to kick people off, as they just attempted in their farm bill.
I understand the reasons behind policy proposals to boost jobs and income, but if they’re not presented in context, as interim patches, as steps along the way, if they’re not accompanied by a clear, burning commitment to much larger change, if the focus is not relentlessly on the overarching goal of full, systemic change of priorities back to what benefits people, then…what good does it do? Helpful policies are good, but undoing all of the bias against people, back to people first, throughout the law and the economy, is the only real fix.
"This Is a Democracy, Not a Dictatorship": Federal Workers Union Sues Donald Trump
Thursday, May 31, 2018
By Jon Queally, Common Dreams | Report - truthout
The nation's largest union of federal workers filed suit against the Trump administration on Wednesday over an executive order signed by President Donald Trump that seeks to deny workers the right to job site representation -- an established guarantee in existing labor law.
The lawsuit (pdf) by the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), a member of the AFL-CIO which represents approximately 700,000 federal employees, argues that among a slate of anti-worker orders signed by the president last Friday, one of them specifically exceeds the president's constitutional authority and violates the First Amendment right of workers to freely associate.
"This president seems to think he is above the law, and we are not going to stand by while he tries to shred workers' rights," said AFGE national president J. David Cox Sr., in a statement announcing the lawsuit. "This is a democracy, not a dictatorship. No president should be able to undo a law he doesn't like through administrative fiat."
As the Cleveland Plain Dealer reported on Friday, the executive orders signed by Trump last week are "intended to crack down on unions that represent federal employees and to make it easier to fire federal workers."
Taken together, the orders signed by Trump are designed to limit the amount of on-duty time federal workers can spend on union business, make it easier to fire employees, and compel federal agencies throughout the government to forge less-friendly contracts with unions.
"This is more than union busting -- it's democracy busting," Cox said on Friday after the president's signing of the orders was announced. "These executive orders are a direct assault on the legal rights and protections that Congress has specifically guaranteed to the 2 million public-sector employees across the country who work for the federal government."
In his statement on Wednesday regarding the AFGE's lawsuit, Cox said that Congress has laid out clear workplace labor laws to protect organized federal employees in order "to guarantee workers a collective voice in resolving workplace issues and improving the services they deliver to the public every day -- whether it's caring for veterans, ensuring our air and water are safe, preventing illegal weapons and drugs from crossing our borders, or helping communities recover from hurricanes and other disasters."
The lawsuit, he added, shows that federal employees "will not stand by and let this administration willfully violate the Constitution to score political points."
The lawsuit (pdf) by the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), a member of the AFL-CIO which represents approximately 700,000 federal employees, argues that among a slate of anti-worker orders signed by the president last Friday, one of them specifically exceeds the president's constitutional authority and violates the First Amendment right of workers to freely associate.
"This president seems to think he is above the law, and we are not going to stand by while he tries to shred workers' rights," said AFGE national president J. David Cox Sr., in a statement announcing the lawsuit. "This is a democracy, not a dictatorship. No president should be able to undo a law he doesn't like through administrative fiat."
As the Cleveland Plain Dealer reported on Friday, the executive orders signed by Trump last week are "intended to crack down on unions that represent federal employees and to make it easier to fire federal workers."
Taken together, the orders signed by Trump are designed to limit the amount of on-duty time federal workers can spend on union business, make it easier to fire employees, and compel federal agencies throughout the government to forge less-friendly contracts with unions.
"This is more than union busting -- it's democracy busting," Cox said on Friday after the president's signing of the orders was announced. "These executive orders are a direct assault on the legal rights and protections that Congress has specifically guaranteed to the 2 million public-sector employees across the country who work for the federal government."
In his statement on Wednesday regarding the AFGE's lawsuit, Cox said that Congress has laid out clear workplace labor laws to protect organized federal employees in order "to guarantee workers a collective voice in resolving workplace issues and improving the services they deliver to the public every day -- whether it's caring for veterans, ensuring our air and water are safe, preventing illegal weapons and drugs from crossing our borders, or helping communities recover from hurricanes and other disasters."
The lawsuit, he added, shows that federal employees "will not stand by and let this administration willfully violate the Constitution to score political points."
The Supreme Court workers' rights ruling already may hurt Chipotle workers in wage theft case
Wagatwe Wanjuki
Daily Kos Staff
Tuesday May 29, 2018 · 6:30 AM PDT
Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg made it clear in her thirty-page dissent for the recent Epic Systems v. Lewis decision: taking away workers’ rights to class-action lawsuits is bad news. Allowing companies to force arbitration for worker disputes puts even more power in the hands of powerful employers.
The decision came down this Monday, but it looks like it won’t take long for us to get to see the consequences of this ruling in action. About 10,000 workers sued fast-food burrito chain Chipotle for wage theft, but almost 3,000 of them may be kicked off the case thanks to those tricky arbitration agreements. HuffPost explains:
But Chipotle has been arguing that 2,814 workers in that group do not have a valid claim because they signed class- and collective-action waivers when they accepted their jobs. Late last year, the company provided the court with a 62-page list of workers in the lawsuit who had supposedly signed away their rights and asked the judge to exclude them from the proceedings.
The judge has not ruled on that request yet. But thanks to Justice Neil Gorsuch and the rest of the Supreme Court’s conservative majority, Chipotle may soon get its wish. The judge in the case issued an order Wednesday inviting the parties to submit new briefs by June 6 in light of the Epic Systems ruling.
he reason why a large chunk of these workers may be removed from the case is that Chipotle started requiring workers to agree to arbitration in 2014. While most plaintiffs didn’t sign that same employment agreement, a few folks may be cut out of the case since the lawsuit was filed that same year.
Time will only show how exactly Epic Systems v. Lewis will impact these Chipotle workers. If the court sides with the company (which is very likely) these workers will be forced to go into private arbitration, which has been long used to exploit workers and their families.
The decision came down this Monday, but it looks like it won’t take long for us to get to see the consequences of this ruling in action. About 10,000 workers sued fast-food burrito chain Chipotle for wage theft, but almost 3,000 of them may be kicked off the case thanks to those tricky arbitration agreements. HuffPost explains:
But Chipotle has been arguing that 2,814 workers in that group do not have a valid claim because they signed class- and collective-action waivers when they accepted their jobs. Late last year, the company provided the court with a 62-page list of workers in the lawsuit who had supposedly signed away their rights and asked the judge to exclude them from the proceedings.
The judge has not ruled on that request yet. But thanks to Justice Neil Gorsuch and the rest of the Supreme Court’s conservative majority, Chipotle may soon get its wish. The judge in the case issued an order Wednesday inviting the parties to submit new briefs by June 6 in light of the Epic Systems ruling.
he reason why a large chunk of these workers may be removed from the case is that Chipotle started requiring workers to agree to arbitration in 2014. While most plaintiffs didn’t sign that same employment agreement, a few folks may be cut out of the case since the lawsuit was filed that same year.
Time will only show how exactly Epic Systems v. Lewis will impact these Chipotle workers. If the court sides with the company (which is very likely) these workers will be forced to go into private arbitration, which has been long used to exploit workers and their families.
These U.S. Workers Are Being Paid Like It’s the 1980s
In some parts of America, the Department of Labor hasn’t updated its “prevailing wage” for taxpayer-funded work in decades.
By Josh Eidelson - bloomberg
May 25, 2018, 1:00 AM PDT
Thanks to a web of loopholes and limits, the federal government has been green-lighting hourly pay of just $7.25 for some construction workers laboring on taxpayer-funded projects, despite decades-old laws that promise them the “prevailing wage.”
Over the past year, the U.S. Department of Labor has formally given approval for contractors to pay $7.25 for specific government-funded projects in six Texas counties, according to letters reviewed by Bloomberg. Those counties are among dozens around the nation where the government-calculated prevailing wage listed for certain work—such as by some carpenters in North Carolina, bulldozer operators in Kansas and cement masons in Nebraska—is just the minimum wage.
That’s in part because, according to publicly available data from the Labor Department’s Wage and Hour Division, the agency is relying on wage survey data in more than 50 jurisdictions that’s from the 1980s or earlier. Experts said that’s a far cry from what Congress intended when, starting with the Depression-era Davis Bacon Act, it passed a series of laws meant to ensure that private companies contracted for government-backed projects pay their workers at least in the vicinity of what others get for the same work in the same geographic area.
In an emailed statement, the Labor Department didn’t address whether the decades-old data is a problem.
“The Wage and Hour Division carefully plans where to survey on an annual basis to ensure that prevailing wage rates reflect the reality of construction pay practices in a locality. The division identifies potential survey areas based on a number of criteria, including where available data on active construction projects in an area reveal changes in local pay practices such that a survey is necessary,” the department said.
Because government contracts are often required to go to the “lowest responsible bidder,” supporters say prevailing wage rules prevent a “race to the bottom” in which exploitative companies who pay workers less outbid safer, higher-quality firms, and in turn drive down industry standards to pocket more taxpayer dollars. Opponents of prevailing wage rules counter that they’re intrusive mandates that waste money, inflating construction costs in order to help unionized firms beat non-union competitors.
In recent years, the opposition—largely Republicans and industry groups—scored a series of wins, successfully pressing state governments in Arkansas, Indiana, Kentucky and West Virginia to repeal their own “little Davis Bacon” rules. By contrast, the federal statutes remain in place, despite the efforts of Representative Steve King, Republican of Iowa, who said last year that “no one can claim to be a fiscal conservative if they think the federal government needs to inflate the cost of wages.”
Legislation proposed to repeal federal prevailing wage rules has been dormant in Congress, in part because some Republicans support the protections. Additionally, some members of President Donald Trump’s cabinet have indicated they want to retain Davis Bacon in his stalled infrastructure initiative.
But for some workers, that guarantee of a prevailing wage no longer carries much weight. For taxpayer-funded projects in seven states, surveys used to determine the prevailing wage for some jobs haven’t been conducted for three decades or more.
In such places, “the act becomes meaningless,” said Mark Erlich, the former executive secretary-treasurer of the New England Regional Council of Carpenters. With rates so low, compensation standards throughout the industry are dragged down, said Erlich, now a fellow at Harvard Law School. In states such as New Hampshire and Maine, where prevailing wage rates haven’t kept up, unionized companies often don’t bother bidding for government-backed work, he said, because they know they will be underbid.
In Maine’s Cumberland and York counties, the U.S. Department of Labor lists prevailing wages for carpenters at just $9.54 an hour (with 59 cents worth of fringe benefits) and $9.26 (without benefits), respectively. Those rates are based on wage surveys from 1994 and 1988. But the average union carpenter in those counties now makes approximately $22 an hour, plus about $15 in benefits, Erlich said. Even non-union contractors there, to compete for employees in a tight labor market, would pay around $18 to $25 in total hourly compensation. The failure of government to keep up with what’s going on in the labor market, he said “is a large piece” of why construction has faded as “a pathway to the middle class.”
Some construction workers are guaranteed somewhat better-than-minimum wage pay, thanks to a different rule: an executive order, signed by President Barack Obama in 2014, requiring that federal contractors pay their employees at least $10.10 per hour. (That rate was indexed to inflation, so it now stands at $10.35.) But Obama's regulation, which governs projects covered by the Davis-Bacon Act applying to federal or District of Columbia contracts worth at least $2,000, does not control projects covered under the Davis-Bacon Related Acts, which govern projects backed by federal grants, loans or insurance.
That’s the case for projects in the six Texas counties mentioned above, for which the Department of Labor sent letters confirming its approval of $7.25 hourly pay for jobs such as truck driver, sprinkler fitter and forklift operator. Such pay is far below the actual average wages in the current market for construction workers, said Jose Garza, executive director of the Workers Defense Project, a Texas non-profit that advocates for employees in the industry. In Austin, where the Labor Department this year approved $7.25 per hour for workers such as bulldozer operators, most construction employers are paying more than double that, said Garza, who worked in the agency’s policy department during the Obama administration. But that’s partly due to a labor shortage; in a weaker economy with higher unemployment, low prevailing wage standards could tug standards down further.
The Labor Department is in a difficult position, said former Wage and Hour Division head David Weil, given the length and complexity of the surveying process and the limited resources available to execute it. “It can be a very time-consuming and also contentious process,” he said, and it requires cooperation from sometimes unresponsive employers. Weil said that, when he ran the agency under Obama, it prioritized which regions’ surveys to update, based on factors including how old the existing data were, how much new construction was taking place there and whether there were labor shortages in play.
The backlog could be reduced by pegging the rates to less-granular Bureau of Labor Statistics data or by boosting the resources devoted to surveys, said Weil, now head of Brandeis University’s Heller School for Social Policy and Management. “If you have public monies going into the construction of buildings,” he said, “you want to ensure that the people doing that work are paid adequately.”
Over the past year, the U.S. Department of Labor has formally given approval for contractors to pay $7.25 for specific government-funded projects in six Texas counties, according to letters reviewed by Bloomberg. Those counties are among dozens around the nation where the government-calculated prevailing wage listed for certain work—such as by some carpenters in North Carolina, bulldozer operators in Kansas and cement masons in Nebraska—is just the minimum wage.
That’s in part because, according to publicly available data from the Labor Department’s Wage and Hour Division, the agency is relying on wage survey data in more than 50 jurisdictions that’s from the 1980s or earlier. Experts said that’s a far cry from what Congress intended when, starting with the Depression-era Davis Bacon Act, it passed a series of laws meant to ensure that private companies contracted for government-backed projects pay their workers at least in the vicinity of what others get for the same work in the same geographic area.
In an emailed statement, the Labor Department didn’t address whether the decades-old data is a problem.
“The Wage and Hour Division carefully plans where to survey on an annual basis to ensure that prevailing wage rates reflect the reality of construction pay practices in a locality. The division identifies potential survey areas based on a number of criteria, including where available data on active construction projects in an area reveal changes in local pay practices such that a survey is necessary,” the department said.
Because government contracts are often required to go to the “lowest responsible bidder,” supporters say prevailing wage rules prevent a “race to the bottom” in which exploitative companies who pay workers less outbid safer, higher-quality firms, and in turn drive down industry standards to pocket more taxpayer dollars. Opponents of prevailing wage rules counter that they’re intrusive mandates that waste money, inflating construction costs in order to help unionized firms beat non-union competitors.
In recent years, the opposition—largely Republicans and industry groups—scored a series of wins, successfully pressing state governments in Arkansas, Indiana, Kentucky and West Virginia to repeal their own “little Davis Bacon” rules. By contrast, the federal statutes remain in place, despite the efforts of Representative Steve King, Republican of Iowa, who said last year that “no one can claim to be a fiscal conservative if they think the federal government needs to inflate the cost of wages.”
Legislation proposed to repeal federal prevailing wage rules has been dormant in Congress, in part because some Republicans support the protections. Additionally, some members of President Donald Trump’s cabinet have indicated they want to retain Davis Bacon in his stalled infrastructure initiative.
But for some workers, that guarantee of a prevailing wage no longer carries much weight. For taxpayer-funded projects in seven states, surveys used to determine the prevailing wage for some jobs haven’t been conducted for three decades or more.
In such places, “the act becomes meaningless,” said Mark Erlich, the former executive secretary-treasurer of the New England Regional Council of Carpenters. With rates so low, compensation standards throughout the industry are dragged down, said Erlich, now a fellow at Harvard Law School. In states such as New Hampshire and Maine, where prevailing wage rates haven’t kept up, unionized companies often don’t bother bidding for government-backed work, he said, because they know they will be underbid.
In Maine’s Cumberland and York counties, the U.S. Department of Labor lists prevailing wages for carpenters at just $9.54 an hour (with 59 cents worth of fringe benefits) and $9.26 (without benefits), respectively. Those rates are based on wage surveys from 1994 and 1988. But the average union carpenter in those counties now makes approximately $22 an hour, plus about $15 in benefits, Erlich said. Even non-union contractors there, to compete for employees in a tight labor market, would pay around $18 to $25 in total hourly compensation. The failure of government to keep up with what’s going on in the labor market, he said “is a large piece” of why construction has faded as “a pathway to the middle class.”
Some construction workers are guaranteed somewhat better-than-minimum wage pay, thanks to a different rule: an executive order, signed by President Barack Obama in 2014, requiring that federal contractors pay their employees at least $10.10 per hour. (That rate was indexed to inflation, so it now stands at $10.35.) But Obama's regulation, which governs projects covered by the Davis-Bacon Act applying to federal or District of Columbia contracts worth at least $2,000, does not control projects covered under the Davis-Bacon Related Acts, which govern projects backed by federal grants, loans or insurance.
That’s the case for projects in the six Texas counties mentioned above, for which the Department of Labor sent letters confirming its approval of $7.25 hourly pay for jobs such as truck driver, sprinkler fitter and forklift operator. Such pay is far below the actual average wages in the current market for construction workers, said Jose Garza, executive director of the Workers Defense Project, a Texas non-profit that advocates for employees in the industry. In Austin, where the Labor Department this year approved $7.25 per hour for workers such as bulldozer operators, most construction employers are paying more than double that, said Garza, who worked in the agency’s policy department during the Obama administration. But that’s partly due to a labor shortage; in a weaker economy with higher unemployment, low prevailing wage standards could tug standards down further.
The Labor Department is in a difficult position, said former Wage and Hour Division head David Weil, given the length and complexity of the surveying process and the limited resources available to execute it. “It can be a very time-consuming and also contentious process,” he said, and it requires cooperation from sometimes unresponsive employers. Weil said that, when he ran the agency under Obama, it prioritized which regions’ surveys to update, based on factors including how old the existing data were, how much new construction was taking place there and whether there were labor shortages in play.
The backlog could be reduced by pegging the rates to less-granular Bureau of Labor Statistics data or by boosting the resources devoted to surveys, said Weil, now head of Brandeis University’s Heller School for Social Policy and Management. “If you have public monies going into the construction of buildings,” he said, “you want to ensure that the people doing that work are paid adequately.”
American CEOs Now Clock in at 361 Times the Pay of the Average Worker
E. Hunter Harrison of the CSX Corporation was the top-earning CEO, with $151,147,286 in compensation in 2017.
By Laura Clawson / Daily Kos - alternet
May 26, 2018, 11:53 PM GMT
The AFL-CIO is out with its Executive Paywatch, which finds that “In 2017, CEOs of S&P 500 Index companies received, on average, $13.94 million in total compensation.” By contrast, “production and nonsupervisory workers earned only $38,613, on average." That means a 361-to-one CEO-to-worker pay ratio. And yes, it's growing:
In 2017, the CEO-to-worker pay ratio was 361. In 2016, the ratio was 347. In 1990, it was 107. And in 1980, it was 42. This pay gap reflects widening income inequality in the country.
E. Hunter Harrison of the CSX Corporation was the top-earning CEO, with $151,147,286 in compensation in 2017. The CEO-to-average-worker pay ratios by company—a new feature this year since this is the first year companies have been required to report them—are astonishing. That tells us that too many companies aren't investing in their workers.[...]
In 2017, the CEO-to-worker pay ratio was 361. In 2016, the ratio was 347. In 1990, it was 107. And in 1980, it was 42. This pay gap reflects widening income inequality in the country.
E. Hunter Harrison of the CSX Corporation was the top-earning CEO, with $151,147,286 in compensation in 2017. The CEO-to-average-worker pay ratios by company—a new feature this year since this is the first year companies have been required to report them—are astonishing. That tells us that too many companies aren't investing in their workers.[...]
A new study reveals how shockingly easy it would be for Walmart to boost workers’ wages
Tana Ganeva - raw story
25 MAY 2018 AT 10:03 ET
Walmart is one of the nation’s largest employers, with over a million people on the corporation’s pay roll. But like many American companies, the corporate behemoth prioritizes the interests of shareholders over its workers.
The company promised $20 billion to shareholders over the next two years. According to a study by the Roosevelt Institute, if the money had gone to workers, 1 million low-wage Walmart employees would have received an hourly wage increase of over $5.66. Alternately, as Vox points out, the money could have been used to fund workers’ investment in Walmart stock.
Currently, starting wage for new workers falls below the federal poverty line. Better practices by Walmart could have a huge impact on the economy.
“With over 1 million hourly employees, ending Walmart’s stock buyback program and redirecting those funds toward investments in employee compensation would provide a huge benefit to American workers, families, and our economy at large,” the Roosevelt Institute points out.
The C.E.O of Walmart, Doug McMillan, makes $22 million a year, according to the New York Times. Based on the median pay rate, you’d have to work at Walmart for 275 years to make that much.
The company promised $20 billion to shareholders over the next two years. According to a study by the Roosevelt Institute, if the money had gone to workers, 1 million low-wage Walmart employees would have received an hourly wage increase of over $5.66. Alternately, as Vox points out, the money could have been used to fund workers’ investment in Walmart stock.
Currently, starting wage for new workers falls below the federal poverty line. Better practices by Walmart could have a huge impact on the economy.
“With over 1 million hourly employees, ending Walmart’s stock buyback program and redirecting those funds toward investments in employee compensation would provide a huge benefit to American workers, families, and our economy at large,” the Roosevelt Institute points out.
The C.E.O of Walmart, Doug McMillan, makes $22 million a year, according to the New York Times. Based on the median pay rate, you’d have to work at Walmart for 275 years to make that much.
Cheating workers out of wages is easier than ever
The Conversation - raw story
22 MAY 2018 AT 09:57 ET
Jara Neal Willis, a nurse at a hospital in Texas, usually clocked in a few minutes before the start of her shift and stayed late whenever her patients needed help. Her lunch breaks were often cut short by requests from doctors, patients or their families.
Willis and her colleagues, however, claimed they were not paid for those extra few minutes worked before and after their shifts. Or for working during lunch breaks.
It wasn’t because of mischievous gremlins falsifying their time cards in a backroom, but settings in the software the hospital used to track comings and goings. Two features alone, “rounding” and “automatic break deductions,” could result in the loss of up to 44 minutes a day – or US$1,382 a year at the federal minimum wage.
Timekeeping software was the focus of a study I co-authored last year documenting how it could be used to facilitate wage theft.
But it left a lingering question: Did companies actually use these features to shortchange workers? Based on my review of hundreds of lawsuits like Willis’, the answer is yes – and it’s just the tip of the iceberg.
Wage theft gets a tech upgrade
“Wage theft” is a shorthand term that refers to situations in which someone isn’t paid for the work. In its simplest form, it might consist of a manager instructing employees to work off the clock. Or a company refusing to pay for overtime hours.
A report from the Economic Policy Institute estimated that employees lose $15 billion to wage theft every year, more than all of the property crime in the United States put together.
That report, however, focused on workers being paid less than the federal or state minimum wage. Our 2017 study, which was based on promotional materials, employer policies and YouTube videos, suggested that companies can now use software to avoid paying all sorts of hourly workers.
Hundreds and hundreds
When an employee clocks in for the day – using a computer login, ID badge or phone– that employee’s time log becomes a form of data.
I wanted to know if there was any evidence that employers have ever used rounding and automatic break deductions to change that data, to their workers’ detriment. So I did what law professors normally do in such situations: I ran a search of legal opinions to see if there were any cases in which workers sought to reclaim wages lost through digital wage theft.
Before our study, I hadn’t even heard of this practice, so I expected to find only a handful of cases. Instead, I found hundreds and hundreds of legal opinions involving digital wage theft. And this suggests there are hundreds more because, typically, for every case that results in a legal opinion many more do not.
I decided to read a bunch to get a flavor for what employees were claiming and a window into how employers were using the software. I eventually stopped after wading through more than 300 cases, which are described in a study published in the American Business Law Journal.
The study’s methodology does not support quantitative inferences about how often digital wage theft occurs or how much money U.S. workers have lost to these practices over time.
But what I can say is that this is not a theoretical problem. Real workers have lost real money to these practices.
Rounding away
Rounding – the functionality used to nickel and dime workers like Jara Willis – is a convenient way for companies to consistently reclaim employee hours.
This illustrates how a rounding system to the quarter hour works.
Even though the software can precisely record the time an employee clocks in and out, the “rounding” functionality changes that time according to a preset increment. Companies argue they use it to increase payroll predictability.
The preferred rounding increment in the cases I reviewed appeared to be to the quarter hour. So arriving to work at 8:53 a.m. would be rounded to 9, while 8:52 would become 8:45.
In theory, employees could even the odds when it comes to rounding by carefully timing their arrivals and departures. They could show up late or leave early, or punch in extra early or leave extra late.
But companies have two extra weapons to corral employee punches to work in their favor: policies and discipline. Yes, you could show up late or leave early, but then you’d be flagged for discipline under the attendance policy.
A hospital posted a ‘Stop Mooching’ sign to discourage people from coming too early or staying too late, submitted as an evidence in litigation.
Sometimes employers in these cases further stacked the deck by prohibiting workers from punching in more than seven minutes early. Others actually “invited” employees to punch in up to seven minutes early, labeling it a “grace period,” as though it were an accommodation to workers.
Willis’ hospital, however, took a highly unusual approach to persuading workers to clock in during periods that favored the hospital. According to testimony from that case, supervisors labeled any employee who clocked in too early or out too late, thereby gaining minutes under the rounding system, a “moocher.”
One manager even posted “no mooching” signs with a picture of a cow and a time clock in the hospital hallway.
Working the odds
Rounding works the odds, sort of like a casino. And in fact, some of the cases I reviewed actually involved casino workers, perhaps because they are especially attuned to statistics and realize they’re on the wrong side of the equation.
In one case brought by casino workers, the plaintiff’s expert estimated that the 2,100 employees who opted into the lawsuit lost 87,710 hours over a five-year period, or roughly $950,000 at their $10.80 average hourly rate.
This is a casino worker’s time records, annotated by plaintiff’s counsel in litigation.But the company’s rounding policy actually covered 28,000 employees. If those workers were similarly affected by the policy, that would have meant a loss of about 1.17 million hours, or $12.6 million in wages the company was able to reclaim through the rounding policy over five years.
The case settled for $450,000, about half of which went to attorneys’ fees. In other words, even though this particular company was caught, dragged through litigation and forced to settle, it still would have made a hefty profit from its rounding policy. That’s not exactly a deterrent.
Unpaid breaks
Employers also reclaim time through what is known as “automatic break deductions.” The software assumes that you took your full meal break, even if you didn’t.
In some workplaces, taking a lunch break can be difficult, especially for those providing patient care in hospitals and nursing homes. Studies of nurses suggest that they are completely unable to take breaks in about 10 percent of shifts and aren’t relieved of duty for meals and breaks in about 40 percent.
In the cases I reviewed, companies didn’t make it easy for workers to override the break deduction. Employees complained that they didn’t have authorization to do so and instead had to fill out an extra paper form. Or ask their supervisor for approval. Or both.
Companies even discouraged workers from doing so. A nurse received an “action plan” from her hospital after requesting too many break overrides. Rather than fixing the staffing problems that led to the missed breaks, the hospital recommended that she “keep snacks in her office.”
So how did this problem come about in the first place?
These types of employer abuses are made possible by half-century-old rules that permitted rounding because at the time companies had to calculate hours by hand.
The outdated regulations assume that rounding will “average out” in the long term, essentially forcing workers to prove that they don’t – as in the cases I reviewed.
That leaves employers free to use rounding because it’s theoretically possible that it all might average out. And because collective litigation to recover lost wages requires affected workers to “opt in” to a class action suit, only a small fraction of workers ever get their money back.
Regulations assume outdated systems for recording and processing employee time.
What’s more, the outdated regulations don’t even mention automatic break deductions. That leaves courts struggling to figure out what’s fair in cases where there often isn’t even an electronic record of the missed break.
The Conversation This problem is not going away. As long as these regulatory loopholes exist, employers and software makers will find ways to exploit them. That means if you’re paid an hourly wage, you may very well be losing out.
Willis and her colleagues, however, claimed they were not paid for those extra few minutes worked before and after their shifts. Or for working during lunch breaks.
It wasn’t because of mischievous gremlins falsifying their time cards in a backroom, but settings in the software the hospital used to track comings and goings. Two features alone, “rounding” and “automatic break deductions,” could result in the loss of up to 44 minutes a day – or US$1,382 a year at the federal minimum wage.
Timekeeping software was the focus of a study I co-authored last year documenting how it could be used to facilitate wage theft.
But it left a lingering question: Did companies actually use these features to shortchange workers? Based on my review of hundreds of lawsuits like Willis’, the answer is yes – and it’s just the tip of the iceberg.
Wage theft gets a tech upgrade
“Wage theft” is a shorthand term that refers to situations in which someone isn’t paid for the work. In its simplest form, it might consist of a manager instructing employees to work off the clock. Or a company refusing to pay for overtime hours.
A report from the Economic Policy Institute estimated that employees lose $15 billion to wage theft every year, more than all of the property crime in the United States put together.
That report, however, focused on workers being paid less than the federal or state minimum wage. Our 2017 study, which was based on promotional materials, employer policies and YouTube videos, suggested that companies can now use software to avoid paying all sorts of hourly workers.
Hundreds and hundreds
When an employee clocks in for the day – using a computer login, ID badge or phone– that employee’s time log becomes a form of data.
I wanted to know if there was any evidence that employers have ever used rounding and automatic break deductions to change that data, to their workers’ detriment. So I did what law professors normally do in such situations: I ran a search of legal opinions to see if there were any cases in which workers sought to reclaim wages lost through digital wage theft.
Before our study, I hadn’t even heard of this practice, so I expected to find only a handful of cases. Instead, I found hundreds and hundreds of legal opinions involving digital wage theft. And this suggests there are hundreds more because, typically, for every case that results in a legal opinion many more do not.
I decided to read a bunch to get a flavor for what employees were claiming and a window into how employers were using the software. I eventually stopped after wading through more than 300 cases, which are described in a study published in the American Business Law Journal.
The study’s methodology does not support quantitative inferences about how often digital wage theft occurs or how much money U.S. workers have lost to these practices over time.
But what I can say is that this is not a theoretical problem. Real workers have lost real money to these practices.
Rounding away
Rounding – the functionality used to nickel and dime workers like Jara Willis – is a convenient way for companies to consistently reclaim employee hours.
This illustrates how a rounding system to the quarter hour works.
Even though the software can precisely record the time an employee clocks in and out, the “rounding” functionality changes that time according to a preset increment. Companies argue they use it to increase payroll predictability.
The preferred rounding increment in the cases I reviewed appeared to be to the quarter hour. So arriving to work at 8:53 a.m. would be rounded to 9, while 8:52 would become 8:45.
In theory, employees could even the odds when it comes to rounding by carefully timing their arrivals and departures. They could show up late or leave early, or punch in extra early or leave extra late.
But companies have two extra weapons to corral employee punches to work in their favor: policies and discipline. Yes, you could show up late or leave early, but then you’d be flagged for discipline under the attendance policy.
A hospital posted a ‘Stop Mooching’ sign to discourage people from coming too early or staying too late, submitted as an evidence in litigation.
Sometimes employers in these cases further stacked the deck by prohibiting workers from punching in more than seven minutes early. Others actually “invited” employees to punch in up to seven minutes early, labeling it a “grace period,” as though it were an accommodation to workers.
Willis’ hospital, however, took a highly unusual approach to persuading workers to clock in during periods that favored the hospital. According to testimony from that case, supervisors labeled any employee who clocked in too early or out too late, thereby gaining minutes under the rounding system, a “moocher.”
One manager even posted “no mooching” signs with a picture of a cow and a time clock in the hospital hallway.
Working the odds
Rounding works the odds, sort of like a casino. And in fact, some of the cases I reviewed actually involved casino workers, perhaps because they are especially attuned to statistics and realize they’re on the wrong side of the equation.
In one case brought by casino workers, the plaintiff’s expert estimated that the 2,100 employees who opted into the lawsuit lost 87,710 hours over a five-year period, or roughly $950,000 at their $10.80 average hourly rate.
This is a casino worker’s time records, annotated by plaintiff’s counsel in litigation.But the company’s rounding policy actually covered 28,000 employees. If those workers were similarly affected by the policy, that would have meant a loss of about 1.17 million hours, or $12.6 million in wages the company was able to reclaim through the rounding policy over five years.
The case settled for $450,000, about half of which went to attorneys’ fees. In other words, even though this particular company was caught, dragged through litigation and forced to settle, it still would have made a hefty profit from its rounding policy. That’s not exactly a deterrent.
Unpaid breaks
Employers also reclaim time through what is known as “automatic break deductions.” The software assumes that you took your full meal break, even if you didn’t.
In some workplaces, taking a lunch break can be difficult, especially for those providing patient care in hospitals and nursing homes. Studies of nurses suggest that they are completely unable to take breaks in about 10 percent of shifts and aren’t relieved of duty for meals and breaks in about 40 percent.
In the cases I reviewed, companies didn’t make it easy for workers to override the break deduction. Employees complained that they didn’t have authorization to do so and instead had to fill out an extra paper form. Or ask their supervisor for approval. Or both.
Companies even discouraged workers from doing so. A nurse received an “action plan” from her hospital after requesting too many break overrides. Rather than fixing the staffing problems that led to the missed breaks, the hospital recommended that she “keep snacks in her office.”
So how did this problem come about in the first place?
These types of employer abuses are made possible by half-century-old rules that permitted rounding because at the time companies had to calculate hours by hand.
The outdated regulations assume that rounding will “average out” in the long term, essentially forcing workers to prove that they don’t – as in the cases I reviewed.
That leaves employers free to use rounding because it’s theoretically possible that it all might average out. And because collective litigation to recover lost wages requires affected workers to “opt in” to a class action suit, only a small fraction of workers ever get their money back.
Regulations assume outdated systems for recording and processing employee time.
What’s more, the outdated regulations don’t even mention automatic break deductions. That leaves courts struggling to figure out what’s fair in cases where there often isn’t even an electronic record of the missed break.
The Conversation This problem is not going away. As long as these regulatory loopholes exist, employers and software makers will find ways to exploit them. That means if you’re paid an hourly wage, you may very well be losing out.
CIRCA 1870: A CARTOON SATIRISING THE SWEATSHOPS OF THE CLOTHING INDUSTRY. ORIGINAL ARTIST: BY JOHN LEECH FROM PUNCH MAGAZINE. (PHOTO BY RISCHGITZ/GETTY IMAGES)
Supreme Court: Workers Can’t Organize to Sue Their Bosses
Published on May 21, 2018
by Sam Knight - district sentinel
The landmark law giving workers the right to organize doesn’t include the right to collectively seek legal redress, the Supreme Court ruled.
Justices said employers can force their workers to adjudicate claims on an individual basis through private arbitration, in a 5-4 decision issued on Monday.
The dispute was centered around whether the National Labor Relations Act guarantees the right of collective legal action. The conservative majority ruled that it does not; and that workplace contracts mandating individualized private dispute settlement are permitted under the Federal Arbitration Act. Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote the opinion on behalf of the Court.
“The NLRA secures to employees rights to organize unions and bargain collectively, but it says nothing about how judges and arbitrators must try legal disputes that leave the workplace and enter the courtroom or arbitral forum,” said Gorsuch.
Those challenging mandatory arbitration clauses had pointed to Section 7 of the NLRA, which gives employees the right to engage in “concerted activities for the purpose of…mutual aid or protection.” Gorsuch dismissed “concerted activities” as a “catchall term.”
“[T]he term appears at the end of a detailed list of activities speaking of ‘self-organization,’” he said. “And where, as here, a more general term follows more specific terms in a list, the general term is usually understood to ’embrace only objects similar in nature to those objects enumerated by the preceding specific words.’”
Writing for the minority, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg characterized this analysis as poorly-formed and pedantic. She said Gorsuch was misapplying legal theory on interpreting vague statutes “to undermine Congress’ efforts to draft encompassing legislation.”
“Nothing suggests that Congress envisioned a cramped construction of the NLRA,” she said.
Ginsburg noted that courts have previously protected certain collective actions not enumerated in the law.
“For example, the Board and federal courts have affirmed that the Act shields employees from employer interference when they participate in concerted appeals to the media,” she said.
In her analysis, Ginsburg also warned that the majority was risking the return of pre-NLRA “yellow dog” contracts, with its narrow ruling on the definition of concerted activities.
“Such agreements, which employers required employees to sign as a condition of employment, typically commanded employees to abstain from joining labor unions,” she explained.
RELATED: The sinister history underlying Neil Gorsuch’s decision lashing out at American workers
Justices said employers can force their workers to adjudicate claims on an individual basis through private arbitration, in a 5-4 decision issued on Monday.
The dispute was centered around whether the National Labor Relations Act guarantees the right of collective legal action. The conservative majority ruled that it does not; and that workplace contracts mandating individualized private dispute settlement are permitted under the Federal Arbitration Act. Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote the opinion on behalf of the Court.
“The NLRA secures to employees rights to organize unions and bargain collectively, but it says nothing about how judges and arbitrators must try legal disputes that leave the workplace and enter the courtroom or arbitral forum,” said Gorsuch.
Those challenging mandatory arbitration clauses had pointed to Section 7 of the NLRA, which gives employees the right to engage in “concerted activities for the purpose of…mutual aid or protection.” Gorsuch dismissed “concerted activities” as a “catchall term.”
“[T]he term appears at the end of a detailed list of activities speaking of ‘self-organization,’” he said. “And where, as here, a more general term follows more specific terms in a list, the general term is usually understood to ’embrace only objects similar in nature to those objects enumerated by the preceding specific words.’”
Writing for the minority, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg characterized this analysis as poorly-formed and pedantic. She said Gorsuch was misapplying legal theory on interpreting vague statutes “to undermine Congress’ efforts to draft encompassing legislation.”
“Nothing suggests that Congress envisioned a cramped construction of the NLRA,” she said.
Ginsburg noted that courts have previously protected certain collective actions not enumerated in the law.
“For example, the Board and federal courts have affirmed that the Act shields employees from employer interference when they participate in concerted appeals to the media,” she said.
In her analysis, Ginsburg also warned that the majority was risking the return of pre-NLRA “yellow dog” contracts, with its narrow ruling on the definition of concerted activities.
“Such agreements, which employers required employees to sign as a condition of employment, typically commanded employees to abstain from joining labor unions,” she explained.
RELATED: The sinister history underlying Neil Gorsuch’s decision lashing out at American workers
Employer Power in Labor Markets Further Sidelines Women and People of Color in Today's Economy
Monday, May 21, 2018
By Jessica Forden, Roosevelt Institute | News Analysis - truthout
Increased monopsony in labor markets has allowed corporations to gain outsized power over individuals, leaving workers with less agency over the choices in their lives. Labor market monopsony refers to the concentration of employers and the resulting power they have to shape labor markets to their advantage. More concentration leads to fewer employers who offer fewer jobs, which gives employers the power to set wages and working conditions on their own terms. As a result, many Americans have less leverage over employers on issues that define their economic security, including compensation and benefits.
This is bad news for workers, but even more so for those already facing structural barriers in the labor market. Women, people of color, and in particular, women of color, face extensive limits on their freedoms and choices due to pervasive structural discrimination. Consequently, these individuals and communities bear compounded negative effects from this economic trend.
First, labor market monopsony can increase the likelihood of discrimination in hiring. When there are fewer jobs, as happens under labor market monopsony, firms have a greater ability to be biased in their hiring choices. For example, take a company that has a preference for a specific demographic and needs to fill five jobs. If only three individuals of that preferred demographic apply, then they must choose from the rest of the applicant pool for the remaining two positions. However, monopsony power in the labor market gives firms more control to dictate their demand for labor. If the company decides to only offer three jobs, they could simply hire the three preferred applicants and disregard everyone else.
Monopsony power also depresses wages, while structural discrimination funnels women and people of color into low-wage jobs. Increased concentration of companies in the past few years led to a 14 percent decrease in wages for posted job listings. Meanwhile, women, people of color, and in particular, women of color are often directed into the lowest paying professions. This means that when increased monopsony leads to lower wages, women and people of color are most hurt. For those earning at the bottom of the income distribution, this can mean that necessities like food and housing become more difficult to afford month to month.
Increased monopsony also affects the ability of workers to move between jobs, especially for Americans who are held back in the economy by their gender, race, or both. When there are fewer job options in the labor market, workers have reduced power to leave work environments where they may face harassment from customers or be vulnerable to employer abuses. A clear example of this is food service workers in the restaurant industry. Restaurant workers, particularly women and women of color, often endure inappropriate behavior from customers, often with no recourse. Decreased job mobility increases the incentive to stay at such a job due to the lack of alternative employment options. Without job mobility, workers can become trapped in hostile workplaces.
Lastly, though recent debate on monopsony in the labor market suggests that workers are less likely to move between local labor markets than economists may predict, it's important to note that those who do move are those most likely to have the resources to. People and women of color hold substantially less wealth and have less community or family wealth. These individuals also earn some of the lowest incomes. Relocation involves many upfront costs that require savings or assistance from community supports and may simply be prohibitively expensive. With fewer workers unable to consider relocating for work, competition in local labor markets that are available to these groups decreases further.
Increased monopsony power of firms in labor markets is a problem for the bulk of the workforce, but it's important to consider how demographic groups are differentially affected by this trend. Women, people of color, and women of color are disproportionately in low-wage work and face less competitive labor markets overall. When increased monopsony decreases available jobs, lowers wages, and reduces job mobility for everyone, women, people of color, and women of color face disproportionate constraints in their lives.
This is bad news for workers, but even more so for those already facing structural barriers in the labor market. Women, people of color, and in particular, women of color, face extensive limits on their freedoms and choices due to pervasive structural discrimination. Consequently, these individuals and communities bear compounded negative effects from this economic trend.
First, labor market monopsony can increase the likelihood of discrimination in hiring. When there are fewer jobs, as happens under labor market monopsony, firms have a greater ability to be biased in their hiring choices. For example, take a company that has a preference for a specific demographic and needs to fill five jobs. If only three individuals of that preferred demographic apply, then they must choose from the rest of the applicant pool for the remaining two positions. However, monopsony power in the labor market gives firms more control to dictate their demand for labor. If the company decides to only offer three jobs, they could simply hire the three preferred applicants and disregard everyone else.
Monopsony power also depresses wages, while structural discrimination funnels women and people of color into low-wage jobs. Increased concentration of companies in the past few years led to a 14 percent decrease in wages for posted job listings. Meanwhile, women, people of color, and in particular, women of color are often directed into the lowest paying professions. This means that when increased monopsony leads to lower wages, women and people of color are most hurt. For those earning at the bottom of the income distribution, this can mean that necessities like food and housing become more difficult to afford month to month.
Increased monopsony also affects the ability of workers to move between jobs, especially for Americans who are held back in the economy by their gender, race, or both. When there are fewer job options in the labor market, workers have reduced power to leave work environments where they may face harassment from customers or be vulnerable to employer abuses. A clear example of this is food service workers in the restaurant industry. Restaurant workers, particularly women and women of color, often endure inappropriate behavior from customers, often with no recourse. Decreased job mobility increases the incentive to stay at such a job due to the lack of alternative employment options. Without job mobility, workers can become trapped in hostile workplaces.
Lastly, though recent debate on monopsony in the labor market suggests that workers are less likely to move between local labor markets than economists may predict, it's important to note that those who do move are those most likely to have the resources to. People and women of color hold substantially less wealth and have less community or family wealth. These individuals also earn some of the lowest incomes. Relocation involves many upfront costs that require savings or assistance from community supports and may simply be prohibitively expensive. With fewer workers unable to consider relocating for work, competition in local labor markets that are available to these groups decreases further.
Increased monopsony power of firms in labor markets is a problem for the bulk of the workforce, but it's important to consider how demographic groups are differentially affected by this trend. Women, people of color, and women of color are disproportionately in low-wage work and face less competitive labor markets overall. When increased monopsony decreases available jobs, lowers wages, and reduces job mobility for everyone, women, people of color, and women of color face disproportionate constraints in their lives.
Exclusive: how rightwing groups wield secret 'toolkit' to plot against US unions
Internal documents obtained by the Guardian reveal a nationwide drive to persuade union members to quit and stop paying dues
Ed Pilkington in New York
the guardian
Tue 15 May 2018 06.00 EDT
Rightwing activists are launching a nationwide drive to persuade public-sector trade union members to tear up their membership cards and stop paying dues, posing a direct threat to the progressive movement in America.
Documents obtained by the Guardian reveal that a network of radical conservative thinktanks spanning all 50 states is planning direct marketing campaigns targeted personally at union members to encourage them to quit. The secret push, the group hopes, could cost unions up to a fifth of their 7 million members, lead to the loss of millions of dollars in income and undermine a cornerstone of US progressive politics.
“Well run opt-out campaigns can cause public-sector unions to experience 5 to 20% declines in membership, costing hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars in dues money. This can affect the resources and attention available for union leaders to devote to political action campaigns,” the internal documents say.
The anti-union marketing drive is the brainchild of the State Policy Network (SPN), a coast-to-coast alliance of 66 rightwing thinktanks that has an $80m war chest to promote Donald Trump-friendly regressive policies such as low taxes and small government. The group is funded by such billionaire conservative donors as the Koch brothers and the Walton Family Foundation that stems from the Walmart fortune.
Previous SPN literature exposed by the Guardian has revealed the political motives behind the network’s attacks on unions. It aims to “defund and defang” public sector unions as a means to “reverse the failed policies of the American left”.
The goal, the group said, was “permanently depriving the left from access to millions of dollars in dues extracted from unwilling union members every election cycle”.
The Guardian has now obtained what SPN is calling a “toolkit” of advice to its followers on how to go about fomenting “union reform” – a euphemism for draining unions of members and cash. The “toolkit” sets out four “tactics” for depleting their power – “effective union reform”, in its language.
One of those tactics is the opt-out campaign.
“To get employees to opt-out of their union,” the documents say, “they first need to know they have a choice. A direct marketing campaign to union represented public employees that combines mail and digital outreach helps raise awareness and raise opt-out rates.”
The SPN blueprint sets out how to acquire the private details of union members through state freedom of information laws so that opt-out propaganda can be targeted directly at them. It says: “Access to lists of union members is essential to this project. The most common means of obtaining lists is through requests made under state public records laws.”
The toolkit is being circulated at a vital moment for public sector trade unions. The wave of school teachers’ strikes in West Virginia, Oklahoma, Kentucky, Arizona, Colorado and elsewhere has reinvigorated the labor movement as a key part of the resistance to stagnating wages, waning resources and a hostile White House.
More perilously, the US supreme court is poised to deliver its ruling any day in Janus v AFSCME, one of the most important trade union cases in recent times. If the five conservative justices on the highest court vote in favor of the anti-union plaintiff, as many expect, they would deal a severe blow to organized labor by giving employees the right to opt-out of paying their share of the costs of collective bargaining even though they benefit from negotiated higher wages and improved conditions.
That in turn would give the green light to conservative groups like SPN to step up their efforts to encourage mass resignations of union members. As a clear statement of intent, SPN invited Mark Janus, a child support worker in Illinois who is the named plaintiff at the center of the supreme court case, to speak at its annual meeting in San Antonio, Texas, last August.
Carrie Conko, SPN’s vice president of communications, said that “workers should be able to decide for themselves if payment of union dues and fees is a good use of their hard-earned money or if their money is better spent elsewhere”. SPN’s aim was not political, rather it was “simply about protecting free speech”.
Public-sector unions had created a problem for themselves, Conko said, by leaving some workers to feel they were being used. The Janus case might actually help government unions improve their standing with members as “they will need to prove their worth by providing better representation to earn the voluntary dues”.
Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, said the Guardian documents revealed the extent of secret planning by rightwing groups in advance of the supreme court’s Janus ruling. “These documents make clear that Janus v AFSCME is not a case brought by individuals trying to have a voice, it’s a case brought by wealthy forces to eliminate worker voice and power.”
She added that rightwing billionaires such as the Kochs “know working families only have power through their unity as a union, and they will stop at nothing to destroy that. But we have seen unprecedented support for our unions and the opportunities they enable for a better life – when the Janus decision day comes, we will stand united, ready to act and fight back against the forces that want to silence workers.”
One of the SPN thinktanks, the Freedom Foundation in Olympia, Washington state, has already begun campaigning and fundraising on the back of a Janus ruling that goes against the unions. It has been mailing out to supporters in which it says “we are gearing up in a major way to launch an extensive education and activation campaign to take full advantage of a favorable ruling in this historic case”.
The foundation goes on to say: “The consequences of a favorable ruling are huge. Imagine tens, even hundreds, of millions of dollars currently used to push damaging leftwing causes and candidates … vanishing.”
In 2016 the Freedom Foundation ran a brazen campaign in Washington and Oregon in which it went knocking on the doors of more than 10,000 childcare and home care workers telling them that under a previous US supreme court ruling they could opt out of paying union dues. In the document obtained by the Guardian, SPN boasts that the foundation’s operation cost the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) in those states $8.8m in lost dues and legal fees.
Documents obtained by the Guardian reveal that a network of radical conservative thinktanks spanning all 50 states is planning direct marketing campaigns targeted personally at union members to encourage them to quit. The secret push, the group hopes, could cost unions up to a fifth of their 7 million members, lead to the loss of millions of dollars in income and undermine a cornerstone of US progressive politics.
“Well run opt-out campaigns can cause public-sector unions to experience 5 to 20% declines in membership, costing hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars in dues money. This can affect the resources and attention available for union leaders to devote to political action campaigns,” the internal documents say.
The anti-union marketing drive is the brainchild of the State Policy Network (SPN), a coast-to-coast alliance of 66 rightwing thinktanks that has an $80m war chest to promote Donald Trump-friendly regressive policies such as low taxes and small government. The group is funded by such billionaire conservative donors as the Koch brothers and the Walton Family Foundation that stems from the Walmart fortune.
Previous SPN literature exposed by the Guardian has revealed the political motives behind the network’s attacks on unions. It aims to “defund and defang” public sector unions as a means to “reverse the failed policies of the American left”.
The goal, the group said, was “permanently depriving the left from access to millions of dollars in dues extracted from unwilling union members every election cycle”.
The Guardian has now obtained what SPN is calling a “toolkit” of advice to its followers on how to go about fomenting “union reform” – a euphemism for draining unions of members and cash. The “toolkit” sets out four “tactics” for depleting their power – “effective union reform”, in its language.
One of those tactics is the opt-out campaign.
“To get employees to opt-out of their union,” the documents say, “they first need to know they have a choice. A direct marketing campaign to union represented public employees that combines mail and digital outreach helps raise awareness and raise opt-out rates.”
The SPN blueprint sets out how to acquire the private details of union members through state freedom of information laws so that opt-out propaganda can be targeted directly at them. It says: “Access to lists of union members is essential to this project. The most common means of obtaining lists is through requests made under state public records laws.”
The toolkit is being circulated at a vital moment for public sector trade unions. The wave of school teachers’ strikes in West Virginia, Oklahoma, Kentucky, Arizona, Colorado and elsewhere has reinvigorated the labor movement as a key part of the resistance to stagnating wages, waning resources and a hostile White House.
More perilously, the US supreme court is poised to deliver its ruling any day in Janus v AFSCME, one of the most important trade union cases in recent times. If the five conservative justices on the highest court vote in favor of the anti-union plaintiff, as many expect, they would deal a severe blow to organized labor by giving employees the right to opt-out of paying their share of the costs of collective bargaining even though they benefit from negotiated higher wages and improved conditions.
That in turn would give the green light to conservative groups like SPN to step up their efforts to encourage mass resignations of union members. As a clear statement of intent, SPN invited Mark Janus, a child support worker in Illinois who is the named plaintiff at the center of the supreme court case, to speak at its annual meeting in San Antonio, Texas, last August.
Carrie Conko, SPN’s vice president of communications, said that “workers should be able to decide for themselves if payment of union dues and fees is a good use of their hard-earned money or if their money is better spent elsewhere”. SPN’s aim was not political, rather it was “simply about protecting free speech”.
Public-sector unions had created a problem for themselves, Conko said, by leaving some workers to feel they were being used. The Janus case might actually help government unions improve their standing with members as “they will need to prove their worth by providing better representation to earn the voluntary dues”.
Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, said the Guardian documents revealed the extent of secret planning by rightwing groups in advance of the supreme court’s Janus ruling. “These documents make clear that Janus v AFSCME is not a case brought by individuals trying to have a voice, it’s a case brought by wealthy forces to eliminate worker voice and power.”
She added that rightwing billionaires such as the Kochs “know working families only have power through their unity as a union, and they will stop at nothing to destroy that. But we have seen unprecedented support for our unions and the opportunities they enable for a better life – when the Janus decision day comes, we will stand united, ready to act and fight back against the forces that want to silence workers.”
One of the SPN thinktanks, the Freedom Foundation in Olympia, Washington state, has already begun campaigning and fundraising on the back of a Janus ruling that goes against the unions. It has been mailing out to supporters in which it says “we are gearing up in a major way to launch an extensive education and activation campaign to take full advantage of a favorable ruling in this historic case”.
The foundation goes on to say: “The consequences of a favorable ruling are huge. Imagine tens, even hundreds, of millions of dollars currently used to push damaging leftwing causes and candidates … vanishing.”
In 2016 the Freedom Foundation ran a brazen campaign in Washington and Oregon in which it went knocking on the doors of more than 10,000 childcare and home care workers telling them that under a previous US supreme court ruling they could opt out of paying union dues. In the document obtained by the Guardian, SPN boasts that the foundation’s operation cost the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) in those states $8.8m in lost dues and legal fees.
funnies
