Remember that little shit who said people who work at Taco Bell are high school dropouts who want handouts from the government? Yeahhhh.
Remember that little shit who said people who work at Taco Bell are high school dropouts who want handouts from the government? Yeahhhh.
The Working Families Flexibility Act will make it easier for employers to avoid paying for overtime and give workers far less flexibility in their lives.A few people have asked why I’m against this bill. It’s a fair question: what’s so bad about getting to choose whether you get overtime pay or comp time (paid time off) at your job? If you’re a working parent, or you wish you had more time to travel, or whatever, getting comp time instead of overtime pay doesn’t sound too bad.
Here’s the issue: it lets your EMPLOYER choose which one you get. The Fair Labor Standards Act says your boss has to pay you time-and-a-half when you work overtime. If you’re struggling to pay the bills, you probably don’t want more vacation days. You want the money you earned by working ridiculous hours. You want to see your paycheck, not your PTO balance, reflect the time you put in.
Comp time is great. But you can’t trade it in for money - or for your electricity bill. It’d be great if workers could CHOOSE overtime pay or extra paid time off, but letting the employer choose on your behalf is a pretty clear ploy to let employers stop paying you more to work more.
(via corporationsarepeople)
If there was an Olympic event for out-of-touch, ridiculous, paternalistic economics writing, this would have won Philadelphia’s Gene Marks a gold medal.
Quick review: Earlier this month, the Philadelphia City Council voted 11-6 to pass an ordinance allowing Philadelphia workers to earn an hour of sick leave for every 40 hours worked. Mayor Michael Nutter can either sign or veto the bill – he vetoed a similar bill in 2011.
Currently, over 180,000 Philadelphians have no sick leave opportunities, which means every single day there are sick cooks, servers, nurses, retail workers, and others showing up to work and infecting customers and patients simply because they can’t afford to miss a day of work. No wonder the flu season hit so hard.
Gene Marks, a self-identified “small business owner” and “consultant,” doesn’t think we need a sick leave policy. Why? Because he has one friend who gives sick days to his employees:
James is a client of mine who runs a 30-person roofing company in Northeast Philadelphia. Last week, one of the people in his office wasn’t feeling well and called in sick. It was no big deal. She got paid for the day. The next day she was back at work….This is typical of most of the clients I work with.
It seems so far that Marks agrees with a sick leave ordinance. But then he says:
Mayor Nutter vetoed a similar bill in 2011. And I’m hoping he does the same to this one…a sick leave bill is embarrassing and an insult to both employers like James and his employees.
An insult? It seems that Marks takes offense at the government taking action to address the needs of over 180,000 Philadelphia workers:
I can’t be trusted to come up with my own policy for my employees? I care so little for my people that I would try to take advantage of them when they’re feeling ill? I need the city to tell me when I should pay them for staying at home? As if I don’t see that a sick employee is unproductive and could potentially affect others in my office?
Marks thinks he’s writing all these questions sarcastically – but the answer to all of those rhetorical questions is a resounding “Yes.”
Mr. Marks: Walk into any Walmart, or Darden-owned restaurant, or fast food joint in Philly. Talk to an employee about their experiences, and if they aren’t too afraid of retaliation to be honest, you’ll find that, yes, many employers do care very little for their workers. You’ll find that many employers do try to take advantage of employees when they are ill – or at any other point in time, for that matter. And yes, absolutely, you’ll discover that these employers have not come up with a sick leave policy, and they do need the city to take action.
Marks continues:
Good employers treat their employees with respect and give them the time they need to get better… a good employee is the most valuable asset in the world to most business people. And a good employee works hard and doesn’t worry about it if he or she needs to take time off for a sick or vacation day because his or her relationship with their employer is built on the understanding that sometimes people need time off and that’s OK.
The sick leave bill is intended for that .01 percent. And you know who you are.
You are the person who treats his employees, particularly those in the lowest-paying positions, like cattle. You think that every employee is out to take advantage of you. You keep a wary eye on everyone’s hours and are ready to cut someone’s benefits when they don’t meet your petty standards of fairness.
If all employers were the benevolent angels of Marks’ imagination, instead this bad apple “0.1 percent,” he’s right – we wouldn’t need a sick leave law. We also wouldn’t need a minimum wage, or workplace safety standards, or child labor laws; and we definitely wouldn’t need union contracts, because in Marks’ utopian workplace, all worker-management interactions would be built on magical “understanding.”
Talk to a laid-off Hostess worker about this so-called “understanding.” Or a foreign guest worker who arrived in Central Pennsylvania on a J-1 visa ended up working 25-hour shifts at McDonald’s, living in humiliating housing and paying exorbitant rent. Next time you get in a cab, consider that your driver is misclassified as an independent contractor so her management doesn’t have to pay for her health care. Where’s the understanding there?
Is Mayor Michael Nutter is acting under the same head-in-the-sand assumptions that Marks presents in this column – that all worker protections are “insults” to employers? Does he think it’s better to turn a blind eye to how Philadelphia workers are actually being treated than take any action that would offend anybody with fat pockets? Would have vetoed a child labor law for the same reason?
We hope that instead of taking this column as gospel, Mayor Nutter will consider the millions of Americans who have had to work through a stomach bug, had to or carry platters of food on a sprained wrist, or had to prove to their bosses they had a broken leg so they could take a day off, or had to suffer the indignity of losing their job because they couldn’t stand to leave their child alone with a high fever.
People like Marks’ client James, who treat workers with respect, are certainly out there. But protecting workers doesn’t insult employers like James, it creates a tide that will lift other businesses to his level. And that’s why Mayor Nutter needs to sign this bill.
(via recall-all-republicans)
Since the Department of Labor’s monthly employment report was released last Friday, very little discussion in the media has been devoted to the fact that of the 13,000 local government workers that were laid off last month, more than 11,000 were teachers or school-related staff. Reuters reported that last month’s firings have driven the number of workers employed by local government to their lowest levels since 2005.
Typically, a school will announce layoffs slated to go into effect at the end of a school year. That the firings have occurred in the middle of the year points to the fact that many districts, pressed for funds, simply have no choice but to let go of staff without warning.
“There is some expectation that state and local budgets will start to improve as the economy is picking up,” said Jan Eberly, the US Treasury’s assistant secretary on economic policy, about the findings. This echoes the refrain of the Obama administration, citing the barely 153,000 average jobs added per month in 2012 as a sign of an improving economy. It has been acknowledged, however, that at this pace, the level of employment will not reach pre-recession levels for nearly a decade.
In reality, the Obama administration has no intention to restore public sector jobs that have been eliminated since the onset of the recession in 2008. Public education has been a prime target of privatization and downsizing under the administration’s Race to the Top program. Across the country, district managers have used questions of accountability and so-called efficiency in school districts to shred public education, with teachers bearing the brunt of this onslaught.
Alongside this is the outright elimination of public education in many school districts, with its replacement by privately contracted charters. A recent announcement by the Philadelphia public school district noted it was preparing to shutter as many as three dozen schools in the city. Such a move would effectively eliminate public education for many neighborhoods in the district. Washington, D.C., has an arrangement stating that any new public facilities that are opened in the district will be given to charter operators on a first come, first served basis.
The Economix blog of the New York Times recently noted that while the private sector has added roughly 725,000 workers since 2008, the public sector has lost a near-equivalent number at 697,000. This means that a shifting has occurred within the workforce, sending workers out of the public sector and into less-secure, lower-paying private sector jobs, if they happen to be rehired at all. Over that period, 300,000 of those lost pubic sector jobs belonged to teachers.
A National Employment Law Project study released last fall found that 60 percent of the jobs that the “economic recovery” has produced were low paying, having wages between $7.69 and $13.83 an hour. In contrast, medium-paying jobs, those that made up the majority lost during the recession, made up barely 22 percent of those that have returned since.
Local governments, starved of federal and state funding, have been compelled to carry out some of the most drastic budget cuts and layoffs. US Commerce Department data shows that local and state government spending contracted 11 of 12 months throughout last year, with only a slight uptick of 0.3 percent in December.
The elimination of public education has been a central aim of Obama’s Race to the Top, an expansion on the Bush administration’s No Child Left Behind. The program ties school funding to bogus “accountability” measures, singling out teachers with standardized test performance in order to label schools that fail to meet these requirements as underperforming, and thus designated to be shut down, making way for for-profit charter schools.
The teachers’ unions have facilitated these attacks. In light of the latest round of layoffs, National Education Association (NEA) teachers’ union president Dennis Van Roekel told Reuters that he remained “hopeful that President Obama and the 113th Congress, as well as governors, will prioritize our students and public education and work hard to stave off further cuts.” The NEA was the first major union to endorse the president’s re-election bid, when at the time Obama had already presided over 200,000 layoffs in the education sector.
The author also recommends:
US jobs report points to continuing stagnation
[05 January 2013]This is a very disturbing trend. If we allow our schools to become privatized, our kids will be far worse for it. We will become even more dumbed down, more compliant, more unquestioning of authority. Our country will become more stagnant and the population will become more impoverished. We must stand up to these corporations that want to enslave us completely and are succeeding with the help of the government.
(via end-the-republican-mafia)
As more worker cooperatives spring up around the United States, American workers might want to look towards Father Arizmendi’s example. Read the article here.
(via oldparasitesingle)
‘The State Has No Qualms About Leaving Us Penniless’ (via thepoliticalfreakshow)In an email to HuffPost, Dawn Bess in Missouri writes:
“No one is striking here. Missouri is an ‘at will’ employment state and the employers pay the unemployment insurance. It no longer is deducted from our paychecks like it was 5 or 10 years ago, so if you are fired in Missouri for ANY reason that your employer can conjure up, the state denies us unemployment compensation. We can file a protest but the state always takes the employer’s side and we lose. It’s a horrible situation here in Missouri and everyone is terrified of losing their jobs for any reason because the state has no qualms about leaving us penniless and homeless. There is no security net in MO for workers who lose their job. So short of the long, no, there are no strikes here.”
Alexander Eichler
(via sarahlee310)
The most interesting thing to me is the way he calls attention to the fact that there was a reporter in the room; does he regret his comments OR regret that someone with journalistic capability shared them? Makes you wonder what he says when there’s no reporter in the room. Ah, well. Maybe he’s too busy rotating his limos on his underground turntable to worry about what the public thinks.
(via truth-has-a-liberal-bias)
Actually, affording it might be true but only on some items. Many items you can get else where at near the same price.
Walmart has nothing that I can’t get elsewhere for the same or LOWER price, and ALWAYS with better quality. You have to look at prices online and in stores and you’ll find that Walmart is completely replaceable. Plus, it’s nice to go to a locally owned store and get in and out in less that an hour because you don’t have to park, walk three acres to the store and walk 5 acres inside just to get one damn thing.
(via end-the-republican-mafia)
It is time for us to lift up our communities and demand better working conditions for WalMart employees. Support the Black Friday strikes, coming to your area. From Ohio to California and Alabama to Montana, our collective voices will be heard.
(via silas216)
“When a highly respected financial consultant, hired by Hostess, determined earlier this year that the company’s business plan to exit bankruptcy was guaranteed to fail because it left the company with unsustainable debt levels, our members knew that the massive wage and benefit concessions the company was demanding would go straight to Wall Street investors and not back into the company.
“Our members were aware that while the company was descending into bankruptcy and demanding deep concessions, the top 10 executives of the company were rewarding themselves with lavish compensation increases, with the then CEO receiving a 300 percent increase.
“Our members decided they were not going to take any more abuse from a company they have given so much to for so many years. They decided that they were not going to agree to another round of outrageous wage and benefit cuts and give up their pension only to see yet another management team fail and Wall Street vulture capitalists and ‘restructuring specialists’ walk away with untold millions of dollars.
(via corporationsarepeople)
I wish President Obama and the Democrats would explain to the nation that the federal budget deficit isn’t the nation’s major economic problem and deficit reduction shouldn’t be our major goal. Our problem is lack of good jobs and sufficient growth, and our goal must be to revive both.
Deficit…
Leo W. Gerard of the United Steelworkers in Leo W. Gerard: Romney Willing to Win Without Honor (via tartantambourine)Mitt Romney kept quiet last week when the subject was rape and God’s will. He remained silent the week before when the news was all about Illinois factory workers pleading with him to stop his alma mater Bain Capital from offshoring their jobs.
At no time this year did Mitt denounce Republican employers who threatened their workers if President Obama is re-elected or condemn repeated Republican legislative attempts to suppress Democratic votes.
Throughout the campaign, Mitt Romney confronted numerous George Washington moments — opportunities to establish an aura of honor. It takes moxie to tell fellow Republicans that voter suppression is un-American. Only a guy with strongly held principles would stand up to the firm he founded and insist they stop the morally bankrupt practice of offshoring jobs from profit-making American factories. At every turn, Romney chose the ignoble path. He kept his mouth shut rather than speak up for what’s right.
(via silas216)