Paid Sick Leave Now Mandatory for Most Businesses in Jersey City
The Jersey Journal - January 24, 2014, by Terrence McDonald - When Jersey City in September 2012 became the first New Jersey municipality to mandate that most private businesses provide paid sick...
The Jersey Journal - January 24, 2014, by Terrence McDonald - When Jersey City in September 2012 became the first New Jersey municipality to mandate that most private businesses provide paid sick leave for its workers, Mayor Steve Fulop predicted a legal fight.
Four months later, and no lawsuit filed, the measure is now law.
Fulop called today “very exciting.”
“I think it’s going to help tens of thousands of working families in Jersey City,” he said at an event at Saint Peter's University.
Jersey City is the sixth city in the nation to force private businesses to provide paid sick time. The law affects employers with 10 or more workers, and was opposed by state- and countywide business groups.
Paid sick time laws have become a favored cause of liberals and labor unions. Both groups hailed Jersey City when Fulop first proposed the measure last year, and they extolled the city again today.
“This law respects the dignity of workers, protects the public health and will mean savings for businesses big and small. When workers can earn sick days, everybody wins,” said Phyllis Salowe-Kaye, executive director of the New Jersey Citizen Action and spokesperson for the New Jersey Time to Care Coalition.
Other cities that have implemented similar mandates include Washington, D.C., San Francisco and Seattle. New York City, which passed a similar law last year, is set to strengthen it under its new, more liberal mayor.
Business groups have opposed the mandate wherever it's been implemented, but in San Francisco, which in 2006 became the first in the nation to require paid sick leave, thanks to a voter referendum, some who opposed the requirement subsequently said it hadn't affected businesses much, if at all.
An audit in Washington, D.C., found the law had not led to fewer businesses opening, though local businesses owners said they had cut back on hours.
Michael Egenton, a senior vice president at the New Jersey Chamber of Commerce, fears that paid sick leave, together with new health-care regulations and the state’s new minimum-wage increase, could convince businesses to relocate.
Egenton also expressed concern about local governments implementing these types of regulations.
“Whatever happened to the freedom of enterprise?” he said today, adding that he believes business owners will reward employees with benefits like paid sick time even if the government doesn’t force them to.
“If you’re a good worker, your boss will give you sick time,” Egenton said.
Source
High Road Workweek Partnership Invites Employers to Adopt a Fair Workweek
High Road Workweek Partnership Invites Employers to Adopt a Fair Workweek
As more retailers declare nationwide reforms to their scheduling practices – from ending on-call scheduling to providing greater advance notice – there is increased industry interest in...
As more retailers declare nationwide reforms to their scheduling practices – from ending on-call scheduling to providing greater advance notice – there is increased industry interest in understanding the impact of difficult work schedules on employees. Leading-edge employers are also starting to quantify the down-stream effects of ever-changing work schedules and excessive reliance on part-time staff, including higher turnover, chronic absenteeism, lower productivity, and unsatisfactory customer service. Many industry leaders now recognize that predictable, stable and flexible work schedules are not just good for employees, but are essential to meeting operational, sales and growth objectives.
At the Next:Economy summit, the Center for Popular Democracy’s Fair Workweek Initiative will unveil the High Road Workweek Partnership, a groundbreaking approach to the future of work, which meaningfully incorporates employee voice and scheduling equity values into scheduling technologies and management practices.
Achieving a High Road Workweek involves three key components:
A Partnership of Core Stakeholders: With a 360 degree view from engaging diverse stakeholders, employers can assess the impact of their current scheduling practices and envision a sustainable workweek;
The High Road Workweek Pledge: Translates core business principles into specific scheduling practices that encompass: Predictability and Stability, Adequate Hours, and Employee Input and Flexibility, and Equal Opportunity and Mobility; and
Measurable Implementation and Assessment: Innovative scheduling technologies, guidance for managers, and clear metrics will facilitate implementation of the pledge, while ongoing feedback from employees and a research-based assessment will ensure that new policies deliver the intended outcomes.
The High Road Workweek Partnership delivers lasting scheduling solutions and provides a framework for employers who want to be strongly positioned in the global economy, leveraging the latest technologies and integrating corporate social responsibility into workforce management to create meaningful employment.
“Employers of our country’s hourly workforce are at a crossroads. The worrisome scheduling trends that have come to public attention are persistent and challenging issues that affect both workers and the longevity of a company’s success. Through a meaningful collaboration with employees, a commitment to core scheduling principles, and an innovative use of workforce management metrics, any business is capable of implementing a high road workweek,” says Carrie Gleason, Director of the Fair Workweek Initiative at the Center for Popular Democracy.
Professor Susan Lambert of the University of Chicago, a key architect in developing the framework for scheduling stability, says, “While this year marks tremendous progress in employers recognizing the costs that lean staffing and unpredictable scheduling has for both workers and business, employers will need to implement new metrics for their managers and find ways to incorporate more employee input to ensure these commitments to reform become consistent scheduling improvements. The High Road Workweek Partnership presents an innovative approach to helping employers implement measurable standards for fair work schedules across their operations.”
# # #
www.populardemocracy.org The Center for Popular Democracy promotes equity, opportunity, and a dynamic democracy in partnership with innovative base-building organizations, organizing networks and alliances, and progressive unions across the country. CPD builds the strength and capacity of democratic organizations to envision and advance a pro-worker, pro-immigrant, racial justice agenda.
www.fairworkweek.org The Fair Workweek Initiative, anchored by the Center for Popular Democracy and CPD Action, is driving the growing momentum to restore a workweek that enables working families to thrive. We are committed to elevating the voices of working people to ensure they can shape the solutions that work for their families – whether through improved industry practices or new workplace protections.
The Federal Reserve Leaves Key Interest Rate Unchanged Amid Slower Job Growth
The Federal Reserve Leaves Key Interest Rate Unchanged Amid Slower Job Growth
The Federal Reserve announced on Wednesday that it will keep its benchmark interest rate at current levels in response to lackluster job creation in recent months and other discouraging economic...
The Federal Reserve announced on Wednesday that it will keep its benchmark interest rate at current levels in response to lackluster job creation in recent months and other discouraging economic data.
The decision will shield American consumers from higher borrowing costs, but it also reflects the fragility and unpredictability of the current economic recovery, some seven years after the Great Recession officially ended.
The central bank’s Federal Open Market Committee is keeping the influential target federal funds rate — the Fed-set interest rate banks charge one another for overnight lending — at a range of 0.25 to 0.5 percent. Since the rate is a benchmark for lending throughout the economy, leaving it unchanged will likely prevent higher interest rates on mortgages, car loans and other household debts.
The Fed has a dual mandate to craft monetary policy that both maximizes employment and keeps inflation in check. The FOMC lowers the federal funds rate to accelerate job growth by reducing borrowing costs. It raises the rate to limit price inflation by slowing the pace of job growth.
The FOMC’s decision not to do the latter in June was widely expected. Fed officials signaled earlier this month that disappointing job creation had undermined the case for a rate hike. The economy created just 38,000 jobs in May, and new data show that the preceding two months produced fewer jobs than previously believed, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
The central bank is also responding to tepid inflation. The price of consumer goods, excluding food and energy, rose 1.6 percent in the 12 months ending in April, according to the price index favored by the Fed — well below the Fed’s 2-percent target. And a University of Michigan survey revealed on Friday that U.S. households’ expectations of long-term inflation are lower than they have been at any point since the survey began collecting data in 1979.
In a press conference following the announcement, Federal Reserve Chairwoman Janet Yellen acknowledged the role that those developments played in the central bank’s decision, noting that “recent economic indicators have been mixed.”
Yellen also said that the prospect of a “Brexit,” or British exit from the European Union, was “one of the factors” that led the central bank to hold off on an interest rate hike. The United Kingdom will vote on the country’s membership in the EU on June 23.
If the U.K. chooses to leave the EU, which functions as a single market, it could ultimately have adverse effects on the U.S. economic outlook, Yellen suggested. A higher percentage of British voters supported Brexit than opposed it in a poll released on Monday.
The Fed last raised the federal funds rate by one-quarter of a percentage point in December, the first increase since the financial crisis. The rate had been at or near zero — 0 to 0.25 percent — since December 2008.
With the December interest rate increase, the Fed seemed to express confidence that the economic recovery had entered a new phase, indicating it was time to pivot to the work of preventing inflation. Yellen predicted that the move would be the first in a series of small interest rate hikes that would gradually raise rates to levels that are more historically normal.
Since then, however, disappointing economic data have repeatedly delayed the pace of those increases. Slower global demand reduced the availability of credit, and wage growth remained sluggish, prompting the Fed not to raise the federal funds rate in March.
Fed officials suggested in May that economic conditions would finally permit them to raise the rate again in June. But the May job creation data, released on June 3, rapidly dashed those plans.
The central bank’s next opportunity to announce a rate hike will be July 27, after a meeting of the FOMC.
Wednesday’s announcement will come as welcome news to many progressive economists and activists who have long argued that the job market has much more room to grow before inflation becomes a serious problem.
While the official unemployment rate is 4.7 percent, much of its recent decline is due to people dropping out of the workforce altogether. The labor force participation rate, which measures the percentage of people actively seeking work in addition to those who are working, is significantly lower than it was in 2000.
In fact, when you exclude workers 55 or older who may have retired voluntarily, labor force participation is lower now than it was at its worst point during the past two business cycles, according to an analysis by the Economic Policy Institute.
A job market where people continue to give up on finding work is part of the reason wage growth has failed to meet expectations, since employers still have little reason to compete for workers, progressive economists argue. Average hourly pay rose 2.5 percent in the 12-month period ending in May, not enough for a significant boost in most Americans’ paychecks.
The Fed Up campaign, a coalition of progressive groups that advocates for Fed policy that is favorable to workers and communities of color, cites figures like those when pleading with the Fed to hold off on raising rates. Fed Up has called on the Fed not to raise the benchmark interest rate until “the economic recovery reaches all communities,” said Jordan Haedtler, Fed Up campaign manager.
Progressives were overjoyed when presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton expressed her sympathy with these concerns last month. The campaign said in a statement that as president, Clinton would appoint Fed officials who take seriously the central bank’s mandate to maximize employment, in addition to its duty to tamp down inflation.
Clinton stands to benefit politically from Wednesday’s announcement, since voters typically judge the candidate of the incumbent party for the economy’s performance. A rate increase would have squeezed economic demand, risking even slower job growth in the months ahead of the general election.
Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, has expressed a wide variety of views about the Fed. He most recently suggested that he supports low interest rates, but that he plans to replace Yellen as Fed chair.
Yellen said Wednesday that the central bank will act based on economic data in the coming months, even if its actions are perceived as affecting the general election in November. “We are very focused on assessing the economic outlook and making changes that are appropriate without taking politics into account,” she said.
This piece has been updated with Yellen’s comments.
By Daniel Marans
Source
Taking on the Private Prison Industry’s Corporate Backers
Activists are trying to combat both the accelerated tracking and detaining of immigrants and the use of for-profit prisons to hold them by targeting the big banks that prop up for-profit prison...
Activists are trying to combat both the accelerated tracking and detaining of immigrants and the use of for-profit prisons to hold them by targeting the big banks that prop up for-profit prison companies.
Read the full article here.
La incertidumbre de los puertorriqueños de Nueva York que no han podido comunicarse con sus familiares en la isla
La incertidumbre de los puertorriqueños de Nueva York que no han podido comunicarse con sus familiares en la isla
Por otro lado, el Center for Popular Democracy lanzó un fondo de emergencia para asistir a organizaciones que trabajan con comunidades de bajos ingresos, que son más vulnerables a los daños de...
Por otro lado, el Center for Popular Democracy lanzó un fondo de emergencia para asistir a organizaciones que trabajan con comunidades de bajos ingresos, que son más vulnerables a los daños de María.
Lea el artículo completo aquí.
New York City Council Passes Bill Forcing Employers to Provide Paid Sick Leave
The New American - May 9th, 2013 - On Wednesday the New York City Council...
The New American - May 9th, 2013 - On Wednesday the New York City Council voted 45-3 to pass the New York City Earned Sick Time Act, a bill that will require employers with more than 20 employees to provide five paid sick days to each of them every year while mandating that those employees using their sick days can’t be fired. The law would become effective on January 1, 2014, and companies with more than 15 employees would be required to comply with the law starting in 2015.
Even if Mayor Bloomberg vetoes the bill, the council will likely override it, making the law effective anyway. This will impact the employers of more than one million employees who currently have no paid sick days provided for them. The costs to be borne by those employers weren't provided in any public announcements.
The AFL/CIO explained why such legislation was needed:
In addition to the potential loss of wages for working families, the lack of paid sick days forces many people to go to work when they are contagious and [make] co-workers and customers sick.
No paid sick time also decreases [the] productivity for workers who show up unable to perform to their normal level of ability.
The Center for Popular Democracy (CPD) was joyous over the vote, calling it “a historic agreement to give over one million New Yorkers the right to take paid days off from work to care for themselves or a sick family member. The new legislation represents a major step forward for workers’ rights.” The CPD was joined by Make the Road New York; 32 BJ SEIU, the largest property service workers union; NYC City Council’s Progressive Caucus; the Working Families Party; A Better Balance; and the NY Paid Sick Leave Coalition.
Bill Lipton of the Working Families Party was equally ecstatic: "This is a sweet victory. It provides economic security for New Yorkers, and a shot in the arm for the paid sick days movement across the country."
The bill was first introduced by council member Gale Brewer, a permanent politician and long-time progressive political activist, back in July 2009 but went nowhere for nearly four years, owing to resistance by City Council Speaker Christine Quinn. Quinn’s change to allow a vote coincided nicely with her announcement in March to run to succeed Mayor Bloomberg.
Brewer exulted in the victory:
After 4 years of non-stop advocacy and coalition building, I want to thank the Paid Sick Days Coalition members and my Council colleagues with all my heart for support [of my bill] and never giving up.
I also extend my thanks to Speaker Quinn and her staff for their contributions to this legislation….
The argument over [paid sick leave] was always about common sense and fairness. I believe this law enshrines the principle that American exceptionalism is not just about large profits and small elites, but a workplace that is safe, fair and respectful of the lives of workers.
Approximately one million New Yorkers will now have the fundamental right to a paid day off when they or a family member falls ill, and no worker will be fired if they must stay home. This is a tremendous accomplishment of which all fair-minded New Yorkers can be proud.
Four major cities have already passed paid sick leave laws — Portland (Oregon), San Francisco, Seattle, and Washington, D.C. — while similar measures are being considered in 20 others. On the national level, two other progressives, Sen. Tom Harken (D-Iowa) and Rep. Rose DeLauro (D-Conn.), are pushing the Healthy Families Act, which proposes essentially the same thing as Brewer’s bill: seven paid sick days each year required to be paid for by employers with more than 15 employees. The National Partnership for Women & Families outlined the benefits of such national legislation:
• Paid sick days provide families with economic security;
• Providing paid sick days is cost effective to employers;
• Paid sick days reduce community contagion;
• Paid sick days can decrease health care costs.
Each of these assumptions can be rebutted successfully, but none does it better than Ayn Rand, who always asked “At whose expense?” and Henry Hazlitt in his book Economics in One Lesson, which also asked about the unseen consequences of such meddling. The "broken window fallacy" is also helpful in understanding what progressives refuse to see: Someone must pay for such mandates, usually someone silent or impotent, without enough political influence to stop such “progress” — usually the taxpayers or employers unlucky enough to have a successful business large enough to be included in the mandate.
Some of the unseen consequences would naturally include higher employment costs to the business owners, as these are, in effect, pay raises to employees. The business owners' higher costs would be reflected in higher prices to consumers, which would likely reduce competitive advantage in a market niche. More likely, however, owners will discover that they can’t afford all the people working for them and will be forced to reduce their payrolls through terminations or attrition. That will increase social costs, as those no longer working will start receiving unemployment benefits provided by the state.
In the longer run, however, making employers less competitive will shrink rather than expand the general economy. Some will not hire new workers. Others may decide to retire, deciding that it’s no longer worth the effort, as government becomes more and more intrusive. Still others may choose to move out of the city, or the state, to more tax-friendly environments, further reducing the city’s economic output.
The biggest cost of all, however, is the continued and growing acceptance of government intervention as a way to solve perceived social “problems” and giving progressives more opportunities to expand the power and reach of government
Perhaps the best rebuttal is to review the bill of rights of another country, well-known to historians, which also had a progressive agenda very similar to that of Quinn, Brewer, and the AFL/CIO. It stated:
Citizens … have the right to work, that is, are guaranteed the right to employment and payment for their work in accordance with its quantity and quality….
Citizens … have the right to rest and leisure … the reduction of the working day to seven hours … [and] the institution of annual vacations with full pay….
Citizens … have the right to maintenance in old age and also in case of sickness or loss of capacity to work … ensured by the extensive development of social insurance for workers and employees. [Emphasis added.]
These are, of course, the rights enshrined in the 1936 Constitution of the USSR.
A graduate of Cornell University and a former investment advisor, Bob is a regular contributor to The New American magazine and blogs frequently at www.LightFromTheRight.com, primarily on economics and politics. He can be reached at badelmann@thenewamerican.com.
Source
NYC Agencies Fail to Follow Voter Registration Law
New York Daily News - October 21, 2014, by Erin Durkin - City agencies are failing to do their part to make voter registration easier — even though they’re required to by law.
Legislation...
New York Daily News - October 21, 2014, by Erin Durkin - City agencies are failing to do their part to make voter registration easier — even though they’re required to by law.
Legislation passed in 2000 mandates that 18 agencies give voter registration forms to visitors. But the Center for Popular Democracy and other non-profits found that 84% of those visitors were never offered a chance to register, according to a report to be released Tuesday.
In fact, 60% of the agencies didn’t even have any forms in the office. And 95% of the clients were never asked if they wanted to register to vote.
“This is an urgent problem which is leading to the disenfranchisement of many thousands of low-income New Yorkers,” said Andrew Friedman, the group’s co-executive director. “The city is failing to live up to its obligation.”
The group found that 30% of people who visited the city offices weren’t registered to vote, higher than the national average.
Mayor de Blasio’s spokesman Phil Walzak said Hizzoner has ordered agencies to step up their compliance with the law. “Mayor de Blasio is deeply committed to reducing barriers to voter participation, and making it simple and easy to register to vote is the first step,” he said.
Only one of the agencies, the Administration for Children’s Services, used a combined form that offers the chance to apply for ACS services, as required by the law, the report found.
Advocates say having city agencies help out with voter registration is especially important because most people nationwide sign up to vote at motor vehicle departments, but many city residents don’t drive.
Source
Which States Could Adopt Automatic Voter Registration Next?
If Americans needed any further proof that voting itself has become a partisan battleground, look no further than proposals calling for automatic voter registration.
California this month...
If Americans needed any further proof that voting itself has become a partisan battleground, look no further than proposals calling for automatic voter registration.
California this month enacted a law that will automatically register people to vote when they get or renew a driver's license or state identification card from the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV), following the example set by Oregon several months ago. Over time, this could bring most of the 6.6 million Californians who are eligible but not yet registered onto the voting rolls. Alex Padilla, California's secretary of state and sponsor of the measure, calls it potentially the largest voter registration drive in U.S. history.
Other states could soon follow.
Legislators have introduced automatic voter registration bills in 16 additional states, including Hawaii, Illinois and Vermont, as well as the District of Columbia. New Jersey lawmakers approved a package that includes automatic voter registration in June. Republican Gov. Chris Christie hasn't acted on it, but he's made his opposition clear.
"The current process creates an unnecessary barrier for citizens to exercise their fundamental right to vote," said state Sen. Andy Manar, a sponsor of the Illinois measure. "And it's an inefficient use of taxpayer dollars."
The states where bills have seen real movement, however, are all blue states. In states where Republicans control the legislature -- including Georgia, South Carolina and Texas -- measures have mostly languished in committee.
Supporters argue that the real reason for Republican opposition is the party's worry that automatic registration would boost the number of poor and young voters -- groups that favor Democrats. But Republicans complain that automatically registering people to vote based on their DMV status will result in more fraud because, for example, teens still too young to vote and undocumented immigrants get driver's licenses.
In New Jersey, more than 85 percent of eligible citizens are already registered to vote. During a radio appearance in June, Gov. Christie said that, "there's no question in my mind that there are some advocates of this who are looking to increase the opportunities for voter fraud. That's not democracy either."
Studies have shown, however, that voter fraud seldom happens. Proponents of automatic voter registration say that governments have a responsibility to ensure eligible citizens have the opportunity to exercise the franchise, without unnecessary hurdles.
Supporters of the idea are currently collecting signatures in Alaska to put it on the ballot next year. If Christie ultimately vetoes the New Jersey package, a ballot measure may be likely there as well.
"It's not just an election modernization reform, it's a shifting of responsibilty for who populates the rolls," said Katrina Gamble, director of civic engagement and politics at the Center for Popular Democracy. "Even before Oregon, people saw automatic voter registration as the most tranformative reform that we can move that would bring a huge number of people onto the rolls."
Huge numbers of eligible citizens aren't registered to vote. In addition to the nearly 7 million Californians, there are 2.3 million such people in Illinois and there were 300,000 in Oregon.
"If you look across the country, there are at least 50 million people who are eligible but not registered to vote," said Jonathan Brater, counsel for the democracy program at NYU's Brennan Center for Justice. "We see year after year that registration is one of the biggest obstacles to participation."
Other states might explore other models, like using agencies other than the DMV to find potential voters. If the Alaska initiative passes next year, the state will find potential voters through its Permanent Fund, which pays dividends to residents based on oil revenues.
Regardless of the database that's used, automatic registration has the potential to be more accurate than the current approach, which in many places still means relying on paper forms. It should also save money. When Barack Obama was elected president in 2008, only Arizona and Washington offered online registration. Earlier this month, Vermont became the 26th state to allow voters to register online. Going paper-free saves states at least 50 cents on every registration.
It's in part for that reason that Republican legislators in states including Florida, Georgia and Oklahoma have supported online registration. Supporters of automatic voter registration hope that promises of savings might bring GOP lawmakers around to supporting things like registration through the DMV, too.
So far, that's not happening.
In fact, the way that high-profile Democrats running for president have embraced the idea seems to be driving Republicans away. U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont introduced an automatic voter registration bill in Congress, and Hillary Clinton supported the idea during a speech earlier this year in which she castigated the GOP for trying to "disempower and disenfranchise young people, poor people, people with disabilities and people of color," through voter ID requirements and attacks on early voting.
Clinton's speech, according to polling, cost automatic voter registration support among Republican voters. A majority of Republicans (53 percent) supported the idea when Oregon passed its law in March, but after Clinton gave her speech in June, GOP support dropped to 38 percent. When survey respondents were told Clinton backed the idea, their support plummeted further, to 28 percent.
Source: Governing
Letter: Gorsuch wrong for Supreme Court
As a faith leader deeply involved in the lives of working people, I understand the impact that the nation’s highest court can have on our daily lives. We need a Supreme Court Justice committed to...
As a faith leader deeply involved in the lives of working people, I understand the impact that the nation’s highest court can have on our daily lives. We need a Supreme Court Justice committed to protecting the rights of all people. The more I learn about Neil Gorsuch, confirmed by the Senate on Friday, the more convinced I am that he is not that justice...
Read full article here.
Interviews for Resistance: New Progressive Coalition Calls for “Millions of Jobs”
Interviews for Resistance: New Progressive Coalition Calls for “Millions of Jobs”
A coalition of unions and other progressive organizations is pushing lawmakers on a jobs and infrastructure bill that would put millions of people to work.
...
A coalition of unions and other progressive organizations is pushing lawmakers on a jobs and infrastructure bill that would put millions of people to work.
Read the full article here.
2 days ago
2 days ago