On the Horizon for Workers: Important Battles Ahead
- A Broken System in Transition: Health Care Reform
- Stronger Unions: The Battle of the Employee Free Choice Act
- Progress on the Way, or Dreams Delayed: LGBT Employment Protections
- You Are What You Post: Online Social Networking and Employment
A Broken System in Transition: Health Care Reform
The debate over health care reform in the United States centers on questions of a right to health care, access, fairness, the quality achieved for the high sums spent, and the sustainability of expenditures that have been rising faster than the level of general inflation and the growth in the economy. Medical debt is the principal cause of bankruptcy in the United States. The mixed public-private health care system in the United States is the most expensive health care system in the world with health care costing more per person than in any other nation. Today, there are well over 40 million Americans, chiefly in working families, who lack health coverage. Employer-provided coverage continues to be a good arrangement for workers (and their families) who look forward to long-term employment in large companies that offer comprehensive health benefits. But it is not an effective way to cover people who change jobs frequently, have spells of unemployment, or for other reasons do not have a firm attachment to one employer. Nor are employees of small firms typically able to obtain good coverage; they are in very small insurance pools, and their employers generally lack the skill and administrative capacity to arrange good plans for them. Health care being primarily employment-based, health care reform significantly affects the workplace.
Health care reform is now such a prevalent issue because fewer and fewer Americans have health insurance, and therefore cannot afford good medical care. Nearly 46 million Americans have no insurance, and 25 million more are underinsured. One major reason for this crisis is that many employers have stopped offering insurance to employees because of the high cost during this rough economic period. In the United States, total health care spending was $2.4 trillion in 2007, approximately $7,900 per person, according to an analysis published in the journal of Health Affairs. Health care reform is necessary according to President Obama, Republican and Democratic members of Congress, the American Medical Association and America’s Health Insurance Plans, which represents the insurance industry; all have agreed the system needs to be changed. However, as of the date of this report, there is little agreement about how exactly how to change the health care system, and a legislative consensus has not yet emerged.
Although there is little debate about the need for health care reform, the methods of revamping the system vary. A central point of President Obama’s health care plan has been to create a government-sponsored health insurance program that would be an option for all Americans, similar to how Medicare is now an option for Americans over age 65. He has also said he’d like to see prohibitions against insurers discriminating against people with pre-existing conditions, and incentives for people to use preventive services and wellness plans. The Obama Administration claims to have identified “hundreds of billions of dollars” worth of savings in the federal budget that could help finance health care reform, such as rooting out waste, fraud and abuse in Medicare and Medicaid.
Republicans would like to reform health care by proposing individual tax breaks for buying health insurance and “pools” of states and small business to get lower-cost health care plans. They also proposed increasing incentives for people to build health savings accounts, allowing dependent children to stay on parents’ policies until age 25 and encouraging employers to reward employees for improved health.
The most heated points of disagreement concern employer mandates and the idea of a publicly run health plan. Details of the major House and Senate bills differ, but most employers would have to provide insurance or contribute to the cost of coverage for employees, with exceptions for some small businesses. Democrats also agree that Congress should create some type of government insurance plan or nonprofit cooperative, which would compete with private insurers. President Obama says the public plan would keep insurers honest, but Republicans say it could eventually drive private insurers from the market, leaving consumers with fewer choices.
The President’s 2010 Budget lays the groundwork for reform of the American health care system, most notably by setting aside a deficit-neutral reserve fund of $635 billion over 10 years to help finance reform of our health care system to bring down costs, expand coverage, and improve quality.
This year there has been wide progress in health care reform. The President signed the Children’s Health Insurance Reauthorization Act on February 4, 2009, which provides quality health care to 11 million kids- 4 million who were previously uninsured. Furthermore, The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act protects health coverage for 7 million Americans who lose their jobs through a 65 percent COBRA subsidy to make coverage affordable. The Recovery Act also invests $19 billion in computerized medically records that will help to reduce costs and improve quality while ensuring patient’s privacy. However, the most difficult aspects of health care reform have yet to be achieved, and are currently mired in partisan bickering.
President Obama has expressed his commitment to working with Congress to pass comprehensive health reform in his first year in order to control rising health care costs, guarantee choice of doctor, and assure high-quality affordable health care for all Americans. Comprehensive health care reform can no longer wait. Rapidly escalating health care costs are crushing family, business, and government budgets. Employer-sponsored health insurance premiums have double in the last 9 years, a rate 3 times faster than cumulative wage increases. Given all that we spend on health care, American families should be presented with such a challenge.
Significant health care reform legislation should include the following features: reduce long-term growth of health care costs for businesses and government; protect families from bankruptcy or debt because of health care costs; guarantee choice of doctors and health plans; invest in prevention and wellness; improve patient safety and quality of care; assure affordable, quality health coverage for all Americans; maintain coverage when you change or lose your job; end barriers to coverage for people with pre-existing medical conditions. It remains to be seen, however, whether workers will experience these reforms any time soon, or whether health care reform will fall victim to partisan bickering and the financial interests of the insurance and pharmaceutical industries.
Stronger Unions: The Battle of the Employee Free Choice Act
The Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) is a bill before the U.S. Congress to amend the National Labor Relations Act “to establish an efficient system to enable employees to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to provide for mandatory injunctions for unfair labor practices during organizing efforts, and for other purposes.” This legislation would give workers a fair and direct path to form unions through majority sign-up, help employees secure a contract with their employer in a reasonable period of time, and toughen penalties against employers who violate their workers’ rights.
Passage of the Employee Free Choice Act would eliminate some of the barriers that employers have successfully posed to unionization in recent years, making it easier for workers to organize and successfully advocate for better wages, benefits and workplace protections. The Employee Free Choice Act has widespread support, including bipartisan backing in Congress and President Obama’s pledge to sign it into law. Approximately 73 percent of the public also supports EFCA. Furthermore, hundreds of respected religious, academic and professional individuals and organizations have signed on in support of the Act.
In order for a workplace to organize under current U.S. labor law, the card check process begins when an employee requests blank cards from an existing union, and obtains signatures on the cards from his or her colleagues. Once 30% of the work force in a particular workplace bargaining unit has signed the cards, the employer may decide to hold a secret ballot election on the question of unionization. In practice, the results of the card check campaign usually are not presented to the employer until 50 or 60 percent of bargaining-unit employees have signed the cards. If the employer decides to demand an election, and the majority of votes in the election favor the union, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) will certify the union as the exclusive representative of the employees of that particular bargaining unit for the purpose of collective bargaining.
If enacted, the EFCA would change current practice to require the NLRB to certify the union as the bargaining representative without directing an election if a majority of employees signed cards. Under current law, management can refuse to recognize a union even when 100 percent of employees have signed authorization cards. After a majority of workers have signed cards an employer can still call for a separate election. Under the current system, then, the employer gets to decide whether a separate election is necessary. The EFCA would allow workers to form a union through “majority sign-up.” The EFCA would take away employers’ present right to decide whether to use only the card-check process or to hold a secret-ballot election among employees in a particular bargaining unit, and instead give the right to the employees to choose a secret-ballot election in cases where less than a majority of employees has chosen to unionize through card-check. The proposed legislation would still require a secret-ballot election when at least 30 percent of employees petition for an election.
Under current law, anti-union employers often drag workers through lengthy negotiations by delaying bargaining sessions, withholding relevant information, and putting forth insincere and meaningless proposals in bargaining. Even though these tactics are illegal, there are no effective deterrents to prevent “surface bargaining,” where an employer appears to meet the minimal legal requirements of engaging in the bargaining process, but has no intention of reaching an agreement. The Employee Free Choice Act would help ensure that workers and employers reach a first contract in a responsible period of time. First contract mediation and arbitration is necessary because management can hinder employee free choice by refusing to bargain. Even when employees surmount the many obstacles to forming a union, management frequently denies them the benefits of collective bargaining by refusing to agree on a first contract. The possibility of mediation and arbitration rules will encourage management and employees’ unions to bargain productively on their own.
Furthermore, the EFCA increases penalties for illegal firing of employees. Monetary penalties must be strong enough to change employer behavior, and not simply be treated as another cost of doing business. The EFCA increases the monetary penalty for illegal discrimination (including discharge) against employees for union activity. While current law provides for the award only of back pay to victims of illegal discrimination, the EFCA provides for the award of three times the amount of back pay. The stronger monetary penalties apply only to illegal discrimination that occurs during organizing efforts or during the period when employees are seeking to negotiate a first contract. The Act also provides for civil monetary fines to deter other forms of illegal employer conduct providing fines of up to $20,000 for violations of employees’ statutory right to join a union and bargain collectively that occur during organizing efforts or during the period when employees are seeking to negotiate a first contract. Such violations, for which there are often no effective remedies under current law, include the following:
- Threatening to close the workplace or move overseas if employees opt to form a union.
- Switching employees’ shifts, reducing their pay, demoting them, or giving them inferior work assignments to discourage unionization.
- Spying on employees who support forming a union.
- Prohibiting employees from wearing union buttons.
- Illegally firing employees to discourage unionization.
America needs the EFCA because workers need the freedom to form unions and bargain collectively to turn around the economy and rebuild America’s middle class. Joining together in a union to bargain for health care, pensions, fair wages and better working conditions is the best opportunity workers have to get ahead. Today, good jobs are vanishing and health care coverage and retirement security are slipping out of reach.
Despite widespread public support, corporate front groups have built an enormous campaign to block the EFCA. As former Wal-Mart CEO Lee Scott has said, “We like driving the car and we’re not going to give the steering wheel to anybody but us.” Nonetheless, when workers are free to choose to join a union, our economy can work for everyone again. That’s why American workers need the Employee Free Choice Act - a bill in Congress that would help level the playing field and give workers the freedom to choose a union.
Progress on the Way, or Dreams Delayed: LGBT Employment Protections
Discrimination in the workplace affects businesses because if it seems like an individual or company supports discriminatory policies it can hurt that company’s reputation. If a business restricts certain groups or types of employees, the business is limited. There is a direct correlation between loyalty, retention and discrimination. Employees are more likely to be looking for other employment opportunities if they feel they have been wronged in their current job. According to a report on discrimination at the workplace by the International Labor Organization (ILO), “workplace discrimination remains a persistent global problem, with new, more subtle forms emerging.” Discrimination against lesbian, gay, bi-sexual, and transgender (LGBT) employees has become a prevalent issue today that must be addressed. In the workplace, LGBT employees can be directly discriminated against the same way other discrimination occurs, being denied promotions, facing job loss, seeing a disparity in benefits, being treated poorly while in the workplace, and more. As progress has been made in many other forms of discrimination, America must now address LGBT discrimination as well.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 made vast reforms in employment discrimination law making it illegal for an employer to discriminate on the basis of sex, race, color, religion, or national origin, while other federal laws, like the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, protect against age and disability discrimination. Unfortunately, these protections are still not extended to individuals on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. However, there are currently three major bills pending passage that would work to amend these discrimination protections to include sexual orientation and gender identity.
One of these three proposed bills is the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA). If enacted, this bill would prohibit discrimination against employees on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity and disability. ENDA would extend these rights to individual employees in the private sector providing basic protections against workplace discrimination on the basis of gender identity or sexual orientation. These protections are necessary as the absence of federal laws that consistently protects LGBT individuals makes it legal in 20 states to discriminate based on sexual orientation and in 13 states to discriminate on the basis of gender identity or expression.
ENDA is closely modeled on civil rights laws already in existence, such as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the American with Disabilities Act (ADA). ENDA would extend civil protections currently provided under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to include sexual orientation and gender identity. It would prohibit both public and private employers from taking into account an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity as the basis for employment decisions. Additionally, ENDA would provide somewhat limited remedies for those employees who are discriminated against.
Although ENDA is still making its way through Congress, many states have already adapted laws that protect lesbian, gay, bi-sexual and transgender employees. These states include Minnesota, Rhode Island, New Mexico, California, District of Columbia, Maine, Illinois, Hawaii, New Jersey, Washington, Iowa, Oregon, Vermont and Colorado. Furthermore, seven states have discrimination laws protecting against sexual orientation but not gender identity. These states include Wisconsin, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Nevada, Maryland and New York.
Even though ENDA is not yet law, many large companies already provide equal rights and benefits to their lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender employees, as measured by the Human Rights Campaign through their Corporate Equality Index. This tool found that 260 large companies received a 100% rating. Additionally, each year, corporations send thousands of employees to the Out & Equal Regional Summit, a conference that intends to create a more inclusive work environment for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender employees. Furthermore, there are workplace resources for how allies can create a more inclusive work environment, including programs available through PFLAG and the Out & Equal publication, Allies at Work by David M. Hall. ENDA is building on the best practices that are highlighted through such companies, organizations and resources.
Another pending bill that will affect employment opportunities for LGBT employees is the Military Readiness Act (MREA), which attempts to overturn “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, Don’t Pursue, Don’t Harass” (DADT)- the policy that prohibits gays from serving openly in the U.S. Armed Forces at the risk of being fired. Under DADT, approximately 13,000 service members have been discharged since 1994 due to their sexual orientation. MREA world replace DADT and its requirements that those serving or wishing to serve in the U.S. Armed Forces neither disclose their sexual preferences, nor engage in homosexual acts with a non-discrimination policy. MREA is slightly retroactive, as it allows former servicewomen or men discharged under DADT to re-enter the military. MREA is currently in the House; there is no Senate bill at this time. President Barack Obama stated that if MREA is passed by Congress, he would sign a bill repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
Passing these antidiscrimination bills will go a long way towards extending full workplace equality to LGBT workers. However, Congress has not yet moved either piece of legislation forward, and there are concerns that President Obama’s campaign promises are not being honored. It is yet unclear whether we can expect passage of these bills soon; however, those who believe in workplace equality for LGBT workers are unlikely to remain silent once other legislative priorities, such as health care reform, have been addressed.
You Are What You Post: Online Social Networking and Employment
Popular Social Networking Sites:
Social networking seems to be all the rage these days, but workers’ engagement in social networks is beginning to have a noticeable impact in the workplace. Creating your own web presence on sites like Facebook, MySpace, and LinkedIn is becoming a common part of everyone’s social network. However, few individuals recognize that this information becomes open to the public, including employers, making that information extremely risky to post online. Employment recruiters are more commonly checking up on these sites, constantly searching social networks in an effort to expand their candidate profiles. According to the executive search firm, ExecuNet, approximately four out of five recruiters regularly run web searches to screen job applicants. Consequently, most job candidates can expect their application to undergo this type of additional Internet screening. Roughly one in three job seekers have been eliminated from consideration based on information the hiring company has discovered on social networking websites.
While employers may seek out Internet social networking to supplement employment decisions, this search can also land employers in hot water. While employers may consider it prudent to engage in an online search for more information about their applicants, the reality is that if information concerning protected characteristics such as race, gender, or age is disclosed and those candidates are consequently not offered a job with that business or terminated from a current job, employers may find themselves facing discrimination claims for making those decisions due to the information they discovered online about the candidate or employee.
Despite these risks, social networking sites may also be used to build professional, as well as personal relationships. As more workplaces adopt their own internal social networks, organizations should take a step back and strategically revisit policies regarding use of such systems and the information within them. At first glance, social networking sites look no different than other tools for communication and collaboration in the past (such as e-mail). Decision-makers should cover the basics and make sure that employees are aware of how to appropriately use such systems (by adopting codes of conduct, policies and procedures) and how the company will handle privacy concerns and use of information gathered by participation in social networks.
Organizations that want to leverage the potential benefits from social applications need to articulate some promises to participants regarding how such information and interactions will be used and disclosed at a deeper level. Employees do not want to risk that information being used against them. The transformational impact of social systems will lie in how well they enable organizations to be more agile in the marketplace, more adaptive to new work models, and more resilient to change. For individuals, social systems need to have value to them beyond their employment role and allow workers to not only foster external relationships but also to blend work associations with lifestyle affiliations, creating a more cohesive workplace.
So how will online social networking be addressed in the workplace? The House of Representatives held hearings in July 2006 regarding social networking websites. Such sites are new enough that there is not a body of case law regarding their use. Proposed legislation addresses social networking sites in terms of child protection rather than employment discrimination. For now, proactive policies set in place by organizations regarding this thriving technology would aid in establishing sound practices relevant to online social networking in the workplace, as legislative policy is unlikely to immediately fill this gap.