AMERICAN FORUM
By Tsedeye Gebreselassie
In 2006, Nevada voters did a really smart thing. Recognizing that their state’s minimum wage stayed flat year after year, despite rising costs of living, the people of Nevada voted to index their minimum wage rate to adjust annually with the cost of living. In the last few years, these small annual increases have helped thousands of working families make ends meet in a rough economy, while providing a modest boost in precisely the type of consumer spending our nascent recovery needs.
Rather than celebrate voters’ sound economic move, critics of the minimum wage see an opportunity to once again toss out their usual—and widely discredited—claims that a strong minimum wage is a “job-killer.” Counting on understandable anxiety about Nevada’s stubbornly high unemployment rate, opponents of the minimum wage have proposed state legislation that would begin a repeal process for the initiative passed by Nevada’s voters just four years ago.
Let’s quickly dispense with these “job-killing” claims. Real-world experiences with minimum wage increases have produced little evidence of job losses. The decade following the federal minimum wage increase in 1996-97 ushered in one of the strongest periods of job growth in decades. Analyses of states with minimum wages higher than the federal floor between 1997 and 2007 showed that their job growth was actually stronger overall than in states that kept the lower federal level. And just last winter, a rigorous study finding that increasing the minimum wage does not lead to job loss was published in the Review of Economics and Statistics. Economists at the University of Massachusetts, University of North Carolina, and University of California compared employment data among every pair of neighboring U.S. counties that straddle a state border and had differing minimum wage levels at any time between 1990 and 2006. Analyzing employment and earnings data of over 500 counties, they found that minimum wage increases did not cost jobs.
Yet, critics of the minimum wage are undeterred by the facts, continuing to put the blame for the current recession and high joblessness rate squarely on the shoulders of our nation’s lowest-paid workers. This would be laughable if it weren’t so offensive—and the potential consequences of this shell game so tragic.
It doesn’t take an economist to tell you that the factors causing this recession have very little to do with how much or how little businesses must pay their frontline staff. Indeed, if we’ve learned anything these past couple of years, it’s that relying on rampant financial speculation and irresponsible lending practices to generate the spending that drives our economy, rather than investing in good jobs at good wages, is no way to run an economy. That’s why a robust minimum wage is a cornerstone of any recovery strategy, because it puts money into the pockets of low-income families who will spend it immediately, increasing consumer spending without adding to the deficit. According to the Economic Policy Institute, the small bump in the federal minimum wage in 2009 generated $5.5 billion in new consumer spending.
Over the last 40 years, the real value of the minimum wage has eroded substantially, lagging far behind rising living costs. At its peak in 1968, the federal minimum wage was worth more than $10 an hour in today’s dollars. When Nevada indexed its minimum wage in 2006, it joined many other states—as of today, 10 in all—to ensure that the purchasing power of these wages does not erode over time. On the federal level, minimum wage earners went 10 years without an increase until Congress finally raised the minimum wage in 2007. Repealing Nevada’s minimum wage indexing law might very well lead to the same result.
Gebreselassie is a staff attorney at the National Employment Law Project.
Copyright (C) 2011 by American Forum. 4/11
Showing posts with label labor. Show all posts
Showing posts with label labor. Show all posts
Wednesday, May 4, 2011
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
By Howard H. Johnston
In 40 years of practicing law, I have never seen such a misleading ballot question or such an unfair proposal as Constitutional Amendment No. 1.
Amendment No. 1 represents an attempt to control the employer-employee relationship in a manner previously unknown in Georgia. It will legalize unfair employment contracts, saying, “If you leave this company for any reason, you cannot work in this town (or several counties or states) for a period of two years.”
If passed, this amendment will allow an employer to force an employee to sign a contract which would create a modern form of involuntary servitude.
Amendment No. 1 deceptively states:
“Shall the Constitution of Georgia be amended so as to make Georgia more economically competitive by authorizing legislation to uphold reasonable competitive agreements?”
“Reasonable competitive agreements” are already upheld in Georgia. As the law stands today, you are protected from unreasonable employment covenants by the Georgia Constitution, which says that contracts that have the effect of “defeating or lessening competition” are unlawful and void. Our Constitution favors an open market and encourages free competition.
Accordingly, the Georgia Supreme Court has routinely refused to enforce contracts which unfairly restrict an employee’s opportunities. Our courts enforce post-employment contracts only where the provisions as to time, territory and the prohibited employment activity are reasonable. Georgia courts refuse to enforce any such contract where any of these elements are unreasonable. That means that judges refuse to “blue pencil” or redesign an unreasonable contract to make it enforceable against a former employee. The responsibility to develop a reasonable employment agreement currently is on the employer.
Amendment No. 1 would change all of this, making judges responsible for re-writing sloppy employment contracts, thereby overburdening the courts, increasing litigation, and allowing precedent to vary from county to county, courtroom to courtroom.
If this amendment is adopted, the next time you change employers or decide to go into business for yourself, you may not be able to do the same work for two years after you leave your present job, in an area as large as several states, because the employment agreement you signed says you cannot compete with your former employer. This agreement can apply to almost any type of private employee, including doctors, nurses, engineers, technicians, specialists, account representatives, real estate agents, executives, managers and wage earners. And, it doesn’t matter why you left your job -- whether you were “downsized,” or voluntarily left for more pay and opportunity, or left to avoid inappropriate behaviors at work.
Some businesses want to stop their employees from practicing their skill and trade for any other corporation, and require their employees to sign non-compete covenants as a condition of employment. As a result, when things don’t go well at work, the employee’s options can be severely limited. These businesses, represented by powerful and influential lawyers, have suffered embarrassment when the courts have held some contracts unenforceable and allowed former employees to compete. Now these businesses and their lawyers want to tilt the playing field in their favor.
Reading the complete proposed law is a challenge, even for an attorney, but consider this language found deep within the text: “If any portion of such restraint is against the policy of the law in any respect but such restraint, considered as a whole, is not so clearly unreasonable and overreaching in its terms as to be unconscionable, the court shall enforce so much of such restraint as it determines by a preponderance of the evidence to be necessary to protect the interests of the parties that benefit from such restraint.” These words, if passed, would require a former employee to go to court to see if he can compete against his former employer. Such an amendment would drastically tilt the playing field against the former employee who merely wants to make a living.
This amendment mandates judicial activism and interferes with competition and free enterprise. There are already laws in place to protect trade secrets and solicitation of customers. This outrageous amendment opposes fundamental fairness and equality before the law. Vote no on Amendment No. 1.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Johnston is an attorney in Norcross.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2010 by Georgia Forum. 10/10
Thursday, September 9, 2010
NEW MEXICO FORUM
By Rev. Gary Kowalski
Americans are more likely barbecuing this Labor Day weekend than singing “Which Side Are You On?” We’ve forgotten the workers who were our own forebears.
My wife’s family, for instance, came from Nanticoke, Pennsylvania. Today it’s an unremarkable crossroads, but a century ago, it saw a titanic contest between labor organizers and the Reading Railroad, which ran the nation’s coal mines. The union wanted an eight hour day and took 100,000 men out on strike. The walk-out finally ended six months later when Teddy Roosevelt established a commission for binding arbitration. In his closing argument to that commission, the railroad CEO testified that “These men don't suffer. Why, hell, half of them don't even speak English.”
Three years after the strike, a government report found thousands of children still picking chunks of coal by hand from the mountains of slag. And this was my wife’s hometown. Her great-grandfather Balliet died of black lung, as did great uncle Ellis. Grandmother Jeanette told stories of her brother Evan, who was so small when he trudged off to the pit that his lunch bucket dragged the ground; he perished in an accident at age 14. So the history of labor in this country is our family history. It’s a story whose repercussions are still felt.
Labor Day started long ago, but the financial panic of 1893 was eerily similar to the current economic meltdown. Then, robber barons accumulated vast fortunes through speculative investments. Waves of bankruptcies ensued as gambles went bad. Banks went belly-up, wiping out the savings of folks who then couldn’t make their mortgage payments. With balance sheets plummeting, companies slashed payroll, leading to revolts like the one in Nanticoke and the Pullman strike of 1894, where federal troops were dispatched to smash the union. Facing re-election that year, President Cleveland declared a “Labor Day,” to mollify the workers whose dreams he’d destroyed. He lost. But it took years, not until FDR, before reforms addressed the boom-bust cycle that left so many in distress.
This brings us to now. Many New Deal regulations have been de-regulated and the gap between rich and poor has never been greater. True, most Americans consider themselves “middle-class,” not working class. But that’s because they’ve gone deeper into debt for that college degree and for homes their actual earnings no longer justify. Forced to borrow beyond their means, many defaulted on loans they couldn’t repay and, as in 1893, banks went bust while ordinary stiffs got evicted and saw nest eggs evaporate. But now as then, Goldman Sachs did all right, disbursing billions in bonuses. Perhaps the biggest difference between 2010 and a century ago is that instead of a Populist or Progressive movement, we have the Tea Party.
I believe in the dignity of labor. I’ve hauled cable and washed dishes; I’ve never felt anything demeaning in hard work. I was taught to be self-sufficient, but I’m well-educated enough to realize I’m not self-made. Whatever advantages I enjoy come from living in a land that other people helped build -- people who deserve a share of the riches they worked to create such as farm workers, child care providers, and nurse’s aides who do jobs that are absolutely necessary and ought to pay a living wage but don’t. They deserve more. We deserve more. And it’s about time we achieve it.
So in regard to that old song, “Which side are you on,” I’m not on the side of trickle down, but on the side of acting up. I’m not on the side of a rising tide lifts all boats, but on the side of a rising demand for justice.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kowalski is new interim minister at the Unitarian Universalist Congregation of Santa Fe.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2010 by the New Mexico Editorial Forum 9/10
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
By Rev. Stephanie Coble Hankins
On top of all the problems working families face in this bleak economy, we can add one more: for the first time in three years the federal minimum wage won’t go up this summer.
From 2007 through 2009, the nation’s lowest paid workers received modest, yet long overdue increases in their paychecks each July. In 2007, Congress finally raised the federal minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25 an hour, phased in over three years.
But this year, workers will get nothing. The federal minimum wage will once again be flat unless Congress takes action again.
Until 2007, the federal minimum wage had been stuck at $5.15 an hour for 10 years. The federal minimum wage for tipped workers like waitresses and car wash workers is even lower. It’s been frozen at a meager $2.13 an hour since 1991.
For the child care worker who watches your toddler and the waitress at your local diner, the minimum wage plays a big role in setting their pay scales. That’s why farsighted business leaders like Costco’s CEO Jim Sinegal have been supportive of raising the minimum wage to help America’s working families.
The faith community also supports raising the minimum wage. As an ordained minister in the Presbyterian Church (USA), I can think of few causes that the faith community should be more interested in than ensuring that the working poor in our own neighborhoods earn enough money to support their families.
This summer, the Georgia Minimum Wage Coalition has trained college interns at DOOR Atlanta to teach over 200 high school students on mission trips to Atlanta about the struggle of Georgia’s minimum wage workers. Our goal is to help these students recognize that families can’t make ends meet with wages that remain stagnant year after year.
The solution to the minimum wage problem is straight-forward. Simply “index” it, so that it is automatically adjusted each year to keep up with the cost of living. Indexing is already the law in 10 states. Workers in those states see a small automatic bump in their wages every year, helping families keep from falling farther behind on basic expenses.
Florida has indexed their state minimum wage. Georgia hasn’t. So while janitors and elder care workers in Jacksonville will be getting a raise next January 1st, the same workers in Valdosta won’t. In fact, Georgia’s state minimum wage is still $5.15 an hour, meaning that workers not covered by the federal minimum wage can still be legally paid this poverty wage in our state.
There is a proposal that would raise Georgia’s minimum wage to the federal rate of $7.25 an hour and index it to the cost of living. Despite broad public support to raise the minimum wage, it has yet to receive a House committee hearing.
This is really a shame. Fixing the minimum wage is vital for working families and key for restoring consumer spending that our economy needs to grow. A strong minimum wage puts money into the pockets of low-income families who spend it in their local communities. According to the Economic Policy Institute, last year’s rise in the minimum wage (from $6.55 to $7.25 an hour) generated $5.5 billion in new consumer spending.
It’s not just the economics of a higher minimum wage that makes sense. It’s also the right thing to do for our neighbors who are working hard and still struggling to stay afloat.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Rev. Hankins is an ordained Presbyterian minister who works as a part-time faith-based organizer for the Georgia Minimum Wage Coalition.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2010 by Georgia Forum. 8/10
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
FORUM
By Elias Feghali
Fixing our broken immigration system is vital to America's economic recovery.
As our economy shrinks, state governments are desperate for revenue. Without additional sources of funds, they are increasingly making the decision to cut important social services, raise taxes, or even worse, lay off hard-working state employees.
Recently, Tennessee laid-off 850 workers (the Department of Intellectual Disabilities took the biggest hit, along with children's services). Gov. Phil Bredesen called these cuts "unfortunate, but necessary" to keep Tennessee afloat.
Although there is no silver bullet for our economic troubles, an important source of revenue and economic growth is available to states across the nation, if we have the foresight and resolve to reform our immigration system now.
It is no secret that there is an underground labor force in this country. For over 20 years, the immigration system has grown increasingly out of sync with the needs of a healthy economy, and immigrant workers have been lured here through an immigration system designed to fail. The government sends these workers mixed messages, making it dangerous and expensive to cross the border, yet issuing taxpayer numbers and collecting taxes once they get here. The vast majority of these immigrants come to work honest jobs and create a better future for their families. Instead, they are often exploited by bad apple employers and left without a pathway to citizenship.
Rather than continuing to enforce policies that aren't working, what if we gave these folks a chance to get on the right side of the law, while securing our borders and reforming our laws so that this doesn't happen again?
Imagine the economic impact of millions of immigrants paying their back taxes and a fine to register with the government. Imagine the new revenue generated when these immigrants can finally buy insurance, earn a driver's license and purchase a car. Imagine the benefit for American workers when bad apple employers can no longer exploit these immigrants to bring down wages.
Every day we delay reforming our immigration system, we suffer economically. According to UCLA researcher Raul Hinojosa, legalizing immigrant workers would contribute $1.5 trillion to the nation's productivity over 10 years, as more tax revenues are collected, wages increase for U.S.-born and foreign-born workers alike, and immigrants spend more in our economy.
There are some who would argue that reforming our immigration system is unnecessary. To them, all we need to do is enforce the law, deport millions of immigrant workers and hope our unemployment numbers shrink as a result.
Unfortunately, there are two main problems with this plan.
First, unemployment is a critical problem facing our nation. Millions of Americans are out of work and struggling to keep their families afloat. That's why we shouldn't take it lightly by suggesting that mass deportations would solve our problems. It is unrealistic to think that unemployed GM workers from Smyrna, TN, can pack up their families, take a bus to Georgia, and harvest crops as migrant farm workers. What we need are real middle-class jobs. We need better opportunities for everyone. We need stabilization in the economy, and immigration reform is a huge part of that.
Second, we have tried the enforcement-only approach. That has basically been the strategy of every president since Reagan. In that time period, we've increased the dollars spent on immigration enforcement, yet the number of undocumented workers has increased every year. It is unrealistic to suggest that we could or should devote our limited resources to trying to identify and deport more than 10 million people, while leaving some of their children and spouses alone to fend for themselves. If the anti-reform lobby has its way, we will spend hundreds of billions of dollars trying to do just that. Worse yet, if successful, this policy would shock local economies, resulting in $1.8 trillion in annual lost spending, $651.5 billion in annual lost output, and millions of lost jobs, according to a study last year by The Perryman Group.
In a time of economic turmoil, we can't afford to waste our money on unrealistic policies that would hurt American workers and families. Blind enforcement of our broken immigration policies is the business-as-usual approach. What we need are workable solutions that uphold our values and move us forward together.
As Congress prepares to address the most important problem facing our nation -- the economy -- we should hope lawmakers realize that reforming our broken immigration system is an essential part of the solution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------As our economy shrinks, state governments are desperate for revenue. Without additional sources of funds, they are increasingly making the decision to cut important social services, raise taxes, or even worse, lay off hard-working state employees.
Recently, Tennessee laid-off 850 workers (the Department of Intellectual Disabilities took the biggest hit, along with children's services). Gov. Phil Bredesen called these cuts "unfortunate, but necessary" to keep Tennessee afloat.
Although there is no silver bullet for our economic troubles, an important source of revenue and economic growth is available to states across the nation, if we have the foresight and resolve to reform our immigration system now.
It is no secret that there is an underground labor force in this country. For over 20 years, the immigration system has grown increasingly out of sync with the needs of a healthy economy, and immigrant workers have been lured here through an immigration system designed to fail. The government sends these workers mixed messages, making it dangerous and expensive to cross the border, yet issuing taxpayer numbers and collecting taxes once they get here. The vast majority of these immigrants come to work honest jobs and create a better future for their families. Instead, they are often exploited by bad apple employers and left without a pathway to citizenship.
Rather than continuing to enforce policies that aren't working, what if we gave these folks a chance to get on the right side of the law, while securing our borders and reforming our laws so that this doesn't happen again?
Imagine the economic impact of millions of immigrants paying their back taxes and a fine to register with the government. Imagine the new revenue generated when these immigrants can finally buy insurance, earn a driver's license and purchase a car. Imagine the benefit for American workers when bad apple employers can no longer exploit these immigrants to bring down wages.
Every day we delay reforming our immigration system, we suffer economically. According to UCLA researcher Raul Hinojosa, legalizing immigrant workers would contribute $1.5 trillion to the nation's productivity over 10 years, as more tax revenues are collected, wages increase for U.S.-born and foreign-born workers alike, and immigrants spend more in our economy.
There are some who would argue that reforming our immigration system is unnecessary. To them, all we need to do is enforce the law, deport millions of immigrant workers and hope our unemployment numbers shrink as a result.
Unfortunately, there are two main problems with this plan.
First, unemployment is a critical problem facing our nation. Millions of Americans are out of work and struggling to keep their families afloat. That's why we shouldn't take it lightly by suggesting that mass deportations would solve our problems. It is unrealistic to think that unemployed GM workers from Smyrna, TN, can pack up their families, take a bus to Georgia, and harvest crops as migrant farm workers. What we need are real middle-class jobs. We need better opportunities for everyone. We need stabilization in the economy, and immigration reform is a huge part of that.
Second, we have tried the enforcement-only approach. That has basically been the strategy of every president since Reagan. In that time period, we've increased the dollars spent on immigration enforcement, yet the number of undocumented workers has increased every year. It is unrealistic to suggest that we could or should devote our limited resources to trying to identify and deport more than 10 million people, while leaving some of their children and spouses alone to fend for themselves. If the anti-reform lobby has its way, we will spend hundreds of billions of dollars trying to do just that. Worse yet, if successful, this policy would shock local economies, resulting in $1.8 trillion in annual lost spending, $651.5 billion in annual lost output, and millions of lost jobs, according to a study last year by The Perryman Group.
In a time of economic turmoil, we can't afford to waste our money on unrealistic policies that would hurt American workers and families. Blind enforcement of our broken immigration policies is the business-as-usual approach. What we need are workable solutions that uphold our values and move us forward together.
As Congress prepares to address the most important problem facing our nation -- the economy -- we should hope lawmakers realize that reforming our broken immigration system is an essential part of the solution.
Feghali is communications director for the Tennessee Immigrant and Refugee Rights Coalition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2010 by the Tennessee Editorial Forum. 5/10
Thursday, January 7, 2010
By Linda Meric
Last year, in our tough economy, many of us asked for necessities and basics as holiday gifts. Among the gifts that would mean the most to families is the passage of the Healthy Families Act, introduced by the late Senator Edward Kennedy, along with Representative Rosa DeLauro, in the 111th Congress this past May.
It wasn’t the first time that federal legislation guaranteeing workers a minimum number of paid sick days had been introduced. Previous efforts were unsuccessful. But now, the Healthy Families Act has 145 Congressional co-sponsors and has been endorsed by the Obama administration.
So health professionals, civil rights groups, labor unions, educators, faith organizations, elected officials and women’s groups like 9to5 are optimistic about its passage.
There’s something wrong when workers have to choose between keeping a job and taking care of themselves or their families when someone gets sick. There’s something wrong when going to a routine medical appointment or other preventative care could result in a pink slip. There’s something wrong when a domestic violence survivor seeking help or services is punished with the loss of her job.
There is so much at stake for women and their families here.
Women are still the ones who most often serve as caregivers when children, elderly parents, spouses or other relatives are ill. It is often mom who takes the children to get immunized or to other routine medical appointments. And, domestic violence disproportionately affects women. But taking the time off to care for our families or ourselves puts us at risk for losing our jobs. A survey widely reported this year showed that 1 in 6 respondents had been fired, suspended, reprimanded or threatened on the job for taking time off when they or a loved one was sick, or they knew someone who had faced those dire consequences.
9to5 members without paid sick days, like Latisha Carter in Milwaukee, report going to work with H1N1 flu rather than staying home to get better – and Latisha was pregnant at the time – for fear of losing their jobs. Those like Tahirah Foster in Denver report being forced out of good jobs because of a lack of paid sick days. In Tahirah’s case, her employer refused to allow her to balance her obligations at work with her obligations as a parent of a toddler with asthma. Those like Angel Warner in northern California report struggling mightily to stay well – using hand sanitizer constantly and wearing a protective mask at work. Angel doesn’t have paid sick days on the job and fears she’ll get sick with H1N1 as some of her co-workers have, losing pay or even her job as others have. Angel just can’t afford that in these tough economic times.
No one should have to work under those conditions – especially since paid sick days are not only good for employees but good for employers, too.
When federal paid sick days legislation passes, the huge cost to employers of workers coming in sick, lowering productivity and spreading contagions to other workers and customers, will be mitigated. When federal paid sick days legislation passes, employers will no longer be saddled with the turnover, human resource and retraining costs associated with firing some employees and hiring new ones.
When the Healthy Families Act passes, it will be a win for workers, a win for their employers, a win for our schools and communities, and a win for all of us.
We must speak out. Contact our members of Congress. Remind them that we’re moving into an election year and they must voice their support for this basic labor standard now. Tell them you want them to finish Senator Kennedy’s work by making the gift of paid sick days a reality for the 50 million workers who lack paid sick days and the 100 million workers who don’t have a sick day they can use to care for an ill child or other family member.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Meric is executive director of 9to5, National Association of Working Women.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2010 by the American Forum. 1/10
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
