February, 2014 | Today's Workplace

Choose Language:
print
decrease text size increase text size
text

From the Archives: Celebrating SEIU’s African-American Leaders

Posted on February 10, 2014 by SEIU

Share this post

As I reviewed the SEIU archives for photographs and records featuring African-Americans to celebrate this Black History Month, I noticed that when it came to leadership at the International level, the year 1980 stood out. Although African-Americans served as International Officers and on the International Executive Board in previous years, never before had so many African Americans been represented in positions of leadership at the International level. As SEIU grew, so did the diversity of its membership, and it is inspiring to see that this was also reflected in its leadership. Below are photographs of several African American members of SEIU’s 1980 International Executive Board.

PHOTO: International Executive Board Member Walter Backstrom speaking during the 1984 SEIU International Convention. Walter started as a refuse collector and helped build a union that remains a strong voice for working men and women in the City of Los Angeles.

In addition to his work at SEIU Local 347, Walter was Executive Director of SEIU Local 99. In all of his roles he fought tirelessly for the right of public employees to bargain collectively with their employers over wages and working conditions. CREDIT: Photographer Unknown. Photographer Unknown

PHOTO: International Executive Board member Ophelia McFadden is seen here listening during a conference. McFadden became the first Black woman to be elected as Vice President of SEIU in 1984. She was also the first Black woman to serve on the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor Executive Council. For more than 30 years, Ophelia was an extraordinary SEIU leader, organizer, and political activist.

Her signature achievement was persevering through an 11-years long campaign to help lead 74,000 Los Angeles County Homecare Workers to win their battle to unite in SEIU to help improve their lives. It was among the biggest union organizing victories of the 20th century. Photographer Unknown

This article was originally printed on SEIU on February 10, 2014. Reprinted with permission.

Author: Alexandra Orchard, SEIU Archivist

Share this post

The Senator from Walmart Thinks a $10.10 Minimum Wage is ‘Too Much, Too Fast’

Posted on February 10, 2014 by Laura Clawson

Share this post

Will conservative Democrats never learn? Sen. Mark Pryor (D-AR) is facing a tough re-election battle in Arkansas, which is both a low-income state and the home of Walmart. So what position is he taking when it comes to raising the minimum wage, which would pull many of his constituents out of poverty but require Walmart to pay higher wages? If you guessed “he’d find a way to be mealymouthed and spineless,” give yourself a gold star.

On the one hand, Pryor kinda sorta supports a state ballot initiative that would raise the Arkansas minimum wage to a whopping $8.50 an hour over three years. (The state currently has a $6.25 minimum wage on the books, below the federal level, so that’s the initiative’s starting point.) On the other hand, Pryor opposes raising the federal minimum wage to $10.10:

“I know $10.10 still isn’t a whole lot of money, but I think it’s too much, too fast,” Pryor, who is seeking a third Senate term, said in an interview at the Capitol. “I’m not supportive of that.”

Seriously. It’s not much, but it’s too much for the poors, apparently. That’s $21,000 a year for a full-time worker, enough to get a family of three out of poverty, but leaving them well within food stamp eligibility.

Meanwhile, 52 percent of Arkansas voters support raising the minimum wage to $10 while just 38 percent are opposed, according to a Public Policy Polling poll, with 47 percent saying they’d be more likely to vote for a candidate who supported raising the minimum wage. Maybe that’s why Pryor went way out on a limb to say raising the state minimum wage all the way to $8.50 over three years is “a pretty reasonable approach.” But he should look at another question in that poll: 73 percent agreed with the statement that “Someone who works full-time should be paid enough to keep them out of poverty.” That’s your winning argument, and it points to a wage well above $8.50. Except that apparently Walmart’s money (they’re Pryor’s sixth-largest campaign donor) speaks more loudly—and Pryor doesn’t seem to get that being Walmart’s lapdog won’t make them go to bat for him over a Republican.

This article was originally printed on Daily Kos on February 7, 2014. Reprinted with permission.

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

Share this post

Corbin with Two Pieces on Corporate Religious Liberty

Posted on February 10, 2014 by Paul Secunda

Share this post

Caroline Mala Corbin (University of Miami School of Law) has recently posted two papers on SSRN discussing her thoughts on corporate religious liberties. The first apears in the American Constitution Society Issue Brieff for January 2014 and is entitled: Corporate Religious Liberty: Why Corporations Are Not Entitled to Religious Exemptions.

Here is the abstract:

One of the main questions before the Supreme Court in Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. and Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. v. Sebelius is whether large for-profit corporations are entitled to religious exemptions under the Free Exercise Clause or the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. In particular, the plaintiffs seek religious exemptions from the Affordable Care Act’s so-called “contraception mandate.”

This is an entirely novel claim. It is also without merit. The Free Exercise Clause and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act protect the religious practices of individuals and churches. They do not, and should not, extend to the for-profit corporate form for at least three reasons. First, corporate religious liberty makes no sense as free exercise is understood to (a) protect an individual’s relationship with the divine and (b) respect the inherent dignity of the individual. Furthermore, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission provides no theoretical foundation for corporate religious liberty: The justifications for extending free speech protection to for-profit corporations do not translate into the free exercise context. Second, there is no precedent for the claim that for-profit corporations are entitled to religious liberty exemptions; on the contrary, precedent points in the other direction. Third, recognizing corporate religious liberty will benefit employers at the expense of their employees, who risk losing protection of the employment laws as well as their own free exercise rights.

The second (longer) piece is entitled: Corporate Religious Liberty.

Here is the abstract:

Do for-profit corporations have a right to religious liberty? This question is front and center in two cases before the Supreme Court challenging the Affordable Care Act’s “contraception mandate.” Whether for-profit corporations are entitled to religious exemptions is a question of first impression. Most scholars writing on this issue argue that for-profit corporations do have the right to religious liberty, especially after the Supreme Court recognized that for-profit corporations have the right to free speech in Citizens United.

This essay argues that for-profit corporations should not – and do not – have religious liberty rights. First, there is no principled basis for granting religious liberty exemptions to for-profit corporations. For-profit corporations do not possess the inherently human characteristics that justify religious exemptions for individuals. For-profit corporations also lack the unique qualities that justify exemptions for churches. Citizens United fails to provide a justification as its protection for corporate speech is based on the rights of audiences and not the rights of corporate speakers. Second, as a matter of current law, neither the Free Exercise Clause nor the Religious Freedom Restoration Act recognizes the religious rights of for-profit corporations. Finally, corporate religious liberty risks trampling on the employment rights and religious liberty of individual employees.

Two very interesting reads on a hot current legal topic that could have a large impact on the workplace. Check them out!

This article was originally printed on Workplace Prof Blog on January 28, 2014. 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 Labor Movement Is a Lot Bigger Than You Think

Posted on February 10, 2014 by Kenneth Quinnell

Share this post

While 11.3% of U.S. workers officially belong to unions, the labor movement is much larger. The movement isn’t limited to official union members and the last year showed that, as workers marched side by side, union members or not, to fight back against injustices championed by corporate interests that are out of touch with America’s working families. As AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka said at the federation’s constitutional convention in Los Angeles, “Politicians and employers want to divide us; they try it every single day. They want to tell us who can be in our movement and who can’t, and we can’t let them.”

An article at The American Prospect describes the trend of new ways workers are standing up for their rights:

Those government union membership statistics, however, don’t capture an entire swath of new, exciting and emerging labor activists—’alt-labor’ activists—whom alarmed employers would like to see regulated by the same laws that apply to unions. Yet, before we regulate them as unions, shouldn’t we first count them as unions?

Who isn’t being counted in those official numbers? A lot of people:

Striking fast-food workers who are calling for a $15-an-hour wage.
Walmart workers who went on strike for Black Friday.
Day laborers who have joined one of hundreds of workers’ centers nationwide.
Restaurant workers, home health care workers, taxi drivers and domestic workers organizing for workplace power outside traditional unions.
Millions of members of Working America, the community affiliate of the AFL-CIO.

These numbers also don’t count people like the college athletes who are seeking to unionize and the many workers who are trying to form unions but are thwarted by employers or weakened labor law.

Some of the extremists opposed to these groups want them limited in their ability to organize, while not wanting to count them in the official numbers, so labor looks weaker. As the Prospect notes:

However, in a 21st century economy in which collective bargaining has been so severely weakened by structural changes and the roll back in workers’ rights, these new labor activists represent an important frontier for people concerned about worker power and economic inequality writ large. You know that workers are on to something when employers start to get nervous. It turns out the low union membership statistics may not be as good a measure of labor’s future as employers would hope.

And the reality behind those official statistics, and the rise of alt-labor, should be heartening to supporters of working families.

This article was originally printed on AFL-CIO on February 4, 2014. Reprinted with permission.

About the Author: Kenneth Quinnell is a long-time blogger, campaign staffer and political activist whose writings have appeared on AFL-CIO, Daily Kos, Alternet, the Guardian Online, Media Matters for America, Think Progress, Campaign for America’s Future and elsewhere.

Share this post

Department of Labor May Raise Wages for Disabled Federal Contractors, After All

Posted on February 10, 2014 by Mike Elk

Share this post

Last week, In These Times broke the news that Obama’s executive order raising the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour for federal contractors would not apply to the thousands of disabled workers who currently make subminimum wages—some as low as pennies an hour—under “14(c) programs.” Now, In These Times has learned that the Department of Labor is examining its position on this subject.

In a Tuesday morning interview on the Diane Rehm Show on Washington, D.C.’s WAMU, U.S. Secretary of Labor Thomas Perez referred to 14(c)—an exemption in the Fair Labor Standards Act that excludes workers with disabilities from minimum-wage protections if they are employed in certified training programs—as “a provision of law that really has worked to the detriment of people with disabilities.”

“[That is] one of the issues that we are examining right now as we prepare to finalize the executive order,” he continued.

Perez’s statement follows a letter issued by more than 25 civil rights, disability and labor organizations calling on the Obama administration to eliminate the use of subminimum wage for federal contractors. “All employees of federal contractors should mean all employees, regardless of disability status,” the letter read. “We believe … that it is both economically sound and morally just to ensure that people with disabilities have access to the same wage protections as those without.”

Some disability advocates maintain that jobs paying subminimum wages under 14(c)—known as “sheltered workshops”—must exist in order to give disabled people employment opportunities.

Others, however, argue that several states have phased out the use of sheltered workshops with few ill effects. In 2003, for example, Vermont eliminated such programs altogether. Instead, the state focused on providing training, support and transition services to people with disabilities and their employers. Today, 40 percent of Vermonters with disabilities are employed in “integrated employment” jobs, compared to less than 20 percent of workers with disabilities nationwide.

Advocates say that if the Obama administration were to eliminate 14(c) programs for federal contractors, state and local governments might follow a similar course. In the meantime, they say, they’re heartened by the unprecedented level of support they’re receiving from other organizations, including groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union.

“I think the real story here is how the civil rights community is weighing in … on the side of the disabled,” says Ari Ne’eman, president of the Autistic Self Advocacy Network. “This is creating new ground to engage the broader civil rights community on disability issues.”

“14(c) workers can and should do productive work,” says Susan Mizner of the ACLU. “They should be paid a living wage, just as every worker should be paid a living wage. This goes to principles of equity and fairness—issues that are at the core of the 14th Amendment and key to all civil rights movements.”

At the moment, it’s unclear what Obama’s next move will be in terms of raising minimum wage across the board. But Ne’eman reports that there are active conversations taking place between the federal administration and disability advocates.

“This is an issue of fundamental equity for disabled workers,” says Ne’eman. “In the coming weeks, we will be working to send a clear message to the administration that the time for action is now. Twenty-four years after the ADA, disabled workers deserve a fair deal.”

This article was originally printed on Working In These Times on February 6, 2014. 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

Black History Month: Celebrating Our Unsung Heroes

Posted on February 2, 2014 by SEIU

Share this post

February is Black History Month. It’s an opportunity for all Americans to remember our past and learn about the ongoing legacy of struggle for equal rights and justice for all.

SEIU leaders and members are a part of this rich history. They are the local “unsung heroes” who toil every day to improve the lives of working people in our country.

They’re the activists fighting each and every day for those who are marginalized because of their citizenship status or lack of access to healthcare, the educators and child care providers who shape young minds to be the leaders of tomorrow and the public workers who enrich our everyday lives through quality services.

You many know an unsung hero who is fighting for income equality — retirement security for all — immigration reform — or fighting to ensure our voting rights. We don’t talk about these people too often, but we should. That’s why we want to hear from you.

During Black History Month, we want to recognize and celebrate the achievements and contributions of African-Americans who don’t often find their names in the spotlight.

Recognize a person in your life for the SEIU Unsung Labor Heroes campaign.

Do you know an SEIU member or leader who goes above and beyond, helping his or her family, community, and country truly thrive? Tell us his or her story, so we can share it with the world.

http://action.seiu.org/page/s/2014-unsung-heroes

This article was originally printed on SEIU on February 1, 2014. Reprinted with permission.

Author: SEIU Communications

Share this post

Obama Takes Steps to Bypass Congress in Helping Long-Term Unemployed

Posted on February 2, 2014 by Laura Clawson

Share this post

With congressional Republicans refusing to act and even blocking emergency jobless aid, President Barack Obama is trying to address long-term unemployment using the power of the executive. Unfortunately, the options without Congress are fairly limited. One of Obama’s new initiatives involves basically asking large corporations to please stop discriminating against unemployed people:

President Obama has persuaded some of the nation’s largest companies, including Walmart, Apple, General Motors and Ford, to revamp their hiring practices to avoid discriminating against applicants who have been out of work for a long stretch of time.Mr. Obama hosted a group of corporate chief executives at the White House on Friday to highlight those efforts and the use of presidential persuasion to help the jobless find work. In all, White House officials said, about 300 businesses have agreed to new hiring policies, including 21 of the nation’s 50 largest companies and 47 of the top 200.

If this helps people who’ve been unemployed for six months or more get hired, that will be wonderful. But workers shouldn’t have to rely on the boss to be nice and fair out of kindness.

Obama’s efforts in this area do go beyond asking corporations to improve their practices, to where he can affect government practices:

Presidential Memorandum to Make Sure the Federal Government Does the Same. The President will also lead by example and use his executive authority to issue a Presidential Memorandum to ensure the long-term unemployed receive a fair shot in the Federal hiring process. The Memorandum directs federal agencies to review their recruiting and hiring practices to determine whether these practices put long-term unemployed individuals at an undue disadvantage and report the results to the Office of Personnel Management. This process will help to make sure the unemployed or individuals who have faced financial difficulties (a common side-effect of long-term unemployment) are fairly considered for jobs.$150 Million for “Ready to Work” Partnerships to Support Innovative Public-Private Efforts to Help the Long-Term Unemployed Get a Fair Shot. Today, the President and Department of Labor are announcing $150 million in existing resources from the H-1B fund to support high performing partnerships between employers, non-profit organizations and America’s public workforce system that will help provide long-term unemployed individuals with the range of services, training, and access they need to fill middle and high-skill jobs.

It’s better than the nothing that Republicans in Congress would offer to help jobless Americans, but so much more is needed.

This article was originally printed on the Daily Kos on January 31, 2014. Reprinted with permission.

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

Share this post

Supreme Court Decides Sandifer Donning and Doffing Protective Clothes Case in U.S. Steel’s Favor

Posted on February 2, 2014 by Paul Secunda

Share this post

The United States Supreme Court decided today, in an almost unanimous opinion written by Justice Scalia (Justice Sotomayor didn’t join one footnote), a donning and doffing case under the Fair Labor Standards Act in Sandifer v. United States Steel Corporation.

According to the syllabus of the case, Sandifer and others filed a putative collective action under the FLSA, seeking backpay for time spent donning and doffing pieces of protective gear that they asserted U.S. Steel requires workers to wear because of hazards at its steel plants. U. S. Steel contends that this donning-and-doffing time, which would otherwise be compensable under the Act, is noncompensable under a provision in the collective-bargaining agreement.

That provision’s validity depends on 29 U. S. C. §203(o), which allows parties to collectively bargain over whether “time spent in changing clothes . . . at the beginning or end of each workday” must be compensated. The District Court granted U. S. Steel summary judgment in pertinent part, holding that petitioners’ donning and doffing constituted “changing clothes” under §203(o). The Seventh Circuit affirmed.

The Supreme Court held that the the time the workers spent donning and doffing their protective gear was not compensable by operation of §203(o). More specifically, the Court construed “clothes” in “changing of clothes” to mean items that are both designed and used to cover the body and are commonly regarded as articles of dress. Nothing in §203(o)’s text or context, according to the Court, suggests anything other than this ordinary meaning. Thus, it concluded that there was no basis for the employees’ assertion that the unmodified term “clothes” somehow omits protective clothing.

Going forward, the Court stated that a more appropriate way to proceed is for courts to ask whether the period at issue can, on the whole, be fairly characterized as “time spent in changing clothes or washing.” If an employee devotes the vast majority of that time to putting on and off equipment or other non-clothes items, the entire period would not qualify as “time spent in changing clothes” under §203(o), even if some clothes items were also donned and doffed. So going forward, a distinction, for compensation purposes, will be made between between donning and doffing involving primarily protecive equipment (compensation ) as opposed to primarily protective clothing (not compensable if designated as such under the applicable CBA).

Don’t you just love donning and doffing cases? 😀

This article was originally printed on Workplace Prof Blog on January 27, 2014. Reprinted with permission.

Share this post

No Fancy Commercials, but Super Bowl is Brought to You by Union Members

Posted on February 2, 2014 by Mike Hall

Share this post

Sunday is the first outdoor, cold weather site Super Bowl in the game’s 48-year history. The frigid weather in the weeks leading up to the game and expected temps in the 20s and 30s won’t stop the thousands of union members who are bringing you the game. On the scene at MetLife Stadium in the New Jersey Meadowlands or behind the scenes at many facilities in the Metro New York-New Jersey area, union members are making the nation’s national party day possible.

So, as a preview before you sit back, open a beverage and eat far too many snacks that are far from healthy, we introduce Sunday’s starting union lineup.

Of course, on the field, the Seattle Seahawks and Denver Broncos players are members of the NFL Players Association (NFLPA), and the men in the striped shirts are members of the NFL Referees Association.

The announcers, camera operators, technicians, field workers and other hardworking folks bringing the game to your flat-screened football cave or favorite Broncos or Seahawks bar include members of SAG-AFTRA, Broadcast Employees and Technicians-CWA (NABET-CWA), Electrical Workers (IBEW) and Laborers (LIUNA).

The annual over-the-top halftime show is a down-to-the-second, choreographed, on-the-field, off-the-field 12-minute extravaganza made possible by the skills of Theatrical Stage Employees (IATSE) and the American Federation of Musicians of the United States and Canada (AFM) and other performing artists. Anyone who takes in a show in the city likely will enjoy the talents of Actors’ Equity (AEA).

For the fans who head for the concessions, their hot dogs will be served and their beer will be drawn by men and women from UNITE HERE Local 100.

Away from the stadium, union members are making an impact, too. Folks taking the area’s huge mass transit system are being safely delivered to their destinations by members of the Transport Workers (TWU), Amalgamated Transit Union (ATU) and United Transportation Union (UTU).

A large number of the area’s hotels are staffed by members of unions of the New York Hotel Trades Council. Many of the firefighters, emergency medical personnel and other public service workers who are ensuring a safe and efficient Super Bowl week are members of the Fire Fighters (IAFF) and AFSCME.

The first class work of members of the Painters and Allied Trades (IUPAT) Local 90 in Springfield, Ill., is on display on Broadway as part of Super Bowl Weekend. The IUPAT members at Ace Sign Co. crafted the 9-foot-tall, 38-feet wide aluminum and acrylic XLVIII (48) that spans one end of the legendary avenue, renamed Super Bowl Boulevard for the festivities. Click here to read more.

Of course, the fans who flew in for the big game got there safely, thanks to aviation workers from the National Air Traffic Controllers Association (NATCA), Air Line Pilots (ALPA), Association of Flight Attendants-CWA (AFA-CWA), Transport Workers (TWU) and Machinists (IAM).

Also, a big thanks to AFT and NFLPA for raising awareness about human trafficking during large sports events such as the Super Bowl.

Finally, check out how one Seahawk fan and Electrical Workers (IBEW) Local 191 member has transformed himself into to the large, green and angry SeaHulk—far more frightening than the Seattle secondary. Our friend David Groves at the Washington State Labor Council’s The Stand has the story of how the local, area contractors and others came together and raised the funds to make sure the SeaHulk (aka Tim Froemke) and his crew of body painters made it to the Super Bowl. Groves also points out that the Seahawks players are affiliates of the WSCL.

This article was originally printed on AFL-CIO on February 2, 2014. 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

Obama’s Wage Hike For Federal Contractors Won’t Apply to Disabled Workers

Posted on February 2, 2014 by Mike Elk

Share this post

In his State of the Union address on Tuesday, President Obama announced that he would issue an executive order raising the minimum wage to $10.10 for workers employed on federal contracts. The order has yet to be issued, so it’s unclear exactly how many and what type of workers will be covered. However, one group is already slated for exclusion: workers in a special government contracting program for people with disabilities.

Ari Ne’eman, president of the Autistic Self Advocacy Network, says that disability advocates were informed on a conference call Wednesday with Vice President Joe Biden and Secretary of Labor Thomas Perez that Obama’s executive order will not apply to federal contractors that use “14(c) programs”—in which workers with disabilities are paid subminimum wages.

Under the 14(c) exemption in the Fair Labor Standards Act, workers with disabilities are excluded from minimum-wage protections if they are employed in certified training programs. Though there is no official government data on the size of these programs, the National Council on Disabilities estimates that the federal government employs thousands of workers under 14(c). Nationwide, approximately 420,000 disabled Americans are employed in 14(c) programs coordinated through federal, state and local governments, and legally paid below the minimum, with some only making pennies per hour.

As Working In These Times reported last March, deep divisions remain within the disability community and even among top Congressional Democrats over whether disabled workers employed in 14(c) programs should be paid below the minimum wage. Some disability advocates—led by ACCSES, which represents employers of disabled workers under the 14(c) programs—claim that these programs provide valuable training to help transition people with disabilities into jobs, and that a minimum wage requirement would make that mission impossible.

Other advocates, however, say that the programs don’t provide meaningful training and rarely lead to outside jobs. A 2001 study by the federal General Accountability Office (GAO) found that only 5 percent of workers employed in 14(c)-sheltered workplace programs left to take regular “integrated employment” jobs. These critics say the programs contribute to the well-documented cycle of poverty for those with disabilities: According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, a person with a disability is three times as likely to live in poverty as a person without a disability.

On Thursday, the National Council on Disability (NCD), an independent federal advisory board, issued a statement on Thursday afternoon blasting the Obama administration’s decision to exempt workers with disabilities from the minimum-wage increase.

According to the National Council on Disability’s statement, “NCD believes that the Section 14(c) program is a policy relic from the 1930s, when discrimination was inevitable because service systems were based on a charity model, rather than empowerment and self-determination, and when societal low expectations for people with disabilities colored policymaking … If the administration agrees with this principle and wants to stamp out income inequality for all Americans, including Americans with disabilities, we urge you to reconsider what was shared on yesterday’s White House conference call and explicitly state in the Executive Order that the increase in the minimum wage for employees of federal contractors applies to all employees of federal contractors, including thousands of Americans with disabilities who are currently being paid less than minimum wage under the Section 14(c) program.”

The White House did not respond to a request for comment. According to Ne’eman of the Autistic Self Advocacy Network, officials told him on Wednesday’s conference that the Obama administration believes it doesn’t have the authority to raise the wages of 14(c) workers.

The Autistic Self Advocacy Network disputes this claim. In a legal memo put out Thursday, it concludes that “payment of subminimum wages to contract and sub-contract workers with disabilities is not required by statute [but] is left to the direction of the Department of Labor…As a result, to the extent that the president enjoys the authority to direct executive agencies to set a minimum wage for workers on all federal contracts, he may also direct those agencies to eliminate subminimum wage payment of contract workers with disabilities.”

To Ne’eman, the administration’s decision makes no sense. “We think they [have the authority] and hope our analysis will convince them,” he wrote in an email to Working In These Times. “If the administration has the power to raise the wages of workers without disabilities employed by government contractors, they have the power to do the same for workers with disabilities. There is no statute requiring government contractors to pay less than minimum wage to workers with disabilities.”

This article was originally printed in Working In These Times on January 30, 2014. 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

Workplace Fairness

Month: February 2014

From the Archives: Celebrating SEIU’s African-American Leaders

The Senator from Walmart Thinks a $10.10 Minimum Wage is ‘Too Much, Too Fast’

Corbin with Two Pieces on Corporate Religious Liberty

The Labor Movement Is a Lot Bigger Than You Think

Department of Labor May Raise Wages for Disabled Federal Contractors, After All

Black History Month: Celebrating Our Unsung Heroes

Obama Takes Steps to Bypass Congress in Helping Long-Term Unemployed

Supreme Court Decides Sandifer Donning and Doffing Protective Clothes Case in U.S. Steel’s Favor

No Fancy Commercials, but Super Bowl is Brought to You by Union Members

Obama’s Wage Hike For Federal Contractors Won’t Apply to Disabled Workers

Subscribe For Updates

Recent Posts

Archives

Find an Employment Lawyer

Know Your Rights

Find an Employment Attorney