‘Clopening’ time: Seattle on the clock for secure scheduling
‘Clopening’ time: Seattle on the clock for secure scheduling
The subject has been bubbling up in Seattle public discourse for around six months now. Last fall, local progressive labor advocacy organization Working Washington and Starbucks baristas protested...
The subject has been bubbling up in Seattle public discourse for around six months now. Last fall, local progressive labor advocacy organization Working Washington and Starbucks baristas protested their inconsistent and unpredictable work schedules, which labor advocates say act as barriers for low-income workers to scheduling life necessities like college classes or childcare or budgeting living expenses. A few months later, in his 2016 state of the city speech, Mayor Ed Murray highlighted secure scheduling as a key low-wage worker equity issue and said his office would work with the City Council to address it.
“We know that having a secure schedule of hours helps workers plan their budget, plan for childcare, enroll in school or take a second job – and we know schedule predictability will most help low-wage hourly workers,” Murray said in his speech.
SECURE SCHEDULING
Here are a couple chances to get involved or learn more: Thursday night, “join a live tele-town hall over the phone and over the internet about the fight for secure scheduling in Seattle. When: 6:00 pm, Thursday, May 26, 2016. Where: You can listen in live over the phone by calling 855-756-7520 Ext. 32020#, or join live online athttp://workingwa.org/ourtimecounts/townhall.” On Friday, the committee will hear from Lonnie Goldan, a researcher at the Economic Policy Institute who has studied the issue, on her findings and national data. Tune in to Seattle Channel at 9:30AM to watch. On June 16th,Working Washington is holding a “Secure Scheduling Story Slam.”
With a $15 minimum wage already under Seattle’s belt, City Hall along with labor and business interests have turned their attention to the next big issue affecting the city’s proletariat and their bosses: secure scheduling.
“The response has moved pretty quickly from when workers first spoke out about it, and that’s heartening. There’s been a tremendous amount of support expressed by both the council and the mayor’s office on the need to move forward and do something to address secure scheduling,” said Sage Wilson, a spokesperson for Working Washington. “This is a really urgent issue for workers week to week.”
“Clopenings” — when a worker works a late-night closing shift and is also directed to work a early-morning opening shift with only a few hours in between
On March 8th, the mayor’s office convened a group of stakeholders of both labor and employers representing—including representatives from the likes of Working Washington, the Washington Restaurant Association, the Seattle Chamber of Commerce, and unions like SEIU 775 and UFCW Local 21—who have been meeting separately and then “reporting out” regularly to the the city council’s committee on Civil Rights, Utilities, Economic Development & Arts (of which Herbold is the chair and District 3’s own Kshama Sawant is a committee member) on their discussions to help inform the Council. The mayor’s office says these stakeholders will be submitting formal recommendations to the council at some unidentified date.
The council committee has also been bringing in experts on the issue and model secure scheduling ordinances. Last week, the committee heard from representatives from the Center for Center for Popular Democracy (CPD)—a non-profit left advocacy group—on their model secure scheduling policy and the San Francisco Office of Labor Standards Enforcement, who enacted their own scheduling ordinance specifically for retail workers several years ago.
The Council and the mayor’s office also commissioned a study from researchers at the University of Washington Evan’s School of Public Policy and Governance on the state of irregular scheduling in Seattle, including focus groups and a employer/manager survey of scheduling practices. The study is slated to come back on July 4th.
The plan, according to staffers in Herbold’s office, is to keep meeting with the stakeholders, receiving input from experts and looking at available data into early June, after which Herbold’s office will start drafting the actual policy.
The claims of Working Washington and picketing Starbucks baristas have merit. Researchers in addition to advocates have documented the impacts of unpredictable scheduling on workers (especially employees receiving hourly compensation), namely the association between irregular schedules and work/family conflicts (like picking up kids from school or childcare), the inability to schedule and maintain routines (e.g college classes or other jobs), and general increased worker stress from having to be on-call all the time. These types of jobs are concentrated in the retail, food service, hospitality, and healthcare industries.
Last year’s report from the Restaurant Opportunity Center on the state of the restaurant industry in Seattle showed that 26% of local restaurant workers receive their schedules less than a week in advance and 30% see schedule changes every two weeks. And women and people of color (who are heavily represented in low-wage food industry jobs) are disproportionately impacted by erratic scheduling.
“The issues that we’ve heard most about from workers are about two weeks advance notice of schedules”
The utilization of new scheduling software by employers and managers has been identified as a major cause of irregular scheduling. Starbucks has come under fire in recent years for its scheduling policies, specifically its utilization of scheduling software designed to maximize company efficiency by predicting store traffic and corresponding required staffing levels when and where. Advocates say the software incentivizes managers to under-staff stores, keeps employee hours at part time levels (which also allows employers to avoid giving full-time employee benefits and overtime), and quickly patch together weekly schedules from a large pool of part-time employees, often with little advance notice for the employee.
One of the often cited extreme results of digitized, maximum-efficiency scheduling is “clopenings,” when a worker works a late-night closing shift and is also directed to work a early-morning opening shift with only a few hours in between.
Advocates want to see these issues addressed in any future policy in Seattle.
“The issues that we’ve heard most about from workers are about two weeks advance notice of schedules,” said Wilson of Working Washington. “There’s access to hours. before companies hire more and more extremely part time workers, they should give more hours to employees they already have. And then there’s the eliminating ‘clopening shifts’ and the right to rest. You should have the ability to rest at least eleven hours between shifts.”
What the final ordinance will look like is still unclear, though based on the arch of the committee and stakeholder discussions, we know what they’re considering. It’s a balancing act between the real need to crack down on scheduling policies that leave employees at the mercy of their employer and employer’s legitimate need for scheduling flexibility, such as when a restaurant gets slammed during a understaffed dinner rush or someone calls in sick.
There is a potential ways to find that middle ground, as was illustrated at last Tuesday’s committee meeting and presentations on CPD’s model ordinance and San Francisco’s own retail worker secure scheduling ordinance. Both the CPD and San Francisco model use a “predictability pay” mandate as an incentive for employers to give workers adequate notice, where employers would compensate a worker for an hour’s worth of wages if they fail to provide a schedule two weeks or more in advance, and then dialing it up for schedule changes or notices that occur within 24 hours by raising the mandated compensation to two to four hours of pay. The San Francisco ordinance does provide exceptions for employee initiated shift swaps, like when an employer needs another worker to cover the shift of an employee who is out sic). Both models also require that employers must make hours available to veteran employees before hiring more part-time employees, a requirement aimed at combating the proliferation of part-time employee labor.
“The policy is designed to both preserve the flexibility that workers and employers need in making work schedules while also promoting stability for hourly workers,” Rachel Deutsch of the CPD told the Council.
District 3’s Kshama Sawant told CHS that she wants to see a policy that affects all businesses in Seattle, not just big retail and foodservice businesses. San Francisco’s ordinance is structured to only affect big box retailers.
“While it’s true that the issue is experienced more by workers in the service industry and retail industry, like Starbucks, the best way to ensure secure scheduling for all workers is to ensure a citywide policy for all businesses across Seattle,” Sawant said.
Naturally, the issue pits the local labor and employer camps duking it out during Seattle’s $15 minimum wage debate against each other yet again. However the tone and dynamic of the debate in this round, is a little different, along with the format. While the Seattle Chamber of Commerce has indicated that it is certainly uncomfortable with the secure scheduling initiative and initial stakeholder discussions with council committee back in March resulted in the employer representatives claiming that scheduling wasn’t really a problem, loud pushback from the business community has been noticeably lacking in recent weeks.
“It was the early committee meetings that employers were spending time and energy to try and deny that scheduling was a problem,” said Wilson. “One the things that has happened through the stakeholder process is that employers have stopped trying to make that case. They’re largely in agreement [with labor] that people should have predictable schedules.”
Sierra Hansen, head of the Capitol Hill Chamber of Commerce, said that the issue is barely on the radar of the chamber’s board and that she hasn’t heard anything about it from member businesses.
“I would prefer we draft an ordinance and then debate it rather than closed room discussions and that the public got involved”
Wilson with Working Washington attributes the change in the dynamic of the stakeholder group conversations to the political climate of the city, the unity between the executive and the council to push the issue, and previous local labor victories, like $15 and paid sick and safe leave.
“It does seem to me to be both a product of the process as well as a strong consensus on Council and the mayor to do something on this,” said Wilson. “[And] the mood of the city is pretty clear: people want workers to have basic rights.”
Sawant, who was voted into office on her fiery platform of rent control, a $15 dollar an hour minimum wage, and a fundamental change in labor and equity in the city, said that the stakeholder workgroup process is “not an approach that I would choose.”
“I would prefer we draft an ordinance and then debate it rather than closed room discussions and that the public got involved,” said Sawant. “That’s how we won $15 dollar an hour, that’s how we won the SHA rent hikes. A lot of historic things have happened, and that’s because of the approach of my office.”
“What was different around $15 was that we were very clear. If you were for $15 you were with working people and had to go up against big business and be courageous about that,” Sawant said. “I know that there is this narrative from the mayor and big business and Tom Douglas that we won 15 because we all came together and agreed to raise the minimum wage. That’s absolutely untrue. The reason we won 15 is because we had a mass movement in Seattle.”
by Josh Kelety
Source
Group Marches for More Transparency in Charter School System
90.5 WESA - October 2, 2014, by Julian Routh - In wake of a report detailing alleged charter school fraud, members of the group Action United and other concerned parents took to the streets of...
90.5 WESA - October 2, 2014, by Julian Routh - In wake of a report detailing alleged charter school fraud, members of the group Action United and other concerned parents took to the streets of Downtown Pittsburgh Thursday morning to demand more oversight from their local government.
Since 1997, there has been more than $30 million in proven or charged fraud, waste or abuse in Pennsylvania’s charter school system, according to the report released Wednesday.
To bring attention to this, the group marched from the offices of Governor Tom Corbett at Piatt Place to the Urban Pathways School on Penn Avenue, which was under fire in 2010 for spending more than $12,000 in government funding on restaurant charges and staff retreats. The school also allegedly used state tax money to build schools in Ohio.
Action United, a Pennsylvania group that fights what it calls "injustice" in the state, is asking charter schools to sign a fraud prevention pledge, which promises schools will institute a fraud risk management program and conduct fraud assessments.
Hazel Blackman, president of the regional council for Action United, said there needs to be more accountability in the Corbett administration and among charter schools.
“The reason we came out is because it’s been secretive and hidden behind closed doors what’s going on,” Blackman said. “The leadership needs to be in place to help solve what’s going on with the taxpayers’ dollars.”
Charter schools are public schools, funded by the state, that receive money based on the number of students enrolled.
A report in May by the Center for Popular Democracy and Integrity in Education said more than $136 million has been wasted in charter schools nationwide since 1997.
Action United member Bill Bartlett said this is an injustice, and that it calls for stronger leadership to be elected Nov. 4.
“We have kids who have no textbooks, we have programs being cut, we’ve got over $1 billion cut from education already,” Bartlett said. “On top of that you’re going to take $30 million and skim it off the top and put it into the pockets of crooks. That’s absolutely wrong.”
Source
Some Question City’s Decision to Keep IDNYC Documents
Advocates who opposed a policy of keeping documents submitted by IDNYC applicants believe the doubts they raised in 2014 have been validated by the legal fight over destroying those papers before...
Advocates who opposed a policy of keeping documents submitted by IDNYC applicants believe the doubts they raised in 2014 have been validated by the legal fight over destroying those papers before Donald Trump becomes president.
“Now they’re saying, ‘If they come for the data, we’re going to burn it,'” says Abraham Paulos, executive director of Families for Freedom. “Well, then why did you keep in in the first place?”
The policy of keeping documents was not part of the original version of the IDNYC law but was added during intense negotiations involving City Hall, the NYPD and advocacy groups.
Some of those advocacy groups—like Families for Freedom and the New York Civil Liberties Union—ended their support for the IDNYC program over the retention policies because they feared the information could be used by federal authorities hunting for undocumented immigrants. Other organizations expressed concerns but continue to support the bill and promoted the ID program.
The fears about the documents have grown more widespread since Trump, who has pledged to deport millions of people, won election. A lawsuit by two Staten Island lawmakers has at least temporarily halted the city from a planned purge of the documents in its possession.
Mayor de Blasio recently said that IDNYC, one of his signature achievements, would no longer retain copies of passports, utility bills and other documents submitted by people applying for the card, which is held by more than 860,000 New Yorkers.
For advocates, that move—while welcome—casts a harsh light on the decision to collect the documents in the first place. Still, many immigration advocates think the ID was a positive step.
Obstacles to an idea
New Haven, Conn., was the first city to issue a municipal ID in 2007, and some local advocates had been pushing for New York City to follow suit in order to give a widely usable ID card to the undocumented as well as others who lacked official identification. De Blasio embraced the ID as a candidate and called for it in his first State of the City speech.
From the outset, the idea faced an obstacle: How do you create a tool that will be especially useful for undocumented people without making it a scarlet letter? Attaching museum discounts and other benefits to the card aimed to broaden its appeal so that even citizens would obtain it.
But while that broader usage meant the card itself didn’t necessarily indicate a holder’s immigration status, the documents associated with each application still could. To obtain an IDNYC, a person has to present documents that establish identity and residency. Among the accepted proofs of identity are foreign passports, consular ID, foreign military identification—all of which could indicate a lack of legal presence in the U.S.
The question that triggered tension during the negotiations over IDNYC was whether that material needed to be saved once IDNYC staff reviewed the documents and approved the card.
The first version of the City Council measure that created the program included the language, “The city shall not retain originals or copies of records provided by an applicant to prove identity or residency for a New York City identity card.”
But the language that became law described a very different approach. It permitted the city to, once a quarter, destroying any application documents that had been held for two years. It also created an opportunity to destroy all the documents in the program’s possession “on or before December 31, 2016” and end document retention then—an effort to ensure that the papers could be shredded before an anti-immigrant president took office.
The lawsuit by Assemblymembers Ron Castorina and Nicole Malliotakis, both Staten Island Republicans, argues the state’s freedom of information laws should prevent that destruction of documents. Malliotakis made her opposition to the destruction clause known as early as February 2015.
Behind-the-scenes debate
When IDNYC was being shaped in 2014, “retention to us was something that we absolutely did not want,” Betsy Plum, director of special projects at the New York Immigration Coalition, recalls.
However, “It was critical that the NYPD accept the ID,” she says, because one goal for the ID was for it to be a resource when someone is stopped by police. “For us and the community we work with the NYPD was a really critical partner for us to keep at the table for the ultimate success of IDNYC.”
And the NYPD said it needed the documents to investigate fraud, she says. Plum describes a back and forth between advocates and City Hall over the retention issue. “They came back saying to us: ‘This is the only way it’s going to happen.'”
A mayoral spokesperson says the retention clause was inserted “after consideration from many stakeholders, including NYPD.” In addition to the language permitting destruction after two years or at the end of 2016, the final bill did require a court order or warrant for the documents to be handed over to any third party.
Some advocates believed those safeguards were enough to justify going ahead with the ID. “Once we were able to see a clear path for the data to be protected, we saw the benefits far outweigh the risks,” Plum says.
Another advocate involved in the discussions recalls that the coalition of advocacy groups involved in the negotiations took a vote on whether to maintain or drop support for the measure; a clear majority favored pressing ahead with the ID.
But Families for Freedom did not. Paulos (who was a City Limits intern eight years ago) already harbored concerns about whether the cards themselves could be used to identify undocumented people. “The retention and the data was the deal breaker,” he recalls. “Once we heard that the NYPD was also in the discussion, we pulled out.”
The New York Civil Liberties Union also parted ways with other advocates. “In this bill, the city has not done enough to protect those documents from being used by law enforcement,” NYCLU advocacy director Johanna Miller testified as the bill was about to be signed in July 2014. “While the NYC ID will bring benefits to many people, we are disappointed that the city is inviting New Yorkers to gamble with the stakes as high as prosecution or even deportation.”
A July 2015 report by the Center for Popular Democracy (which supported the New York law) noted that “the vast majority of municipal ID card programs around the country have prohibited the copying or retention of documents presented to prove identity or residency. In New Haven, San Francisco, and Mercer County, NJ, municipal ID card programs have run smoothly for years without copying or retaining personal documents of applicants.”
“The only city-run municipal ID card program that stores applicants’ personal documents is IDNYC,” the report continued.”
No regrets from supporters
In the months after the law’s passage but before it took effect, the commissioner of the city’s Human Resources Administration—which oversees the ID program—issued executive orders clarifying the protections for IDNYC data and the handling of requests for program information by law enforcement.
But concerns persisted. When the first oversight hearing about the law was held in mid-2015, The Fortune Society testified that it was concerned that, despite the safeguards in the bill, “federal, state and local law-enforcement agencies may not have to meet a probable cause standard to obtain documents.”
Fortune Society director JoAnne Page now tells City Limits: “The more vulnerable people are, the most risk that damage will be done,” if personal information falls into the wrong hands. “I don’t think there is a more vulnerable group than undocumented immigrants who have criminal records.”
Plum says despite the Trump election and the lawsuit, NYIC has no regrets about its decision to support the bill despite the retention policy. “If we were all to live in a reality where we only acted as it if the worst possible things could happen and we allows ourselves to educate and serve communities from a lens of total paranoia, I think we’d have a far worse outcome for the communities we serve and protect,” she says. “I think still with the ID the benefits have and still do outweigh the risks. The alternative here would be to have had no IDNYC – to have parent who can’t get into their kids schools, to have families unable to open bank accounts, to have survivors of domestic violence afraid to call the police because they have no way to identify themselves. I don’t think anyone would want to sacrifice any of those benefits.”
The Castorina-Malliotakis lawsuit is next in court on January 18. NYCLU staff attorney Jordan Wells says he believes the city will ultimately be able to follow through on their plans to destroy the documents. “The lawsuit pending in Staten Island is without merit,” he says. “Eventually the city will be able to follow the procedure.”
But Paulos believes damage has already been done. The fact that the city will now destroy the documents, and will no longer keep those generated for new applications, makes it hard to credit the assertions that keeping that paperwork was necessary in the first place. “There’s a lot of mistrust.”
By Jarrett Murphy
Source
Latino Construction Workers Continue to Die on the Job Because of Unsafe Conditions
Fox News Latino - January 16, 2015 - A new analysis of federal safety data found that while overall jobs in the construction industry are getting safer, Latino workers are still getting injured at...
Fox News Latino - January 16, 2015 - A new analysis of federal safety data found that while overall jobs in the construction industry are getting safer, Latino workers are still getting injured at alarming rates.
According to the data, between 2010 and 2013, the number of deaths among Latinos in the construction industry rose from 181 to 231. The number of deaths also rose in the industry overall, from 774 to 796, but that increase is attributed entirely to Latinos. During the same period, deaths for non-Latino construction workers fell from 593 to 565.
Each day across the country, hundreds of day laborers and migrant workers wait in street corners waiting to get hired. They are sometimes picked up by contractors or subcontractors looking to cut corners by hiring cheap labor that won’t expect benefits – most undocumented workers live in the shadows and, in general, don’t qualify for any federal benefits.
"There’s a clear correlation between low-wage jobs and unsafe jobs," said Occupational Safety and Health Administration chief David Michaels, according to the Nation. "Workers in low wage jobs are at much greater risk of conditions that will make it impossible for them to live in a healthy way, to earn money for their family, to build middle class lives."
Another reason for the spike in deaths is a rise in safety violations on job sites run by smaller, non-union contractors and an unwillingness by some undocumented workers to report violations, according to a 2013 study by the New York State Trial Lawyers Association.
"Contractors aren’t taking simple steps to protect their workers," Connie Razza, from the Center for Popular Democracy, told the New York Daily News. "They are not providing the training and the safety equipment that are required by law."
Advocacy groups are working to combat any changes to New York’s scaffolding law, which organizations like the Center for Popular Democracy say gives incentive to keep workplaces safe. The law holds owners and contractors who did not follow safety rules fully liable for workplace injuries and deaths.
Contractors argue that it has driven up insurance costs to record levels.
Lawmakers, however, have historically blocked any of the proposed changes to the law.
"All we’re looking for is the ability to have the same right as anybody else would in the American jurisprudence system," said Louis J. Coletti, president and CEO of the Building Trades Employers' Association.
In an attempt to make their work environments safer, some day laborers have joined together to seek protection through collective action. In the wake of Hurricane Sandy, some day laborers in New York City turned to one another about the dangerous conditions, and decided together how to deal with them.
The Bay Parkway Community Job Center in Brooklyn brought in safety experts for guidance; community groups and foundations rallied around the laborers, helping them buy their new trailer with several grants.
With the help of organizations such as the Worker’s Justice Project, laborers learned about wage and hour laws, the hazards of exposure to certain building materials and what kinds of actions or treatment by the people who hire them constitute abuse and violations.
"When something isn’t right, at that moment, you may not realize it or attach much significance to it," Rafael Tecpanecatl, a laborer who came from Mexico 11 years ago told Fox News Latino. "I’ve worked many jobs that I realized later were hazardous to my health. I’d get on ladders that were not steady, I’ve sanded walls and cut plywood and had debris go into my eyes and lungs."
Source
Protesters Stage 'Die-In' At Harvard Museum To Criticize Namesake's Link To Opioid Crisis
Protesters Stage 'Die-In' At Harvard Museum To Criticize Namesake's Link To Opioid Crisis
Several organizations, including the Center for Popular Democracy, SIFMA NOW, ACT UP Boston, participated in the protest.
...
Several organizations, including the Center for Popular Democracy, SIFMA NOW, ACT UP Boston, participated in the protest.
Read the full article here.
Bill to offer state citizenship for undocumented immigrants
NY Daily News - June 16, 2014, by Erin Durkin - Undocumented immigrants in New York could become “state citizens” with a slew of benefits from driver’s licenses under a new bill to be introduced...
NY Daily News - June 16, 2014, by Erin Durkin - Undocumented immigrants in New York could become “state citizens” with a slew of benefits from driver’s licenses under a new bill to be introduced Monday.
Advocates are set to announce a bill that would allow immigrants who aren’t U.S. citizens to become New York state citizens if they can prove they’ve lived and paid taxes in the state for three years and pledge to uphold New York laws, regardless of whether they’re in the country legally.
“The path to achieving opportunity and equity and dignity for immigrants through Washington seems blocked by Washington’s general dysfunction,” said Andrew Friedman, executive director of the Center for Popular Democracy and a founder of Make the Road New York. “States should push for full equality and inclusion.”
The bill will face long odds in Albany, where even more modest immigration reforms have failed to get through the legislature.
The bill would apply to about 2.7 million New Yorkers who lack citizenship, including those in the country legally and illegally.
People who secured state citizenship under the bill would be able to vote in state and local elections, and run for state office.
They could get a driver’s license, a professional license issued by the state, and Medicaid and other benefits controlled by the state.
Immigrants would also be eligible for in-state tuition and financial aid, and would be protected from discrimination based on their status. And the bill would sharply limit state authorities’ cooperation with federal immigration enforcement.
The legislation would not grant legal authorization to work or change any other regulations governed by federal law.
It’s destined to be a longshot in Albany, where the DREAM Act, which would help undocumented students afford college, and efforts to offer driver’s licenses have failed so far.
But backers say it will prompt similar efforts in other states, similar to how states led the way on gay marriage, with talks on bills already underway in Illinois, Oregon, and Maryland.
“Obviously this is not something that’s going to pass immediately, but nothing as broad as this or as bold as this passes immediately,” said Sen. Gustavo Rivera (D-Bronx), the sponsor in the Senate.
The bill is estimated to cost taxpayers $106 to 173 million a year, while generating $145 million in new economic activity and saving drivers $100 million in insurance premiums, advocates say.
SourceStates Expand Inquiry Into On-Call Scheduling
Eight states and the District of Columbia have expanded their probe into on-call scheduling at retail companies, asking a group of national chains to provide detailed information on their use of...
Eight states and the District of Columbia have expanded their probe into on-call scheduling at retail companies, asking a group of national chains to provide detailed information on their use of the controversial practice.
On-call shifts, where a worker must be available to work a shift that can be cancelled at the last minute without compensation, has become popular in retail. But the practice wreaks havoc on the lives of low-paid hourly workers trying to plan plan around child care, schooling, or second jobs, as a BuzzFeed News investigation found last year.
At the time, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman sent a letter to 14 chains (published below), inquiring about their use of on-call scheduling and warning it may be illegal. Since then, Victoria’s Secret, Bath & Body Workers, J. Crew, Urban Outfitters, and Gap have committed to ending the practice.
“On-call shifts are not a business necessity, as we see from the many retailers that no longer use this unjust method of scheduling work hours,” said Schneiderman in a statement.
A study by the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute found that the lowest income workers receive the most irregular schedules, with unpredictability leading to increased stress.
“It’s heartening to see more and more policymakers and regulators take action,” said Carrie Gleason, Director of the Fair Workweek Initiative at the Center for Popular Democracy, a liberal advocacy group.
On Tuesday, the offices of the Attorneys General in California, Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York, and Rhode Island sent a letter requesting employee handbooks, schedules, and payroll information.
In these states, the Attorneys General warn, the practice may be a violation of a law mandating a minimum of four hours of pay for employees who report for work.
The following retailers received the letter: Aéropostale, American Eagle, BCBG Max Azria, Carter’s Inc., Coach, DavidsTea Inc., Walt Disney Co., Forever 21 Inc., Ascena Retail Group Inc.’s Justice, Pacific Sunwear of California Inc., Payless ShoeSource, Tilly’s Inc., Uniqlo, VF Corp.’s Vans, and Zumiez Inc.
Spokespeople from Uniqlo and Coach told the Wall Street Journal that the companies don’t use the practice. BuzzFeed News has reached out to the companies listed for comment and will update the post with responses.
UPDATE
A spokesperson for American Eagle Outfitters said in a statement, ““American Eagle Outfitters is committed to providing our associates with a positive working environment. We decided in November 2015 to cease the use of ‘on-call shifts’ and advised our stores. We are taking steps to reinforce and assure adherence to this policy across our store fleet.”
A spokesperson for Forever 21 said, “Contrary to published reports, Forever 21 does not permit on-call scheduling nor do we have a company policy around doing so.”
A spokesperson for Vans said the company does not use on-call scheduling and will comply with the request for information.
A spokesperson for Uniqlo said that Uniqlo has received the letter and that on-call scheduling is not a Uniqlo practice or policy.
A spokesperson for Payless ShoeSource says the company does not engage in on-call scheduling, has received the inquiry and will respond accordingly.
A spokesperson for Zumiez said, “It is our practice to cooperate with any request from the attorney general or other state agencies and we will do so in this case as well.” Apr. 14, 2016, at 10:21 a.m.
By Cora Lewis
Source
U.S. Department of Education Launches Crackdown on Ohio Charters
Charter Schools are defined by their freedom from regulation and oversight, but that freedom has been so regularly abused by unscrupulous operators that it seems the U.S. Department of Education...
Charter Schools are defined by their freedom from regulation and oversight, but that freedom has been so regularly abused by unscrupulous operators that it seems the U.S. Department of Education is finally deciding to crack down, under pressure in this case from Ohio’s U.S. Senator Sherrod Brown.
Three months ago, on June 20, 2016, Senator Brown wrote a letter to John King, now U.S. Secretary of Education, demanding increased oversight of a large grant—$71 million—the federal Department of Education made to Ohio on September 28, 2015 to expand charter schools. The grant application had been written by David Hansen, who, by September, had already been fired by the Ohio Department of Education for hiding the abysmal academic record of the state’s so-called “dropout recovery schools” and omitting their scores from a system he was creating as the Ohio Department prepared to begin holding charter schools more accountable. Hansen had also bragged in his federal grant application that Ohio had already begun more aggressively regulating charters. After the U.S. Department of Education awarded Ohio the $71 million grant at the end of September 2015, however, it was pointed out that the Ohio legislature had not yet passed the regulations for which Hansen (in July) had given the state credit. (The Ohio Legislature later adopted the most basic and minimal charter school oversight when it passed Ohio House Bill 2 on October 7, 2015).
When Ohio Senator Brown wrote to U.S. Secretary John King in June, 2016, the $71 million Ohio grant had been put on hold for months, as the U.S. Department of Education investigated Ohio’s dealings with charter schools. In his June 20 letter, Senator Brown wrote:
“In your November 2015 response letter to the members of the Ohio Congressional delegation, you outlined a number of steps ED has taken and will continue to take to verify the accuracy and completeness of ODE’s grant application. I appreciate these steps, but more must be done to provide order to the state’s chaotic charter school sector. In light of this report, I ask that you examine the performance of Ohio charter schools who have received CSP (federal Charter Schools Program) grants to determine whether grant recipients are failing or closing at a higher rate than those in other states and how the academic performance of CSP grant recipients in Ohio compares to CSP grant recipients nationwide. I further ask that when Ohio has satisfied all necessary conditions for this grant money to be released that you appoint a special monitor to review every expenditure made pursuant to this grant in order to ensure that all funds are being spent for their intended purpose. Ohio’s current lack of oversight wastes taxpayer’s money and undermines the ostensible goal of charters: providing more high-quality educational opportunities for children. There exists a pattern of waste, fraud, and abuse that is far too common and requires extra scrutiny.”
Last Wednesday, September 14, 2016, the U.S. Department of Education finally released the $71 million grant, but, as Patrick O’Donnell reports for the Plain Dealer, there are now many conditions:
“In a letter to the Ohio Department of Education today, the grant was declared ‘high risk’ because of the poor academic performance of the state’s charters and the struggles the state has had in implementing portions of House Bill 2, the state’s charter reform bill passed last fall by the state legislature… The letter states: ‘As part of this high-risk designation, we are imposing certain High-Risk Special Conditions on ODE’s CSP (Charter Schools Program) SEA (State Education Agency) grant that will help ODE and the Department more clearly determine ODE’s ongoing compliance with applicable requirements’ so that it will be more transparent and so that any issues can be identified and fixed quickly.”
Here are the conditions as reported by O’Donnell:
“(T)he state cannot give out grants to schools as it has in the past. It must have prior approval from the U.S. Department of Education before transferring any money.
“The department must evaluate dropout recovery schools better.
“The state must report its progress four times each year.
“ODE must hire an independent monitor of the grant program.
“The state must create a Grant Implementation Advisory Committee.
“And it must do demanding ratings of the oversight agencies known as ‘sponsors’ in Ohio, but as ‘authorizers’ in most other states.”
Ohio’s problems with the controversial $71 million Charter Schools Program grant are not the first time anyone has noticed the federal Department of Education’s failure to oversee the Charter Schools Program. A year ago in June, 2015, the Alliance to Reclaim Our Schools—a coalition of national organizations including the American Federation of Teachers, Alliance for Educational Justice, Annenberg Institute for School Reform at Brown University, Center for Popular Democracy, Gamaliel, Journey for Justice Alliance, National Education Association, National Opportunity to Learn Campaign, and Service Employees International Union—sent a letter to then-Secretary of Education Arne Duncan complaining that while the Department had granted $1.7 billion to states for expansion of charter schools since 2009, the Department of Education’s own Inspector General had been raising alarms about the Department’s own lack of any kind of quality control.
The Alliance’s letter to Arne Duncan cited formal audits from 2010 and 2012 in which the Department of Education’s own Office of Inspector General (OIG), “raised concerns about transparency and competency in the administration of the federal Charter Schools Program.” The OIG’s 2012 audit, the members of the Alliance explain, discovered that the Department of Education’s Office of Innovation and Improvement, which administers the Charter Schools Program, and the State Education Agencies, which disburse the majority of the federal funds, are ill equipped to keep adequate records or put in place even minimal oversight. The State Education Agencies that lack capacity to manage the programs are the 50 state departments of education.
In the June 2015 letter to Arne Duncan, the Alliance to Reclaim Our Schools enumerates the problems discovered by the Department of Education’s own Office of Inspector General: that the Office of Innovation and Improvement (OII) did not maintain records of the charter schools funded through grants to states, that OII “lacked internal controls and adequate training in fiscal and program monitoring,” that none of the three states selected as samples for investigation by the Office of Inspector General—Arizona, California, and Florida—sufficiently monitored the charter schools funded through the Department of Education’s State Education Agency grants, that 26 charter schools in these three states were shown by the Office of Inspector General to have closed after being awarded $7 million, and that even when the schools closed, nobody tracked “what happened to assets that had been purchased with federal funds.”
Thank you, Senator Sherrod Brown for doggedly demanding that the U.S. Department of Education improve oversight of the federal Charter Schools Program. Please keep on keeping on.
By Jan Resseger
Source
Arizona special election 2018: ALS patient and activist Ady Barkan stumps for Democrat Hiral Tipirneni
Arizona special election 2018: ALS patient and activist Ady Barkan stumps for Democrat Hiral Tipirneni
Be a Hero is an offshoot of the Center for Popular Democracy’s CPD Action group (Barkan previously worked for the center) and will concentrate on boosting Democratic candidates focused on...
Be a Hero is an offshoot of the Center for Popular Democracy’s CPD Action group (Barkan previously worked for the center) and will concentrate on boosting Democratic candidates focused on protecting health care and entitlement programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and Obamacare, as well as ousting Republican incumbents who voted for the GOP tax plan or have voiced support for cutting entitlements.
Read the full article here.
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
11 hours ago
2 days ago