Workplace Fairness

Menu

Skip to main content

  • print
  • decrease text sizeincrease text size
    text

Prop 22 is Bad for Black Workers

Share this post

When the pandemic forced Cherri Murphy to stop driving for Lyft, she applied for unemployment benefits like millions of other workers. But because Lyft has refused to pay into California’s unemployment insurance fund, insisting that its workers are independent contractors rather than employees, Cherri received zero dollars in unemployment benefits.

By day, Ms. Murphy is a member of Gig Workers Rising and a volunteer social justice minister who helps people connect their faith to the fight for racial justice. By night, she is a Black working woman in America, completing more than 12,000 Lyft rides, forced to play by rules designed for her — and millions of Black workers — to lose.

“Uber and Lyft drivers are mostly folks who look like me,” said Ms. Murphy. “We’re African American and people of color. We’re on the frontlines and among the hardest hit financially. But our bosses have offered us no meaningful protections, treating us as expendable as ever.”

Now, in the midst of a pandemic that is disproportionately hurting Black Americans, Uber, Lyft and other gig companies like DoorDash and Instacart are trying to roll back labor rights for app-based workers through a ballot measure called Proposition 22. That’s bad news for Black workers.

Supporters of Proposition 22 talk about innovation and jobs of the future, but there is nothing new about bosses attacking labor rights. Don’t be fooled by the misinformation campaign these companies are running — saying drivers must choose between flexibility and employee rights. Flexibility has always been at the discretion of the employer.

As a report co-authored by the Partnership for Working Families and NELP shows, Proposition 22 would lock app-based workers out of minimum wage and overtime protections, unemployment insurance, the right to form a union, and critical health and safety protections.

Proposition 22 would effectively cancel local COVID-19 emergency sick leave laws, passed in cities like San Francisco, Oakland, San Jose, and Los Angeles, that apply to app-based workers.

Bosses have always taken too much from Black workers. And U.S. labor laws have continuously failed Black workers, leaving them out of lifesaving labor protections. Economic inequality continues to this day, with Black women earning 62 cents on the dollar, and Black families having on average one-tenth of the wealth of white families. Union membership dramatically reduces that wealth gap.

The failed response to COVID-19 has only made life worse for Black people in the U.S. Racism in the labor market has forced Black workers onto the most dangerous frontlines of essential work. Yes, Trump is a threat to our safety. But Silicon Valley has done extensive damage as well, using sly legal moves and buying off politicians to steal the benefits workers have earned.

Proposition 22 is only the latest attempt by Silicon Valley bosses to rewrite state laws. It would roll back years of court rulings, agency policy, and statutory law in California, including Assembly Bill 5, which clarified that app-based workers are employees covered by the state’s wage-and-hour laws and eligible for unemployment insurance and workers’ compensation.

Proposition 22 is a step in the wrong direction that harkens back to a long and shameful history of denying Black workers their fundamental rights. The measure sets a dangerous precedent; one that the Trump administration and gig companies could use as fodder for their continued nationwide attack on workers’ rights.

Ms. Murphy was among hundreds of Black Uber and Lyft drivers who penned an open letter calling out gig employers for empty lip-service to the Black Lives Matter movement. The same companies running ad campaigns in support of Black Lives are bankrolling the most expensive ($184 million+) ballot measure in history to take protections away from Black workers.

California voters must vote no on Proposition 22, and say yes to a future with universal rights and good jobs for Black workers and for every worker in the state.

This blog originally appeared at National Employment Law Project on October 23, 2020. Reprinted with permission.

About the Author: Rashad Robinson is an American civil rights leader. He is the president of Color of Change, having joined the organization in May 2011. He has served as a board member of RaceForwardDemosState Voices, and currently sits on the board of the Hazen Foundation.

Rebecca Dixon is executive director of the National Employment Law Project (NELP).


Share this post

California Labor Federation Wins New Protections for Workers

Share this post

Working people across the United States have stepped up to help out our friends, neighbors and communities during these trying times. In our regular Service + Solidarity Spotlight series, we’ll showcase one of these stories every day. Here’s today’s story.

Last Thursday, California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed into law a package of bills to expand worker protections. The new state laws will provide a workers’ compensation presumption for front-line workers who are afflicted with infectious diseases on the job and a requirement for employers to give timely notification of COVID-19 cases in the workplace. The California Labor Federation, under the leadership of Executive Secretary-Treasurer Art Pulaski (IAM), took charge of the fight for these new policies. “Since the pandemic began, the California labor movement has strongly advocated for the most robust worker protection policies in the country. Today’s signing of a package of bills to bolster worker protections as the COVID-19 crisis continues shows our commitment as a state to policies that put the health and safety of workers first,” Pulaski said. “While more work must be done in 2021 to strengthen protections to ensure essential workers putting their lives at risk return home safely to their families after each shift, today the governor gave a much-needed boost to all workers across the state.”

This blog originally appeared at AFL-CIO on September 23, 2020. Reprinted with permission.

About the Author: Aaron Gallant is a contributor for AFL-CIO.


Share this post

Return of the Lockout: Uber and Lyft Try to Strong-Arm California

Share this post

In August a California court ordered Uber and Lyft to reclassify more than 100,000 drivers as regular employees. The two companies, which depend on a business model that defines drivers as independent contractors, got the decision lifted for at least a few months.

But in the meantime their threat to shut down operations in California—and thereby fire thousands of drivers while ending service to millions of customers—raises the question: What do we call this extraordinary corporate stratagem? A public relations gambit? A pressure tactic? Blackmail? A capital strike?

It’s all of the above, but the best historical analogy is the “lockout,” a disreputable, two-century-old employer weapon designed to force workers to knuckle under.

A WEAPON AGAINST SKILLED WORKERS

The Homestead strike of 1892 began as a stoppage by skilled workers who resisted demands by Andrew Carnegie and Henry Frick to slash wages and union power. Frick erected a fence around the entire mill, locked out all employees, and called in a barge full of Pinkerton private police to protect the scabs he hoped to recruit. When workers routed the Pinkertons in a bloody battle, it took the importation of National Guard troops from Philadelphia to put power back in capitalist hands.

Late 19th century lockouts were not uncommon because the status quo had tilted in favor of elite workers: skilled labor controlled the shop floor in many mills and mines and on construction sites, even as deflation was increasing the value of their nominal wages. Bosses responded with lockouts to force concessions and wage cuts.

Lockouts were far less frequent in the mid-20th century decades of union power and successful collective bargaining. That’s when workers went on strike themselves and almost always came out ahead.

But beginning in the 1980s, when just holding on to the contract provisions won in earlier bargaining rounds was often counted a union success, lockouts returned as an employer weapon. Managers locked out union workers in major battles at Caterpillar, the Detroit newspapers, and A.E. Staley in the 1990s. In more recent years, they used the same tactic at Honeywell and National Grid, a Massachusetts gas distribution utility.

Remarkably, the most high-profile lockouts have arisen in professional sports. Here players established strong unions that captured some of the enormous revenue generated by game broadcast rights. And free agency contracts enabled some stars to win enormous salaries. Owners struck back, precipitating lockouts that wrecked the training season: in 2011, the NFL locked out players for 136 days and the NBA did the same for 161 days. The following year, NHL owners locked out players for 119 days.

GIG WORKERS’ FUTURE AT STAKE

But what does all this have to do with Uber and Lyft? Their drivers are not unionized, after all. True, but they have won, in California courts and legislature, a considerable employment-rights victory that, if and when enforced, will transform the meaning of work in the gig economy, greatly enhancing income and security for many.

Last year California Governor Gavin Newsom signed a law that requires Uber, Lyft, DoorDash, and many other companies to reclassify as regular employees workers currently illegally treated as independent contractors. This means that in the future they will be paid a more predictable wage, earn sick leave and Social Security credits, and find themselves covered by worker compensation and unemployment benefit laws.

And they will be legally entitled to unionize, in which case workers and managers can negotiate a contact that gives drivers as much “flexibility” as Uber and Lyft now claim they want.

So, like the skilled workers of late 19th century America, gig economy drivers and DoorDash “shoppers” now find the status quo theoretically on their side. At least in California, they are on the verge of enjoying work rights that gig employers want to gut. To do so Uber, Lyft and DoorDash have amassed a $181 million war chest to pass Proposition 22 on the November California ballot. That proposition would once again legalize contract work for millions of workers who by any reasonable definition are regular employees.

Uber and Lyft are strong-arming Californians. They hope their threat will convince drivers to abandon their rights and persuade California riders to endorse the theft.

BLUSTER

In 1941 Henry Ford threatened to shut down his company if workers voted for the United Auto Workers. They did and yet Ford continues to this day. Management bluster is often just bluster, which is probably the case with Uber and Lyft.

But in the last month, they have proposed another way to keep employees from their rights: create a set of franchises to employ their drivers, if Proposition 22 passes. Franchising is an old trick, as any employee at McDonald’s, Days Inn, FedEx, or Jiffy Lube can attest. Workers are legally employees in a franchise, but the real employer, the one with the money and power, remains legally aloof. Workers get squeezed and unionization brings few benefits.

So the lockout, once thought a relic of Gilded Age America, has returned with a vengeance, ingenuity, and determination that would have made Henry Frick envious. We need an equally radical rededication to the concept of jobs with rights, and the rewards, monetary and moral, that are their just compensation.

This blog originally appeared at Labor Notes on September 23, 2020. Reprinted with permission.

About the Author: Nelson Lichtenstein is Research Professor in History at the University of California, Santa Barbara.


Share this post

Working Life Episode 194: Two Hollywood Tales—A Union Win in California, A Florida Progressive Aims to Fire Debbie Wasserman-Schulz

Share this post

Today the show is all about Hollywood. Hollywood, California and Hollywood, Florida. Hollywood, California is in a rumble. For most performers in the entertainment business, residuals are the foundation to making a living—either a solid middle class living or somewhat less than that. Over many decades, residuals have been tied to various things such as repeat showings of a movie in syndication or sales of DVDs. Now, it’s all about streaming.

For performers, this is a huge change and it’s really about a fight to make sure generations of performers, some not born today, will be able to earn a respectable living. How do performers get paid in a streaming world? The performers’ union, SAG-AFTRA, just scored a big streaming deal win for performers—as well as locking in a big #MeToo step forward to protect actors from harassment. I dig into all this with the union’s president Gabrielle Carteris, who has a long career in film as an actor in film, TV and stage (most prominently in Beverly Hills 90210) and as a producer, and Ray Rodriguez, SAG-AFTRA’s Chief Contracts Officer.

Florida’s 23rd Congressional district is a strongly Democratic district currently represented by the odious Debbie Wasserman-Schultz. In a world of dishonest, morally corrupt, vain and narcissistic politicians, Wasserman Schultz stands out. That’s where Jen Perelman comes in. Jen is challenging Wasserman-Schultz in the Democratic primary which wraps up next week with Election Day after thousands of Floridians have already cast early-voting ballots. Jen’s website is jen2020.com. She joins me from the campaign trail as she was out talking to voters.

This blog originally appeared at Working Life on August 12, 2020. Reprinted with permission.

About the Author: Jonathan Tasini is a political / organizing / economic strategist. President of the Economic Future Group, a consultancy that has worked in a couple of dozen countries on five continents over the past 20 years


Share this post

Historic Child Care Organizing Victory in California a Win for AFSCME, SEIU

Share this post

Working people across the United States have stepped up to help out our friends, neighbors and communities during these trying times. In our regular Service + Solidarity Spotlight series, we’ll showcase one of those stories every day. Here’s today’s story.

In a union election victory 17 years in the making, child care providers across California voted overwhelmingly to be represented by Child Care Providers United (CCPU). The organizing campaign was a joint effort of United Domestic Workers/AFSCME Local 3930 and SEIU locals 99 and 521, with 97% of represented workers who voted choosing to join CCPU. “This has been a long time coming,” UDW Assistant Executive Director and AFSCME Vice President Johanna Hester said Monday. “This win gives 40,000 family child care providers in California the opportunity to bargain for higher pay, better training and increased access to care for every child who needs it.” With AFSCME’s and SEIU’s strong support, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed into law the Building a Better Early Care and Education System Act (A.B. 378) in September, paving the way for this historic victory, one of the largest union organizing wins in America so far this century.

This blog originally appeared at AFL-CIO on July 31, 2020. Reprinted with permission.

About the Author: Aaron Gallant is a contributor for AFL-CIO.


Share this post

California Hospital Workers Strike, Fracturing Pandemic’s Uneasy Labor Peace

Share this post

Despite nationwide shortages of personal protective equipment (PPE) and working conditions that have often been life-threatening, there have not been major strikes of hospital workers in America since the coronavirus pandemic struck. Until now.

More than 700 employees of Santa Rosa Memorial Hospital, a regional trauma center in California’s Sonoma County, held a five-day strike that concluded on Friday. Foremost among the motivating issues were cuts in health care and paid sick leave that the hospital, owned by Providence St. Joseph Health, was pushing on employees during a contentious contract bargaining campaign. The employees are members of the National Union of Healthcare Workers (NUHW).

“The biggest reason is because we’ve been out of contract for over a year, and the hospital is trying to force us into a pretty bad contract,” said Steven Batson, an anesthesia tech and 10-year veteran of the hospital, speaking from the picket line last week, where he was joined by hundreds of his coworkers. The company wants to significantly increase health care premiums, Batson said, and to take paid time off away from senior workers and shift it to newer workers as a recruitment tool. Batson, a shop steward, said the contentious bargaining over this contract is “absolutely” the worst he has experienced in his ten years.

Chuck Desepte, an X-ray technician who has been at Santa Rosa for 13 years, agreed. “It’s the takeaways that I’m not accepting,” he said. “They can afford this. We don’t want to go backwards. We’ve been here for this community over and over again.”

In May, the New York Times reported that Providence Health, which received a bailout of more than $500 million from the federal government in the CARES Act, has a $12 billion cash pile and sizable investments in hedge funds and venture capital. “Last year, Providence’s portfolio of investments generated about $1.3 billion in profits, far exceeding the profits from its hospital operations,” the Times wrote.

Though the strike was not directly caused by the fallout of the coronavirus, the pandemic is playing an unavoidable role. Batson said that although the union held a strike authorization vote in February that passed overwhelmingly, it held off on taking action once the pandemic hit. He said that the hospital was slow to require universal masking, and that to this day, housekeeping staff and outpatient lab technicians who do coronavirus testing are not given adequate PPE, like N95 masks. “The hospital has definitely used this pandemic as a weapon against us,” he said, including by trying to portray the workers as irresponsible for going on strike.

In a statement on the first day of the strike, the hospital wrote that “we are deeply disappointed that NUHW has decided to hold a five-day strike given that the number of COVID-19 cases is on the rise in Sonoma County and the potential for a significant increase in hospitalizations remains.” The company also hastened to paint employees as selfishly exploiting current events. “The union has made clear in communications to our caregivers that this is not a strike about personal protective equipment (PPE) or workplace safety. Instead, this is an ordinary dispute over the terms of our labor contract,” the hospital wrote. “It is unfortunate and unfounded that the union is using COVID-19 as a platform for its negotiating tactics. We never deny a caregiver PPE.”

The company itself is playing hardball. It tried to dissuade the strike with preemptive economic threats, posting ominous fliers warning that, “If NUHW submits a strike notice, our current wage offer of an annual 3% increase will be lowered to 2%, to account for the significant expense of a disruptive strike, and the current offer will be pulled off the table.” (Time will tell whether that threat stands as negotiations continue.) As soon as the strike was called, the company stopped deducting union dues from workers’ paychecks, a move that serves to annoy and hassle the union, making it much more time-intensive to collect dues. Contracted replacement workers from an outside agency were brought in for the five-day duration of the strike.

Though every labor action is unique, the fact that NUHW was willing to go through with the strike in the face of the inevitable attacks about responsibility during the pandemic could signal that the fragile labor peace that has mostly reigned in the healthcare sector—an industry afflicted with more than its share of dissatisfied and endangered union workers—may be buckling. Unions that have been cautious about going on strike over contract issues during this crisis will sooner or later be forced to decide whether they will allow employers (who may have multi-billion-dollar investment portfolios) to make them swallow concessions they would not have otherwise accepted. The employees at Santa Rosa, who worked through major wildfires in their area in 2017 and 2019 before facing the Covid outbreak this year, will soon find out if their bold action pays off.

It was not an easy decision. “We’re health care workers,” said Desepte. “We want to take care of people.”

This blog originally appeared at In These Times on July 27, 2020. Reprinted with permission.

About the Author: Hamilton Nolan is a labor reporter for In These Times. He has spent the past decade writing about labor and politics for Gawker, Splinter, The Guardian, and elsewhere. You can reach him at [email protected]


Share this post

People of the State of California v. Uber & Lyft

Share this post

NELP and other workers’ rights advocates urge court to stop Uber and Lyft’s independent contractor misclassification.

On July 17, 2020, NELP, in collaboration with Legal Aid at Work and other California-based workers’ rights organizations, urged the San Francisco Superior Court of California to stop Uber and Lyft’s illegal misclassification of their drivers as independent contractors.

Though they proudly wear the label of innovative “technology” companies, Uber and Lyft are no different than any other company that routinely violates labor and employment laws to boost its profits at the expense of its workers.

By misclassifying their hundreds of thousands of drivers as independent contractors, Uber and Lyft dispossess their workers of basic labor protections, such as minimum wage, overtime pay, workers’ compensation, unemployment and state disability insurance, and other critical rights intended to cover most workers in our society.

Calling a driver an “independent contractor” does not make it so, and managing employees through an online application does not transform them into self-employed entrepreneurs. Drivers for Uber and Lyft are not running their own separate businesses; they are integral to the companies’ businesses. They are Uber and Lyft’s employees.

Misclassification is not unique to app-based employers—it occurs in every industry where a company might feel the itch to cut corners and boost profits. But in Silicon Valley, the practice has its peculiarities. Companies like Uber and Lyft have flourished in a venture capital fever dream in which regulations are disrupted and the dignity of human labor processed via algorithm and code. Through their gospel of “flexible work,” Uber and Lyft have taken an illegal practice familiar to bad employers everywhere and turned it into the “future of work.”

As described in the amici brief, by subverting labor laws and disabling industry regulations, the two companies have been able to steal wages, duck accountability, offload risk, sabotage worker power, and worsen income and wealth inequality.

Driving for Uber and Lyft must be seen for what it really is: Employment for a company that unilaterally dictates the material terms of work for people who are not running their own business.

NELP urges the San Francisco Superior Court of California to correctly enforce state law, so that drivers for Uber and Lyft, already providing the core transportation service for the companies, may access their employee rights under California law.

This blog originally appeared at NELP on July 20, 2020. Reprinted with permission.

About the Author: Brian Chen is a Staff Attorney at the National Employment Law Project. He primarily focuses on building power for workers who are exploited in “nontraditional” work structures, such as independent contractors, temp, and gig workers. Through litigation and policy campaigns, he aims to support workers’ efforts to democratically self-determine their material conditions.


Share this post

Parents are ready to return to work, but where will their kids go?

Share this post

The resurgence of California’s economy — the fifth largest in the world — could rest on one sector shattered by the pandemic: child care.

SACRAMENTO, Calif. — The resurgence of California’s economy — the fifth largest in the world — could rest on one sector in particular that’s been shattered by the pandemic: child care.

Steep revenue losses and costly new health and safety requirements are putting beleaguered child care programs out of existence in the high-cost state just as more parents return to the workplace. Even a relatively small percentage of closures could have an outsize effect given pre-pandemic shortages, experts say.

That could sideline workers and hamper recovery efforts, particularly in California’s signature tourism, entertainment and dining sectors where remote work is simply not possible. States across the country are experiencing the same challenge as more parents are ready to return to work but may have few options for their children.

“I really feel like we can’t reopen the economy until we open our child care centers, and I would extend that to K-12 as well,” said California Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon, who ran an early education nonprofit before entering politics.

In sectors such as leisure and hospitality, as well as many jobs in health care, construction and manufacturing, “there is very little ability to work from home and be able to juggle your hours around child care,” said Elise Gould, a senior economist at the Economic Policy Institute in Washington, D.C.

The situation also has a disproportionate effect on women, she said, who remain more likely to assume the burden of caring for children and elders, even if they work outside the home.

Further complicating the child care equation is the K-12 school system, which educates some 6 million children in California. The state Department of Education suggested last week that schools could reopen for as few as two days a week to maintain smaller group sizes and social distancing.

The availability of before- and after-school programs will be critical, said Rachel Michelin, president of the California Retailers Association. “If that doesn’t happen, it’s going to be a mess because that really provided a lot of affordable child care for a lot of folks,” she said.

The CARES Act provided an additional $3.5 billion to help child care programs weather the pandemic, of which California received $350 million. Some child care centers also managed to receive federal aid under the Paycheck Protection Program, buying them time to figure out a plan. But advocates say more is needed from Washington, along the lines of a new, $50 billion proposal from Reps. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), Bobby Scott (D-Va.) and Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.).

“The airlines got a huge subsidy,” said Eric Sonnenfeld of the Tulare County Office of Education, which runs 22 early childhood education programs in the heart of California’s Central Valley. “We’re looking to something of the same degree.”

In California, 72 percent of home-based day cares surveyed in late April reported they had remained open through the pandemic, caring for children of essential workers, according to a late April poll of child care providers by the University of California, Berkeley’s Center for the Study of Child Care Employment. 

But just 34 percent of the state’s licensed centers — which, combined, have roughly twice the capacity as home-based providers — kept their doors open this spring, it found.

Those reductions came on top of widespread closures of campus-based child care for school-age children as California districts ended physical classes in mid-March.

California on Friday allowed a wide array of sectors to reopen, which is sure to increase demand for child care. But centers that closed abruptly in March are figuring out if, when and how to reopen with cohorts of just 10 children, as the CDC has recommended. In many cases, that’s half the number of children that once shared a classroom. 

Like K-12 schools, child care centers face a difficult choice to maintain social distancing, especially in a recession. They could hire more staff and acquire additional space. Or they could reduce their enrollment. Both come with cost pressures, either through greater expenses or lower revenues, in a sector that historically has operated on the thinnest of margins.

Programs across the country are in the same precarious position as they try to adapt to the costly new requirements, said Beth Bye, a former Connecticut state senator who now leads that state’s Office of Early Childhood.

“The economic model doesn’t work that well,” Bye said of child care programs generally. “Now you take a business that was barely holding on and say, ‘You can take half as many kids.’ The math just doesn’t work.”

Sonnenfeld says he has been getting calls from Tulare County parents, wondering when they can once again send their kids to his county’s state preschool and Head Start programs. He still doesn’t have a firm answer.

“Businesses are reopening, restaurants are reopening, retail is reopening again,” he said, “but our county superintendent has been very adamant that it has to be safe — not only for students, but for staff — to return.”

While many regions will lack enough child care to meet demand, some providers say they can’t easily replace long-enrolled families choosing to stay home.

In addition to the continuing spread of the virus — and a lack of data on the transmission of Covid-19 by asymptomatic children — is a problem of reliable demand: Some parents might keep their children home as a health precaution or because they’re out of work. 

Yessika Magdaleno stayed open when the pandemic hit, caring for the children of nurses, fast food workers and grocery store employees at her home in the Orange County city of Garden Grove. But earlier this month she said nine of the 16 children who had been in her care before the pandemic had not returned. 

“I don’t know after June how we’re going to survive if more than half of my children are not here,” she said. 

Some parents haven’t even heard from their children’s programs amid the chaos of the pandemic, said Mary Ignatius, a longtime organizer for Parent Voices, a parent-led organizing effort. 

“Just figuring out who’s going to be open when everything goes ‘back to normal’ is going to be a test,” Ignatius said. “I think that’s been a lingering pit in every parent’s stomach: ‘I don’t know what is going to happen. I don’t know what this new normal is going to look like.'”

In California, child care has some important allies in the Legislature, including Rendon (D-Lakewood). He said he first met Sen. Holly Mitchell (D-Los Angeles), now the state Senate’s budget chair, 20 years ago at a rally for early education funding. 

Legislative leaders rejected Gov. Gavin Newsom’s proposal to cut reimbursement rates for state-subsidized child care by 10 percent, a move the governor himself would cancel if federal leaders provide budget relief. Assemblymember Kevin McCarty (D-Sacramento) called that cut “a nonstarter,” saying in an interview that it would “be a death knell for a lot of these programs.”

Newsom in April waived certain eligibility restrictions for state child care assistance to help essential workers who may not have previously qualified for subsidies. He also introduced an online portal to help connect families with child care, Mychildcare.ca.gov, that allows parents to search for child care facilities by ZIP code, including hundreds of new “pop-up” centers the state established in response to the pandemic.

Several lawmakers, anticipating child care challenges, are advancing bills to expand job-protected leave for working parents who need to stay home and care for their children, arguing that parents shouldn’t be forced to choose between their children’s safety and keeping their jobs.

Rendon said he worries about the effect on children’s development if they stay home from school much longer. Hand-washing and other health protocols have long been embedded in child care programs, he said, making them better positioned than other settings to open with proper precautions. 

Still, he said, “People are still quite scared. And to drop off your child, that’s a tremendous leap of faith.”

This blog originally appeared at Politico on June 11, 2020. Reprinted with permission.

About the Author: Katy Murphy covers consumer regulations with a focus on data privacy for POLITICO California. Before joining the team, she was a one-woman Capitol bureau for the The Mercury News and East Bay Times and previously covered K-12 and higher education for more than a decade, based in the Bay Area.


Share this post

AB 5 repeal could land on 2022 ballot

Share this post

AB 5 enshrined in law the California Supreme Court’s test for distinguishing employees from independent contractors. 

Voters could get a chance to dissolve California’s controversial worker classification law in 2022.

Assemblyman Kevin Kiley (R-Rocklin), one of the measure’s most ardent opponents in the Legislature, announced he will try to qualify a ballot initiative to repeal the law. It’s too late to run a referendum suspending AB 5, so Kiley would aim to strip its language from statute in the 2022 election.

AB 5 enshrined in law the California Supreme Court’s test for distinguishing employees from independent contractors. While organized labor backers have called that a boon to workers, Kiley has highlighted stories of Californians who have lost work as a result and sought unsuccessfully to repeal it with legislation.

The law is already likely to be on the 2020 ballot, with app-based gig companies like Uber and DoorDash qualifying a measure to keep their workers independent contractors. Kiley said in an interview that his measure would be far broader than one focused on the tech industry.

“The supporters of AB 5 from the beginning have demonized two companies and used that as their main rationale for the law,” Kiley said in reference to Uber and Lyft, but his proposed initiative “is not about one or another company but about the principle of economic freedom and the right to earn a living and the hundreds of professions in California that have been wiped out because of this law.”

A ballot committee Kiley launched last month does not yet have any money in it, and Kiley said he has yet to line up financial backers. He said he hoped his effort would provide an impetus for the Legislature to make a deal — a tactic that has not worked for the tech industry.

This blog originally appeared at Politico on June 2, 2020. Reprinted with permission.

About the Author: Jeremy B. White co-writes the California Playbook and covers politics in the Golden State. He previously covered the California Legislature for the Sacramento Bee, where he reported on campaigns, myriad nationally significant policy clashes and multiple FBI investigations of sitting lawmakers.


Share this post

California Authorities Take Steps to Protect Workers’ Health and Rehiring Post-Quarantine

Share this post

State and local governments in California have recently signed into law several measures aimed at protecting workers. At the state level, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed an executive order offering additional paid sick leave to food sector workers. At the local level, both the County and City of Los Angeles have now adopted worker retention and right of recall ordinances protecting the jobs of certain service sector workers. While the potential harm to workers resulting from COVID-19 remains great, these measures should provide some comfort to vulnerable workers at a time of financial insecurity. 

Food workers entitled to additional paid sick leave for reasons related to COVID-19

The statewide measure pertaining to food workers was signed into effect by Gov. Newsom on April 16, 2020. Executive Order N-51-20 points out that food service workers are far less likely to stay home from work when they’re sick if they do not have available paid sick leave. If workers feel they have no choice but to work while sick, there is a greater risk that the infection will spread to all coworkers.

The order addresses these concerns by mandating that employers of food service workers must offer supplemental paid sick leave related to COVID-19 to food service workers. Workers become eligible for this leave when: the worker has been ordered to quarantine or isolate by a federal, state, or local order; the worker is told by a healthcare worker to self-quarantine or self-isolate; or, the worker has been barred from working by their employer based on concerns of transmission of COVID-19. The amount of paid sick leave to which workers are entitled will vary based on the number of hours the employee worked. Workers considered to be “full-time” employees or who were scheduled to work an average of 40 hours per week for the two weeks prior to taking COVID-19-related leave will be entitled to 80 hours of COVID-19 supplemental sick leave. For those working fewer hours per week, the worker will be entitled to take the number of hours of paid leave across two weeks as they would have normally been scheduled to work in that time.

Los Angeles County workers now have a right to rehire and to be retained by new owners

Many laid-off workers fear that, due to the struggling economy, their positions may be filled by new and inexpensive workers rather than the experienced, possibly older, workers who held the position previously. After similar ordinances were signed into effect by City of Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti, the County of Los Angeles has now enacted two ordinances designed to assure laid-off workers in the service industry that they have a right to be rehired when businesses reopen. The City’s orders offer protections to those working at airports; as janitorial, maintenance, or security workers at commercial properties; and at large event centers, hotels, and hotel restaurants. The City’s orders go into effect on June 14, 2020. The County’s orders cover only those who work at commercial properties and hotels, and go into effect on May 12, 2020. Both measures offer workers a right to pursue legal action if they believe their rights have been violated under these ordinances.

The City’s Worker Retention ordinance and the County’s Right of Retention ordinance each mandate that, upon the sale of a business to a new owner, any laid-off employees of that business have a right to be kept on as an employee under the new ownership. The former owner must provide a preferential hiring list of the business’ employees to the new owner. The new owner must hire from that list for six months after the business is again open to the public. In order to be eligible for inclusion on this list, the worker must have worked for the business for at least six months, must have been primarily employed by that business, who is directly employed by or works for someone who has contracted with the former owner, and who worked for the former owner after March 4, 2020 and before the business was sold. These ordinances do not include managerial, supervisory, or confidential employees. Workers rehired by a new owner must be retained for at least 90 days unless the employer can show cause for firing the worker.

The City and County ordinances related to the Right of Recall state that workers laid off on or after March 4, 2020 must be prioritized when businesses begin to rehire workers. The worker must have performed at least two hours of work for that employer each week to be eligible, and have worked for the employer for at least six months prior to layoff. Workers are entitled to an offer for open positions with their former employer if they held the same position previously, or if they could become qualified for the position after completing the same amount of training that a new worker would need. If two workers are eligible for the same position, employers must offer the more senior employee first right of refusal.

About the Author: Kurt R. Mattson is the President of Union Legal Research. He has spent more than 30 years in the legal services industry as a research attorney, writer, editor, and marketer. 


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.