Workplace Fairness

Menu

Skip to main content

  • print
  • decrease text sizeincrease text size
    text

This Week in the War on Workers: Testing Company Used ‘Charitable’ Foundation to Profit

Share this post

Laura ClawsonPearson, one of the country’s largest testing and curriculum companies, is paying $7.7 million to settle charges that it used its “charitable” foundation to get business for its for-profit arm:

Around 2010, Pearson began financing an effort through its foundation to develop courses based on the Common Core. The attorney general’s report said Pearson had hoped to use its charity to win endorsements and donations from a “prominent foundation.” That group appears to be the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.“Pearson Inc. executives believed that branding their courses by association with the prominent foundation would enhance Pearson’s reputation with policy makers and the education community,” a release accompanying the attorney general’s report said.

Indeed, in April 2011, the Pearson Foundation and the Gates Foundation announced they would work together to create 24 new online reading and math courses aligned with the Common Core.

Pearson executives believed the courses could later be sold commercially, the report said, and predicted potential profits of tens of millions of dollars. After Mr. Schneiderman’s office began its investigation, the Pearson Foundation sold the courses to Pearson for $15.1 million.

This is the company to which the corporate education policy movement wants to hand over more and more responsibility for educating kids, from the tests that determine whether their teachers will still have jobs to the test prep materials that prepare kids to take the tests, test prep materials that these days function as curriculum as tests take over more and more class time.

This article was originally printed on Daily Kos on December 14, 2013.  Reprinted with permission.

About the Author: Laura Clawson is the labor editor at Daily Kos.


Share this post

Background checks: It’s not a “good thing”

Share this post

Christian SchreiberConsider the following hypothetical.  You own a restaurant and you’re looking for an assistant to the head chef.  The applicant needs to be able to cook, yes.  But the position also requires administrative skills – ordering, inventory, relationships with vendors and staff.  Creativity with the menu would be a plus.  A woman comes with lots of relevant experience. You notice she has a six-month interruption in her resume in late 2004, early 2005.

Years ago, an interview might have sufficed; perhaps you would have called her references, or tried her out on a lunch shift.  Today, in addition to the tryout and the references, you ask her to authorize a background check.  In the meantime, she wows you on the lunch shift.  Her plates look great.  She cleverly rearranges the pans between orders.  Then you get back her background check: she was convicted in federal court of conspiracy, obstruction of an agency proceeding, and making false statements to federal investigators.  Does she get the job?

While the dark potential of our information age remains thankfully unrealized, the workplace remains a frontier of personal data collection and snooping.  TheACLU claims that “it receives more complaints about privacy in the workplace than about any other issue.”

For workers, this unquenchable thirst for more information often first presents itself under the auspices of “background checks” (called “consumer reports”) required by employers.  Where background checks were once the province of private investigators and reserved for high-level executives, now even low-wage workers are asked to authorize employers (and potential employers) to investigate their “character, general reputation, personal characteristics, or mode of living.”  The trend is dangerous and often serves as the pretext for discrimination that would otherwise be prohibited under State and federal anti-discrimination law.

One of the most popular myths is that employers who screen candidates for credit histories and criminal records can reduce their potential liability from “bad hires.”  Some courts have even adopted the rhetoric that background checks embrace a “common sense” approach because they help employers “better evaluate the trustworthiness, reliability, and effectiveness of prospective employees.”  Yet, while other “common sense” claims hold up based on evidence of their truth, in this arena, employers have never even been asked for any proof that credit and criminal background checks increase retention rates, worker productivity, or diminish liability for negligent hiring or supervision.

In fact, consumer reports are notoriously flawed. The Federal Trade Commission and its successor, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, have claimed there may be as many as 42 million Americans with errors on their credit reports.  But this is only part of the problem.  Despite propaganda from the industry, race and gender result “substantial differences in credit scores across racial groups…with blacks and Hispanic whites having notably lower credit scores than other racial groups. These racial differences persist, even after controlling for other demographic characteristics such as age, marital status, and an estimate of income.”  Though the law is still evolving in this area, denying employment on the basis of a bad credit history, therefore, may be tantamount to denying employment on the basis of race.

For workers with criminal histories, background checks present a more obvious and intractable problem.  As a practical matter, criminal background checks are often harmful beyond the criminal conviction history they may include.

Like credit histories, they are frequently incorrect—sometimes the reports mix up identities (are you the same “Michael Miller”?), omit essential information about the offense or the disposition, or misstate charge levels or convictions.  By the time such errors are challenged or corrected (companies have up to 30 days), employers have already moved on to the next applicant.  This can also involve purely practical considerations: employers may understandably have difficulty sifting through charging codes, references to statutes, or interpreting dismissals and dispositions.  Is it worth understanding a complicated report when a stack of “simple reports” offers a large enough applicant pool?

Or consider an individual who has had her record “expunged,” a process whereby the individual withdraws a guilty plea and the court dismisses the charges.  Consumer reporting agencies often unlawfully report both the conviction and the dismissal, which they then claim is “factually accurate.”  One can fairly ask what purpose the expungement serves if it fails to shield the conviction from later disclosure.

As the government grows more opaque, criminal records have become more public.  The increase in computerized public records has made background checks easier and cheaper to obtain.  What once required a trip to the courthouse is now accomplished by a few seconds at the keyboard.  Consumer reporting agencies use sophisticated databases to package, market and sell criminal record information and credit histories to anyone with curiosity and a credit card.

This isn’t to suggest that childcare providers shouldn’t have access to criminal records of convicted child abusers, or that employers should not be able to discuss resume gaps with applicants and evaluate a potential employee’s record on a case-by-case basis.

Ultimately, given the over-representation of African Americans and Latinos in the criminal justice system, using criminal background histories is itself a race-conscious undertaking.  This alone should give employers pause.  Blind reliance on background checks of dubious reliability used to prescreen applicants only encourages discrimination.  More importantly, it denies willing and capable workers, including ex-offenders, the opportunity to make an honest living.

This article was originally printed on CELA Voice on December 5, 2013.  Reprinted with permission.

About the Author: Christian Schreiber joined Chavez & Gertler in July 2009 as a class action litigation associate.  Mr. Schreiber works primarily on cases involving consumer rights, employment, and financial services matters.  Prior to law school, he worked in Sacramento as a legislative aide for former California State Senator Joe Dunn, and served as Chief Investigator for the State Senate Select Committee to Investigate Price Manipulation of the Wholesale Energy Market.  Mr. Schreiber worked for several years as a freelance writer.  Mr. Schreiber was a class action litigation associate at Schneider Wallace Cottrell Brayton Konecky LLP in San Francisco before joining Chavez & Gertler.


Share this post

The Virtual Repeal of Kennedy-Johnson Administrations’ ‘Signature Achievement’

Share this post

nancy gertnerJust when we are rightly celebrating the fiftieth anniversary of the March on Washington and the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 — what historians call the “signature achievement” of the Kennedy-Johnson administrations — that law has been gutted. Federal judges from trial courts to the Supreme Court have interpreted the Civil Rights Act virtually, although not entirely, out of existence. This is so across judicial philosophies, across the political spectrum and even across presidential appointments.

Consider the case of the Todds, African Americans who sued the Whortons, the white owners of the club where they worked for creating a racially hostile environment. The defendants moved for summary judgment — a dismissal without a jury trial. Obliged by law to consider the facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, the judge found the following: Mr. Whorton directed the N-word at the plaintiffs on multiple occasions. He called a staff meeting about his use of the N-word, explaining he was too old to change the way he spoke and inviting anyone who did not like it to quit. He made other comments such as:

What do your people want? When this was a white club, my customers used ashtrays. Ever since the n—–s have been in the club, the cigarettes have been put out on the floor. The difference between blacks and n—–s is that n—–s put their cigarettes out on the floor.

He complained to Mr. Todd that he could not trust African Americans, saying, “Look at me! I know you don’t like this–n—–s don’t appreciate s–t.”

But to a federal court in Georgia, this wasn’t enough. No reasonable jury, the court held, could find a hostile work environment. Case dismissed. And in language that the marchers on the Mall fifty years ago would have found shocking, the court added, “The facts simply show that the Whortons are racist, bigoted, and/or offensive people,” but not that they created a workplace hostile to their African American employees. “In fact, none of these incidents went beyond the ‘ordinary tribulations of the workplace.'”

Racist comments in the workplace had been “ordinary” and “commonplace” when the Civil Rights Act was enacted. That’s why the law was passed. Perhaps social norms have changed in the decades since 1964; perhaps language once wholly unacceptable has become regular currency. But that is why the Act requires a representative jury to hear these claims, not a judge whose last employment in the private sector may have been decades ago and who — in looking at the federal bench’s composition — was likely to be white, male and either a former partner in a big firm or a former prosecutor.

It is not just racist speech that is acceptable; so is sexist speech. Courts trivialize sexist comments as “stray remarks” and dismiss the cases. Comments from one defendant, who said, “F—–g women. I hate having f—–g women in this office,” were held not to be direct evidence of discriminatory intent. Another defendant supervisor repeatedly referred to a plaintiff as, among other things, a “dumb shit,” “whore,” “stupid bitch” and “hooker,” yet the court dismissed the case as “general vulgarity that [the law] does not regulate.”

Aberrant decisions, you might say? Not so. Amanda Farahany from the Atlanta law firm Barrett & Farahany commissioned a study of 2011 and 2012 summary judgment orders in employment discrimination cases in the Northern District of Georgia, containing Martin Luther King Jr.’s birthplace. Of the 181 cases where the plaintiff had counsel, the Court dismissed 94 percent of them at least in part, and 81 percent in full. Racial hostile work environment claims were dismissed 100 percent of the time.

The Georgia results mirror the results nationwide. 60 percent of motions for summary judgment are granted in general, but in employment discrimination cases, the court dismisses from 70 to 95 percent of the cases.

Women, minorities, people over forty and the disabled bring discrimination cases only to lose in overwhelming numbers. So little do the judges think of discrimination claims that they rarely allow them to get to a jury at all. Federal courts have legitimized practices that would have horrified the early supporters of the Act.

Perhaps the answer is that discrimination is over and we are in the dawn of the post-racial, post-sexist society. The 1964 Civil Rights Act is unnecessary. Or perhaps it’s that, as one former colleague reported, these cases are “often trivial.” The gap between men’s and women’s wages persists, as do the income disparities between men and women, blacks and whites. And the facts of the reported cases — if proved — hardly suggest the claims are trivial.

The federal courts have largely interpreted this important legislation out of existence. Racist speech or sexist comments were not supposed to be part of the “ordinary tribulations” of the workplace. Not now. Not ever.

This article was originally printed on The Huffington Post Blog on November 20, 2013.  Reprinted with permission.

About the Author: Judge Nancy Gertner (Ret.) is a former U.S. federal judge who built her career around standing up for women’s rights, civil liberties and justice for all. Named one of “The Most Influential Lawyers of the Past 25 Years” by Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly, Gertner was appointed to the federal bench of the U.S. District Court of Massachusetts by President Bill Clinton in 1994. She retired from the bench in 2011 and now is a professor of practice at Harvard Law School.


Share this post

Books That Shaped Work in America

Share this post

carlfillichio_402129_402130To commemorate its 100th anniversary, the U.S. Department of Labor has launched “Books that Shaped Work in America (www.dol.gov/books), an online project which explores work, workers and workplaces through literature, and aims to educates the public about the history, mission and resources of their Labor Department.

People from all walks of life are being asked to recommend books that informed them about occupations and careers, and molded their views about work.

What book would you list that shaped work in the nation? What title from which iconic author to choose? Fiction or nonfiction: which plays a bigger role? Whose life—in biography or autobiography—exemplifies the axiom that hard work is the best path to achieving the American Dream?  Plays and poetry count, too.

Already on the list: Death of a Salesman, What Color is Your Parachute?, Working, Economics in One Lesson, To Kill a Mockingbird, The Grapes of Wrath,  The Feminine Mystique, Anthem, and On the Waterfront, among others. U.S. Labor Secretary Thomas E. Perez, contributed suggestions for the list, as did George P. Shultz and seven other former labor secretaries from both sides of the aisle. Other notables that contributed to the list include authors Daniel H. Pink and Joan Acocella, Solicitor of Labor M. Patricia Smith, Liz Claman of Fox Business News, President of the National Urban League Marc Morial and Scott McGee of Turner Classic Movies. Their recommendations are included on the initiative’s website, along with brief summaries of each book and links to related U.S. Department of Labor resources.

To learn more, or to suggest a book to add to the list, visit: www.dol.gov/books.

About the Author: Carl Fillichio serves as senior advisor for public affairs and communications at the U.S. Department of Labor.  He oversees the department’s media and public relations efforts, internal communications, social and digital media, audio visual production, graphic design, editorial services, web development and the DOL National Contact Center.  He also serves as the chair of the department’s centennial and the U.S. Labor Hall of Honor.

Prior to coming to the Labor Department Fillichio was a senior vice president at Lehman Brothers, the global investment bank, where he promoted the firm’s thought leadership in talent management, diversity recruitment, and philanthropic initiatives.

Previously, he served for seven years as the Vice President for Public Engagement at the Council for Excellence in Government, a national non-partisan think tank that worked to improve government performance and citizen participation, understanding and trust in government.  In this role Fillichio convened thought leaders, Members of Congress, journalists, and community members to examine a wide range of public policy issues. Working alongside the newly formed Department of Homeland Security, he led a national initiative to capture public perceptions of safety and emergency preparedness. He also directed the Council’s efforts on attracting the best and brightest to public service and served as program committee chair of the annual Excellence in Government Conference. For his work, he was named in 2004 to Utne Magazine’s list of the “Radical Middle: 10 Americans Reshaping the Future of American Politics.”

In 2013 he was named “Communicator of the Year” by the National Association of Government Communicators.

This is not Fillichio’s first “tour of service” at the US Department of Labor: He was Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs during the Clinton Administration. He grew up in Chicago, Illinois and Boca Raton, Florida and is a graduate of the John Carroll University in Cleveland, Ohio.


Share this post

Obama: ‘Challenge of Our Time’ Is Making Economy Work for Everyone

Share this post

Image: Mike HallPresident Barack Obama today said that “a relentless, decades-long trend”—“a dangerous and growing inequality and lack of upward mobility…has jeopardized middle-class America’s basic bargain: that if you work hard, you have a chance to get ahead.”

The president declared that “making sure the economy works for every working American” is the “defining challenge of our time” and drives everything he does as president. His proposals to reduce inequality include an increase in the minimum wage and “ensuring that our collective bargaining laws function as they’re supposed to, so unions have a level playing field to organize for a better deal for workers and better wages for the middle class.”

In the speech at a community center in a low-income area of Washington, D.C., which was hosted by the Center for American Progress, Obama said, “[T]he premise that we are created equal is the opening line in the American story.” He highlighted a series of efforts throughout American history to put those words into practice—from Abraham Lincoln starting a system of land grant colleges; to Theodore Roosevelt fighting for an eight-hour day and worker protections; to Franklin D. Roosevelt fighting for Social Security, unemployment benefits and a minimum wage; to Lyndon B. Johnson fighting for Medicare and Medicaid.

“We built a ladder of opportunity to climb and stretched out a safety net so that if we fell, it wouldn’t be too far, and we could bounce back. As a result, America built the largest middle class the world has ever known. And for three decades after World War II, it was the engine of our prosperity.”

However, Obama said, “starting in the late 70s, the social compact began to unravel.”

A more competitive world lets companies ship jobs anywhere. And as good manufacturing jobs automated or headed offshore, workers lost their leverage, jobs paid less and offered fewer benefits. As values of community broke down and competitive pressures increased, businesses lobbied Washington to weaken unions and the value of the minimum wage.

As trickle-down ideology became more prominent, taxes were slashed for the wealthiest, while investments in things that make us all richer, like schools and infrastructure, were allowed to wither.

 

The result is “an economy that’s become profoundly unequal.” Income inequality has grown to record levels, with the top 1% having 288 time the net worth of the typical family, with CEO pay soaring from 20 to 30 times that of the average worker to more than 273 times and with the top 10% taking half of all income, up from a third since 1979. In addition, Obama outlined how upward mobility has been squashed at the same time.

The president said that growing inequality and lessened upward mobility “should offend all of us and it should compel us to action. We are a better country than this.” He highlighted that these trends are bad for our economy, pointing to studies that show that economic growth is more fragile in countries with greater inequality.

Obama then presented a “road map” of proposals to reduce inequality and restore economic opportunity:

  • Relentlessly push a growth agenda, making America a magnet for good, middle-class jobs in manufacturing and energy and infrastructure and technology, and ending incentives to ship jobs overseas;
  • Empower more Americans with the skills and education they need to compete in a highly competitive global economy;
  • Empower our workers. “It’s time to ensure our collective bargaining laws function as they’re supposed to so unions have a level playing field to organize for a better deal for workers and better wages for the middle class. It’s time to pass the Paycheck Fairness Act so that women will have more tools to fight pay discrimination. It’s time to pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act so workers can’t be fired for who they are or who they love;
  • Target programs for the communities and workers who have been hardest hit by the economic change and the Great Recession; and
  • Revamp retirement to protect Americans in their Golden Years.

He said that “it was well past time” to raise the minimum wage for a growing service sector that includes “airport workers, and fast-food workers, and nurse assistants, and retail salespeople who work their tails off and are still living at or barely above poverty.”

Obama also called for renewing the extended unemployment insurance program for the long-term unemployed and protection of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program that Republicans have targeted for cuts.

It makes a difference for a mother who’s working but is just having a hard time putting food on the table for her kids, [and] it makes a difference for a father who lost his job and is out there looking for a new one that he can keep a roof over his kids’ heads.

He also told congressional Republicans, who have blocked and continue to block action on the economy—from creating jobs to raising the minimum wage to ending tax breaks for corporations that ship jobs overseas:

You owe it to the American people to tell us what you are for, not just what you’re against….If Republicans have concrete plans that will actually reduce inequality, build the middle class, or provide more ladders of opportunity to the poor, let’s hear them.

Read the full speech here.

This article was originally printed on AFL-CIO on December 4, 2013.  Reprinted with permission.

About the Author: Mike Hall is a former West Virginia newspaper reporter, staff writer for the United Mine Workers Journaland managing editor of the Seafarers Log.  He came to the AFL- CIO in 1989 and has written for several federation publications, focusing on legislation and politics, especially grassroots mobilization and workplace safety.


Share this post

Washington, DC, City Council Votes to Raise Minimum Wage

Share this post

After coming within one vote of a veto-proof majority for a bill that would have required big box stores to pay a $12.50 living wage, the Washington, DC, city council unanimously supportedraising the city’s minimum wage to $11.50 by 2016 and tying it to inflation, in a preliminary vote Tuesday.

Despite the fact that many states and cities have raised the minimum wage without seeing jobs flee across nearby borders to places with the low federal minimum wage of $7.25, proponents of poverty wages always claim that’s what’s going to happen. That may be particularly true in Washington, DC, as a small urban zone sandwiched between two states, and one with such a high density of industry lobbyists—but in this case, there’s a twist involving two neighboring counties in Maryland:

By coordinating with lawmakers in Montgomery and Prince George’s counties, which approved similar measures late last month, the council put the three localities on the cusp of creating a contiguous region with 2.5 million residents and a minimum wage higher than any of the 50 states.

The Washington measure is expected to pass a final vote easily and, if Mayor Vincent Gray vetoes it, the votes should be there for a veto override. So after all its hissy fits about the possibility of having to pay DC workers $12.50, Walmart will likely have to pay $11.50.

This article was originally printed on Daily Kos on December 3, 2013.  Reprinted with permission.

About the Author: Laura Clawson is the labor editor at Daily Kos.


Share this post

“A week later I got my Medicaid card in the mail, and now I have healthcare again.”

Share this post

seiu-org-logoElizabeth Aviles works as a Certified Nursing Assistant in Waterbury, Conn. She is also a member of SEIU Local 1199NE. Since Aviles works only 22 hours a week, she is not able to purchase health insurance, which is especially troublesome since she has some serious medical issues that require immediate attention. So when a fellow member of 1199NE knocked on her door one day as part of an outreach effort, Aviles had no idea how her life would change over the next 30 minutes.

He explained how she might be eligible for Medicaid–under the expanded program the state was instituting thanks to the new healthcare law. He had Aviles dial the number to the state’s call center, and then she was placed on hold for 20 minutes.

“Once I got someone on the line, I was approved for Medicaid in about 5 minutes,” Aviles said. “A week later I got my Medicaid card in the mail, and now I have healthcare again.”

Aviles is relieved, because now she can get the medical help she needs. In addition, to an upcoming surgery she is scheduling, Aviles will be able to take care of some of the other lingering issues she has had. “At my job I’ve had to help treat clients who are suffering from back pain, when I’m suffering from the same thing myself and without the resources to get it treated,” she said.

The goal of President Obama’s Affordable Care Act has always been to give people access to medical care regardless of income and without putting them into serious debt. For millions of working American’s like Aviles who previously couldn’t afford care, that goal is becoming a reality.

This article was originally printed on SEIU on November 22, 2013. Reprinted with permission.

Author: SEIU Communications


Share this post

4th Cir: “Proof Satisfactory to the Administrator” = De Novo Review of Benefit Claims

Share this post

Paul SecundaThanks to friend of the blog, Jon Harkavy, for sending along this potentially important ERISA denial of benefit claim case from the 4th Circuit.

In Cosey v Prudential, (4th Cir. Nov. 12, 2013), the Fourth Circuit held that the common plan formulation “proof satisfactory to the administrator” does not unambiguously confer discretion on the administrator and thus subjects the administrator’s decisions to de novo judicial review (as opposed to arbitrary and capricious review under the Firestone/Glenn standard).

Like Jon, I find this decision interesting, as it has the potential to cut back on the abuse-of-discretion standard of review for many ERISA plans.  However, I suspect that in response to this Court’s decision, we are likely to see many plan amendments adding language which more unambiguously states the plan’s intention to get the benefit ofFirestone discretionary review for its benefit determination decisions.

This article was originally printed in Workplace Prof Blog on November 18, 2013.  Reprinted with permission.

About the Author: Paul Secunda is a professor of law at Marquette University Law School.  Professor Secunda is the author of nearly three dozen books, treatises, articles, and shorter writings. He co-authored the treatise Understanding Employment Law and the case book Global Issues in Employee Benefits Law.  Professor Secunda is a frequent commentator on labor and employment law issues in the national media.  He co-edits with Rick Bales and Jeffrey Hirsch the Workplace Prof Blog, recently named one of the top law professor blogs in the country.


Share this post

The Union President Who’s Helping Put Filibuster Reform in Motion

Share this post

Mike ElkSince 2009, Communications Workers of America President Larry Cohen has been pushing to eliminate the filibuster in Congress. Earlier this year, Cohen’s union, CWA, worked with the Sierra Club, NAACP and Greenpeace to convene the “Democracy Initiative,” a progressive coalition that, among other objectives, has called on the government to eliminate the filibuster, protect voting rights and get money out of politics. Yesterday afternoon, their hard work came to some fruition—the U.S. Senate voted 52-48 on a measure that would effectively ban the use of the filibuster to block nominees from being confirmed. Previously, a three-fifths majority vote was required to lift or avoid a filibuster; now, only a simple majority is necessary to do so.

In between fielding phone calls from senators yesterday afternoon, Cohen gave In These Timeshis first reactions to the victory that he had fought for nearly four years to achieve.

Cohen said that one frequently overlooked story of filibuster reform has been the grassroots activity among the organizations involved in the Democracy Initiative, which claims it represents more than 20 million members.

“Two million members have weighed in and contacted their elected officials [about this issue] since June. In the last week, 200,000 people have weighed on in this,” said Cohen. “Some of them are just active members on this organization, but some of the people … have known these senators for years.”

Though Cohen is an organized labor leader, he noted that the filibuster can stymie a wide variety of progressive legislation—which is why, he said, the Democracy Initiative, with its diverse background of activists, has been so effective.

“There are key environmental nominations being held up,” he pointed out. “Mel Watt was being blocked from heading the Federal Housing Finance Agency, and that’s critical both to helping people on their mortgages and to our broader coalition on economic justice. The [National Labor Relations Board] was being blocked. We all needed this reform,” said Cohen.

Though Thursday’s vote was certainly a great leap forward, Cohen said, progressives shouldn’t get complacent. He, along with the rest of the Democracy Initiative, intends to continue the fight to expand filibuster reform even further.

“[Filibustering senators] should have to talk [for 11 hours] like Wendy Davis at the minimum,” he said. Explaining that in the Senate, the GOP can currently deny filibuster cloture without all of the senators being present, he continued, “If you want to block something because you want to support a minority vote, you better show up [for a cloture vote].”

Cohen knows that further changing the rules of the Senate and getting the money out of politics will be an uphill battle. But he’s still optimistic. “It’s not hopeless,” he said. “It’s hard, but it’s what we signed up for, and we have to do it.”

Full disclosure: The Communications Workers of America is a website sponsor of In These Times.

This article was originally printed in Working In These Times on November 22, 2013.  Reprinted with permission.

About the Author: Mike Elk is an In These Times Staff Writer and a regular contributor to the labor blog Working In These Times.


Share this post

Follow this Blog

Subscribe via RSS Subscribe via RSS

Or, enter your address to follow via email:

Recent Posts

Forbes Best of the Web, Summer 2004
A Forbes "Best of the Web" Blog

Archives

  • Tracking image for JustAnswer widget
  • Find an Employment Lawyer

  • Support Workplace Fairness

 
 

Find an Employment Attorney

The Workplace Fairness Attorney Directory features lawyers from across the United States who primarily represent workers in employment cases. Please note that Workplace Fairness does not operate a lawyer referral service and does not provide legal advice, and that Workplace Fairness is not responsible for any advice that you receive from anyone, attorney or non-attorney, you may contact from this site.