I work in the United Airlines terminal as a baggage handler at O’Hare Airport in Chicago. Not too long ago, the people doing my job made $22 an hour. Then United outsourced the jobs to Prospect.
Now I’m paid just $11 an hour. Let’s do the math. That’s half of what they used to pay.
Same job. Less money.
I live with my family. I help pay the bills and put food on the table. At 21 years old, I already handle more responsibility than a lot of people do in a lifetime.
My aunt and grandma also work at O’Hare. All three of us are underpaid. We’re tired of struggling just to get by.
The worst part is that we don’t get health benefits. When I was injured on the job, I had to pay for most of my treatment out of my own pocket.
That’s why I’m standing with my coworkers. Like airport workers across the country, we’re fighting for $15 and union rights.
On Martin Luther King, Jr. Day I was arrested for blocking the street outside United Airlines’ headquarters in Chicago—an act of nonviolent civil disobedience. This spring, I joined my coworkers on an unfair labor practice strike to protest the retaliation we faced for coming together for $15 and union rights.
Chicago is an expensive place to live. Fifteen dollars—at least—is what we need to live our lives.
We know the money is there. Our jobs used to be good jobs. We’re pumping huge profits into United—but we’re barely making enough to make ends meet.
We are not going to stop until airlines step up and make our airports good for our communities again.
This article was originally printed on SEIU.org in October 2016. Reprinted with permission.
Raquel Brito is a baggage handler for Prospect Airport Services in the United Airlines terminal at O’Hare Airport in Chicago.
This year’s election has stirred up a lot of controversy, arguably more than the most recent elections. Everyone is talking about the election, whether it is in person or online. Sex, politics, religion, money; these are things we were told not to talk about, especially at work. But now, in this new age of technology, even if we don’t talk about it at the office people can still find out our views if we post online. What rules apply to the workplace and where do we draw the line?
There seems to be a fine line between what type of political speech is and is not acceptable in the workplace. Federal Law prohibits government employers from restricting free speech in the workplace because of the 1st Amendment. However, private employers do not have the same restriction. In some states, employers may be able to express their political beliefs as long as they are not coercing any employees to vote for or contribute funds to a specific candidate. However, encouraging donations is fine. Other places only allow a company to express its beliefs by expressing its views on which side of each issue is best for the future of the company. Are employees held to the same standard?
What can employees talk about at work? Friends talk about politics outside of work, but what if you are friends with your coworkers? Some employees may be fine with talking about politics with each other. However, if these conversations happen at work where other employees can hear them, they might be offending someone. Employers can regulate as they see fit through their own workplace policies but there aren’t any laws governing this. Some might think offensive political speech would amount to a hostile working environment. However, federal and state laws do not consider political speech as a basis to prove a workplace is hostile. Should employees be able to talk about politics that deal with workers rights, like health care, minimum wage laws, and working conditions? Do employers have the right to restrict this type of speech through their policies? And what happens when someone’s views differs than the boss’s?
Retaliation and discrimination
There are only a few states with laws prohibiting retaliation against employees for their political beliefs. Employees may be fired or passed up for promotions just for having opposing political beliefs from their boss. Even if an employee doesn’t talk about their beliefs at work, an employer can use what they find on the Internet against you. If you post political speech on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, or any other form of social media, your employer can find out about it. But what about your coworkers, can they discriminate against you?
A recent article talked about coworkers using political speech to harass a Hispanic woman. They changed her computer screensaver to pictures of Trump. They also told her to go back to Mexico and called her an illegal immigrant, even though she was born in America. This woman was eventually fired and told, “Illegal immigrants can’t vote or work. Good luck finding a job.” Is this political speech enough to consider the workplace hostile, even though the law doesn’t recognize this as a basis for discrimination? This woman and her lawyers are not taking that chance. They are filing a lawsuit against the company for racial discrimination, which is actually recognized by federal and state law. How do we stop these things from happening when race becomes such a major topic in political debates?
If political speech is so controversial, why not ban it from the workplace? Do we ban all of it or just what may cause employees to feel uncomfortable? Many private companies have their own regulations, but how do they efficiently regulate it? Employees donate money and time to political campaigns, post to social media, and vote outside of work on their own time. Now that we can access technology anywhere, should employers ban political speech online during work hours? Should certain websites be blocked or monitored?
What about voting privileges? Most states require employers to allow employees to take time off work to vote. Some states are stricter than others by restricting how much time can be taken off work, the amount of notice required, or by including exceptions, but employers must comply. If they have to let employees vote during work hours, can they really regulate anything else they do during this time?
“An order that creates a culture of legal compliance could have a transformative impact on American industry.” George Faraday, Legal and Policy Director at Good Jobs Nation
Truck drivers and warehouse workers working for federal contractors at the Port of Los Angeles are striking for 48 hours to draw attention to wage theft and other violations. These workers work for companies that contract with the federal Department of Defense. They say they have been misclassified as “independent contractors”, had their wages stolen and have been retaliated against for exercising the right to organize.
The workers are doing this because President Obama’s Fair Pay & Safe Workplaces Executive Order protecting low-wage workers on federal contracts from wage theft and other labor law violations takes effect today. Contractors are supposed to start reporting whether they are found in violation of wage theft and other labor laws and regulations. Later the government can use this information in the decision process for awarding contracts.
On a press call discussing today’s strike, Jaime Martinez, a port worker, explained that he has worked for K&R, a federal contractor, for 19 years. “We are on strike today for issues including respect and and wage theft. We earn very low wages, with no benefits and no workers compensation because we are classified as independent contractors.”
Obama’s Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces Executive Order
President Obama’s executive order cracks down on federal contractors who break hiring, health and safety, and wage laws. It also prohibits employers from requiring mandatory arbitration agreements with employees of federal contractors, in order that workers can get their day in an actual court instead of being forced to appear in front of an arbitrator picked and paid for by the company when there is a dispute involving the Civil Rights Act or related to sexual assault or harassment.
Specifically, the new rules require companies that bid on federal contracts to disclose wage and hour, safety and health, collective bargaining, family and medical leave, and civil rights violations from the prior three years. Federal contractor hiring officers are to take serious violations into account before awarding contracts. These officers will be issued guidelines on whether certain violations “rise to the level of a lack of integrity or business ethics.”
This Is A Big Deal
According to Good Jobs Nation this will affect a large number of workers around the country,
A U.S. Senate investigation revealed that federal contractors were responsible for nearly one-third of the largest U.S. Department of Labor penalties for wage theft and other legal violations;
An analysis by the Government Accountability Office showed that known legal violators have continued to receive lucrative federal contracts because of lax government oversight and enforcement.
“Creates A Culture Of Legal Compliance”
Companies with federal government contracts employ 1 in 4 American workers. Thanks to this executive order they will have to demonstrate a record of labor law compliance, including wage and hour and health and safety laws. On the press call discussing today’s strike Good Jobs Nation’s Legal and Policy Director George Faraday said, “An order that creates a culture of legal compliance could have a transformative impact on American industry.”
Fair Pay Hotline And Website
Also today, Good Jobs Nation is launching the first-ever national legal hotline – 1-844-PAY-FAIR – for federal contract workers to report law-breaking. Information is also available at goodjobsnation.org/payfair,
If you are a worker on a federal contract and you believe that are not receiving the pay and benefits owed to you under federal laws – like the Service Contract Act or the Davis Bacon Act – contact Good Jobs Legal Defense at 1-844-PAY-FAIR or click below.
This post originally appeared on ourfuture.org on October 25, 2016. Reprinted with Permission.
Dave Johnson has more than 20 years of technology industry experience. His earlier career included technical positions, including video game design at Atari and Imagic. He was a pioneer in design and development of productivity and educational applications of personal computers. More recently he helped co-found a company developing desktop systems to validate carbon trading in the US.
Freedom of peaceful assembly and association, says a new United Nations report, “are essential to human dignity, economic empowerment, sustainable development and democracy. They are the gateway to all other rights; without them, all other human and civil rights are in jeopardy.” But these rights, says the report, are being jeopardized by the recent dramatic rise in the power of large multinational corporations and their dependence on global supply chains and the growing informal and migrant workforce. While these rights are most imperiled in the world’s poorest countries, workers in the United States are also facing these problems.
Undertaken by the special rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association, the U.N. report singles out the plight of migrant, women and domestic workers, many of whom lack formal employment. In fact, worldwide, most workers are now without formal employment arrangements. According to the report, an estimated 60.7 percent of the world’s workers “labor in the informal economy, where employment relationships are not legally regulated or socially protected.” In some countries this workforce rises to 90 percent. The report also notes that while such employment has always existed, the rise of global supply chains has “exponentially expanded its growth.” As a result, some 1.5 billion people or 46 percent of the world’s workers, now experience what the report calls “precarious employment.” More than 70 percent of people in Southern Asia and sub-Saharan Africa work this way.
This workforce includes self-employed, contract and part-time workers, and day laborers—and often those working in special economic zones where, as the report describes, “worker protections are sharply reduced or eliminated in order to attract foreign investment.” It encompasses professions of all skill levels, from teachers, to taxi drivers, call-center and agricultural workers. These arrangements often involve on-call schedules, short-term contracts and multi-layered subcontracts—all of which add to workers’ difficulties in asserting rights and difficulties in enforcing labor laws. Women, because they make up the majority of the world’s agricultural and domestic workers, are especially burdened by the lack of labor protections.
As anyone working in this world knows, such jobs do not have typical employment benefits like health and unemployment insurance, sick leave, overtime pay and other wage protections. Workers have little opportunity to organize, form unions or bargain for higher wages and better working conditions. This situation, says the U.N. report, is contributing to wealth inequality worldwide.
But it’s not just globalization that’s swelling the ranks of workers whose right to organize is in jeopardy. Conflict, war and climate change are also contributing to the world’s growing migrant population that’s now its largest since World War II, notes Roger-Mark De Souza, director of population, environmental security and resilience at the Wilson Center. These people “have become a major low-wage workforce that is excluded from opportunities to bargain collectively for improved wages and working conditions,” says De Souza. And, he explains, these workers are now woven into the fabric of world economics—sending to their home countries an estimated $580 billion in 2014.
The United States is no exception
While the impact of working without the freedom to organize is most dire in the world’s poorest countries, “the U.S. is no exception to the types of labor rights abuses the report lays out,” Oxfam America regional director Minor Sinclair tells In These Times. “The abuses of labor and the changes in the economy, and how that disadvantages labor and labor rights—the U.S. is as much caught up in that as any other country,” says Sinclair.
The economy’s structure is changing “in a way that disadvantages even more workers,” Sinclair explains. Whether through layers of subcontractors that ultimately employ factory workers in Bangladesh, U.S. meat processing workers or college graduates working the “gig economy,” the report reflects the fact that “increasingly, people don’t have employers that are responsible for workers’ rights,” says Sinclair. And this makes it “harder for workers to advocate for (these rights) and protections.”
The impacts of this situation are, of course, most acute at the low-wage end of the employment spectrum, a workforce that often includes immigrant workers. In the United States, as elsewhere, farmworkers and food processing workers are especially vulnerable and lacking in protected labor rights, as are domestic workers. The report says that in the United States, immigrant workers “who attempt to exercise their rights are often blacklisted by employers, who use the threat of denied future work opportunities to silence workers.”
Sinclair also notes the impact and rise of right-to-work laws across the United States, which are now in place in 26 states. “Basic labor rights, the right to unionize and right to strike, are severely compromised by right-to-work laws,” he says. The report describes what’s happened to workers in states in the U.S. South where these laws are in place—and how corporations have taken advantage of the lack of unionization.
When it comes to solutions, the U.N. report sees little progress in support of workers’ freedom to assemble and organize coming from voluntary corporate social responsibility and auditing programs. Such programs, says the report, “are not a substitute for legally binding, robust enforcement of the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association.” It calls on businesses to refrain from anti-union policies and practices and to support labor rights throughout their supply chains, especially for workers in “vulnerable situations,” including migrant and minority group workers.
Despite this trend, Oxfam’s Sinclair says he sees “some real signs of hope in the legislative work around the right to $15 per hour and the new federal overtime regulation.” He also notes that, albeit slowly, corporations are beginning to realize that “rights erosion is not a sustainable business model.” That said, he also fears that we’re moving towards “a bipolar work situation,” where “some people have workers’ rights and some people don’t.” But because this situation now affects everyone from university teachers to auto manufacturing and farm workers, he also holds out hope the issue of workers’ rights will finally get substantive attention.
“We welcome the U.N. report and the opportunity it provides to raise awareness and highlight the many challenges workers still face globally in exercising this fundamental right to freedom of association,” Carol Pier, deputy undersecretary for international labor affairs at the U.S. Department of Labor, said in a statement. “Working to protect and promote workers’ rights to organize and bargain collectively is a priority for the Department, at home and abroad.”
This article originally appeared at Inthesetimes.com on October 26, 2016. Reprinted with permission.
Elizabeth Grossman is the author of Chasing Molecules: Poisonous Products, Human Health, and the Promise of Green Chemistry, High Tech Trash: Digital Devices, Hidden Toxics, and Human Health, and other books. Her work has appeared in a variety of publications including Scientific American, Yale e360, Environmental Health Perspectives, Mother Jones, Ensia, Time, Civil Eats, The Guardian, The Washington Post, Salon and The Nation.
McDonald’s is still insisting it isn’t a joint employer of workers in franchise restaurants, but even so, it’s paying out millions to settle a lawsuit over labor law violations by a franchisee:
In a filing in U.S. district court in San Francisco on Friday, lawyers representing about 800 employees at five restaurants owned by a single franchisee said Illinois-based McDonald’s would pay the workers $1.75 million in back pay and damages and $2 million in legal fees. […]
The 2014 lawsuit claimed McDonald’s and the franchisee, Smith Family LP, violated California law by failing to pay overtime, keep accurate pay records and reimburse workers for time spent cleaning uniforms. The franchisee previously settled the claims for $700,000.
McDonald’s exerts tight control over how its franchisees do things it cares about. That happens not to include little things like obeying labor laws—but because McDonald’s control over how its franchisees do business is so well established, the National Labor Relations Board is moving toward treating McDonald’s as a joint employer. This settlement doesn’t settle that question, but at least these workers are getting a measure of justice.
This article originally appeared at DailyKOS.com on October 31, 2016. Reprinted with permission.
Laura Clawson is a Daily Kos contributing editor since December 2006. Labor editor since 2011.
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.
Workplace Fairness is a non-profit organization working to preserve and promote employee rights. This site provides comprehensive information about job rights and employment issues nationally and in all 50 states. It is for workers, employers, advocates, policymakers, journalists, and anyone else who wants to understand, protect, and strengthen workers’ rights. More about Workplace Fairness