Campaign News

Municipal leaders and labor activists nationwide who fought for a $15 minimum wage now want to serve up a “fair workweek” and steady hours for fast-food workers.

New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio set a plan in motion last week to give 65,000 hourly workers in the city's fast-food industry more stable work schedules by requiring a two-week notice for employee shift assignments. City Council members have vowed to introduce the legislation in the coming weeks.

In Seattle, the City Council on Monday gave its unanimous approval to a similar ordinance, which will affect well-known retail and food service establishments, as well as certain full-service restaurants. Mayor Ed Murray is scheduled to sign the ordinance into law by next week.

While supporters of such proposals – called “secure scheduling” in Seattle – say working families need protection against erratic work schedules, some retail organizations argue these concerns have been blown out of proportion. The Washington Retail Association said the Seattle ordinance would make work schedules less flexible.

“The effects of the law threaten to reduce available work hours for retail employees, reduce hiring opportunities and impose burdensome bookkeeping and fines on retailers deemed to be in violation of the law,” the retail association said in a news release.

Other business groups, however, don’t see the scheduling legislation as a major burden for employers. Mark Jaffe, chief executive officer of the Greater New York Chamber of Commerce, told AMI Newswire that the proposal is fair and that it wouldn’t cause fast-food eateries to go out of business.

“How hard is it to schedule people two weeks in advance?” he said.

A number of citywide initiatives, from affordable housing to reasonable transportation options, have helped New York City maintain a productive workforce, Jaffe said, and the Fair Workweek legislation would do the same. “We don’t believe it’s an unreasonable burden on the employer,” he said. “This is a no-brainer.”

The proposal was directed toward fast-food workers because that’s where most of the scheduling concerns originate, Jaffe said. Many of those employees need to map out their schedules in advance because they often work more than one job, he said.

The New York State Restaurant Association expressed concern about the proposed legislation but hopes it can work with city officials to reduce the burden to its members.

“It’s troubling that fast-food restaurants, which are really a local franchisee-run small business, have been singled out yet again when these restaurants are already being subjected to greater regulations than any other industry,” said the restaurant association’s chief executive officer, Melissa Fleischut, in a prepared statement. “Labor costs for quick-serve restaurants are skyrocketing, and under state law the hospitality industry is already subject to call-in pay and extra pay for a longer-than-10 spread of hours in a single day.”

In addition to providing employees a two-week notice on work schedules, the New York City proposal would force employers who make last-minute schedule changes to pay extra compensation to affected workers. The plan would also place restrictions on the practice of what’s called “clopening” – when an employee is required to work a closing shift followed by an opening shift.

“We will regulate that practice and require that there be at least 10 hours between a closing shift and an opening shift that a worker has to perform,” de Blasio said during a public announcement last week.

The mayor dismissed anticipated concerns about layoffs resulting from the proposal, saying that he heard the same rumblings when the city was moving to expand paid sick leave for workers. “Guess what happened?” de Blasio said. “This city has added 290,000 private-sector jobs.”

Jan Teague, chief executive officer of the Washington Retail Association, said in a prepared statement that the Seattle proposal could limit the ability of businesses to take part in the city’s Summer Youth Employment Program and make it more difficult for college students to find temporary jobs over the summer and during holidays.

Teague has also expressed concern that employers would end up paying higher “predictive pay” to workers in order to fill shifts resulting from a worker calling in sick or quitting abruptly.

“Any way you slice it, this ordinance will make the workplace less flexible to meet the needs of employees and employers,” Teague said during the debate over the Seattle measure. “Sadly, this ordinance will reduce the number of hours available for many retail and restaurant employees – and they cannot afford to see their incomes go down.”

In addition, she took issue with the idea of discouraging time allotments between shifts of less than 10 hours. Some workers want to have shifts close together during part of the week to free up time later for second jobs or helping to care for a family member, Teague said.

The National Retailers Association took a similar position. “Government intervention in the scheduling of employees through a one-size-fits-all approach intrudes on the employer-employee relationship and creates unnecessary mandates on how a business should operate,” the association said in a statement on its website.

Despite such concerns, the pro-worker advocacy group Center for Popular Democracy predicted that the victory for secure scheduling in Seattle would encourage other cities to follow suit.

“Those working in Seattle’s retail, restaurant and coffee chains will no longer have to turn their lives upside down just to earn enough hours to survive – and they will finally gain a greater voice in how much and when they work,” the center’s director of the Fair Workweek Initiative, Carrie Gleason, said in a prepared statement. “We can expect the vote in Seattle will inspire other cities to act.”

By Michael Carroll

Source

Chicago Tribune - June 5, 2014, by Connie Razza - The Great Recession is over! So say the corporations and the wealthiest among us. For the rest of us, the so-called recovery doesn’t feel like much of one at all.

Corporate profits and stock prices have rebounded, but wages have not. Middle-class and low-income workers are still struggling to keep up with the cost of living. Corporate recovery has been fueled by the proliferation of jobs paying low wages.

How can we fix this? Raise the minimum wage.

That’s why Aldermen Proco “Joe” Moreno, Roderick Sawyer and John Arena have introduced an ordinance to raise the minimum wage for Chicago workers to $15 an hour, following a March advisory referendum in a small number of precincts that showed about 86 percent of Chicago voters support such a proposal.

If adopted, the $15 wage would initially apply only to workers at businesses with $50 million or more in annual receipts, and their subsidiaries and franchisees, while workers at smaller businesses would see the wage phased in over a multi-year period.

A new study by the Center for Popular Democracy, where I serve as director of strategic research, shows that the ordinance will increase income for 40 percent of all Chicago workers.

But what about job loss? Big business will say the higher wage will hurt the economy and force layoffs.

Not so.

Our study shows that an additional $1.1 billion would be passed to workers as take-home pay. Almost all of that money will travel through the local economy, generating an additional $616 million in new economic activity and creating 5,350 new jobs.

And there is precedent for these findings elsewhere: The payroll company Paychex and research firm IHS did a survey that found that Washington, the state with the highest minimum wage, also has the highest annual job growth.

Raising the wage isn’t just the right thing to do; it’s the smart thing to do. And although it may seem counterintuitive, the higher wage will help businesses grow. How?

Because too much inequality threatens economic growth and stability by limiting consumers’ ability to buy goods and participate in the marketplace. In other words, who will buy a new car if no one can afford to pay rent?

Unfortunately, the so-called recovery we’re in has been fueled largely by low-wage jobs replacing previously existing higher-wage jobs, further fueling inequality. In 2012, the Brookings Institute named Chicago the eighth most unequal city in the country.

Latinos and African-Americans make up disproportionate portions of the low-wage workforce, exacerbating racial and geographic disparities in the economy. Our study shows that a higher minimum wage will address these disparities by helping low-wage workers to participate more fully in the city’s economy as consumers, and help facilitate economic recovery in the neighborhoods where these workers live.

The current Illinois minimum wage is $8.25 an hour, a dollar higher than the federal minimum wage. Neither of these wage levels has kept pace with inflation or the cost of living, and both fall well below in purchasing power compared to the minimum wage in previous decades.

While the state and the federal government continue to ponder action, Chicago can’t afford to wait. The city is well positioned to take action, and join other cities, such as Seattle, San Francisco, and Washington, that are showing national leadership for urban America while Congress continues to stall.

More families than ever are relying on low-wage jobs to make ends meet. Let’s give them a fighting chance. Let’s make the economy work for all of us, not just the wealthy and the corporations.

Connie M. Razza is the director of strategic research at the Center for Popular Democracy, which gets funding from private philanthropy, community groups and labor organizations.

Source

Last week, the DNC took over Philadelphia, television sets, and social media platforms around the country. Viewers tweeted quotes and zingers from prominent elected officials, and celebrity actors alike. For the most part, it was a vibrant convention with many celebratory acknowledgements for Hillary Clinton becoming the first woman major-party presidential nominee. But here's why The Movement For Black Lives demands, released on Monday, actually came at the perfect time. There's still a long road ahead for full equality, and every political party should continue to be challenged – even during the "glass ceiling"-shattering historic moments.

Many supporters of Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and Green Party candidate Jill Stein (or those simply anti-establishment) exercised their right to protest at the DNC, but even still, the underlying message last week was clear: Unite to stop Donald Trump. The Republican presidential nominee poses a real threat to already-marginalized communities in America should he be elected President – but he's not the only threat. For black lives particularly, police violence, and economic freedom are some of the lingering systemic issues that have long oppressed black communities. And it's a deep-rooted problem that continues to need attention – especially as candidates in the general election are eagerly vying for the trust of American citizens from now until November.

The Movement For Black Lives is a collective of more than 50 organizations that represent Black people across the United States, including Black Lives Matter. The collective released a comprehensive platform of demands that aim to combat the systemic marginalization of black communities:

“Black humanity and dignity requires Black political will and power. Despite constant exploitation and perpetual oppression, Black people have bravely and brilliantly been the driving force pushing the U.S. towards the ideals it articulates but has never achieved. In recent years we have taken to the streets, launched massive campaigns, and impacted elections, but our elected leaders have failed to address the legitimate demands of our Movement. We can no longer wait.”

The process to create the demands took one year – beginning last year when 2,000 people gathered in Cleveland to discuss ideas for the movement, the site read. In a breakdown of one the platform demands for political power, the collective called for an end to super PACs, and "unchecked corporate donations" that influence political elections, along with ensuring voting rights, and an increase in funding for HBCUs.

What's especially interesting about the platform, is that some of the demands, like, reparations, are often viewed unfavorably and do not make the conversation in major-party platform settings like the DNC. But some polls suggest that significant percentages of black Americans support reparations – therefore making it an important conversation, at the very least, for all political candidates.

In an interview with The New York Times, Marbre Stahly-Butts, a leader in the Movement for Black Lives Policy Table, explained why the demands "go beyond individual candidates."

"On both sides of aisle, the candidates have really failed to address the demands and the concerns of our people," she said.

And as police violence continues to disproportionately affect Black lives, among other systemic issues, it continues to be important to push for justice, during and after the general election.

By KIMBERLEY RICHARDS

Source

Activist Ady Barkan, who is fighting ALS, is starting a new fight - to get people to vote. He’s asking people to “Be A Hero” and vote for candidates who protect healthcare. Ady tells Ali Velshi that with all the challenges he faces that if he can get out and vote, everyone can.

Watch the video here.