Campaign News

Un nuevo informe analiza el concepto de 'desinversión de la policía'. La controversial idea es fomentada por activistas latinos y afroestadounidenses, buscando menos discriminación y más apoyo a las minorías.

Lea el artículo completo aquí.

A former employee of Forever 21 hit the company with a lawsuit in California state court over its exploitative scheduling practices, just a week after a class action was filed against BCBG Max Azria alleging the same practices.

Raalon Kennedy, who previously worked at Forever 21 as sales clerk, claims the company requires employees to be on call for shifts but doesn’t compensate them with required pay for being made to report to work yet being sent home, as per California law. “In reality, these on-call shifts are no different than regular shifts, and Forever 21 has misclassified them in order to avoid paying reporting time in accordance with applicable law,” he said.

Robynette Robinson’s suit against BCBG seeks class action status on behalf of workers who she alleges were similarly required to report for on-call shifts but not asked to work, yet were not given reporting time pay. “This class action on behalf of BCBG Max Azria Group LLC retail store employees challenge[s] a new form of wage theft — the practice of scheduling employees in retail stores for ‘on-call’ shifts but failing to pay the employees required reporting-time pay,” she said.

Forever 21 and BCBG could not be immediately reached for comment.

Bridgford Gleason & Artinian, the law firm representing both Kennedy and Robinson, told Law 360 that it has also filed similar lawsuits against other retailers that include The Gap and its subsidiaries, PacSun, and Tilly’s, and plans to file four or five more.

California law stipulates that employees be compensated with “reporting time pay” for being required to report to work but only being asked to work less than half of the actual shift. That pay is supposed to come to an employee’s regular rate of pay for half of a day’s work.

Other states have these requirements as well: Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, and Washington, DC all have similar laws on the books. New York’s law is being put to the test by Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, who sent letters to 13 large retailers in April looking into whether their scheduling practices run afoul of the law. Since then, four of them have pledged to end on-call scheduling.

Chaotic scheduling is rampant throughout the retail industry, however, and goes beyond being made to be available for a shift without knowing whether there will actually be work. One survey in the service sector found that a third of employees rarely get consistent work schedules, while more than half only find out their schedules a week or less in advance. A different study found that within retail, more than a quarter of workers have irregular schedules that include on-call shifts, two shifts in the same day, or rotating shifts. Forty percent of retail workers in New York City say they have no set hours from week to week, while a quarter have been required to be on call.

These schedules can make it impossible to get by. Without a set minimum of weekly hours, workers may never know week to week whether they’ll earn enough to pay their bills. Without knowing for sure when they’ll be asked to come in, child care or transportation arrangements can fall through. And it makes it extremely difficult to hold down a second or third job to help make ends meet.

Source: ThinkProgress

Nearly 60 people were killed and more than 500 injured in the worst mass shooting in modern US history on Sunday night, early Monday morning in Las Vegas at a concert. As details are still emerging about the suspected shooter, we’ll take on the issue of gun control and the myths of the gun industry with Dennis Henigan. Then, we’ll turn to the situation in Puerto Rico. Samy Olivares of the Center for Popular Democracy will give us a report on the on-going slow-motion disaster unfolding in the aftermath of Hurricane Maria and how mainland Americans can help. Finally, author George Monbiot joins us from London to discuss his new book Out of the Wreckage: A New Politics for an Age of Crisis. Hosted by Sonali Kolhatkar.

Listen to the story here.

It is always amusing to be the subject of a John McClaughry jeremiad. While I don’t mind being labeled as the “foremost defender” of public education, he insists on giving me full personal credit for what is a state school board position.

In the instant case, John appears to be affronted by the suggestion that private (independent) schools that take public money must actually be held accountable for that money. This principle is at the core of the state board’s review of the independent school rules. Now this seems like a straightforward and fundamentally democratic concept that is generally accepted, but it has been a long-standing problem for some.

The law (16 VSA 166) provides a list of reporting requirements for independent schools if they want to chow down at the public trough. Unfortunately, as far back as the 1914 Carnegie Commission, we find evidence of the refusal of some independent schools to provide private school data even though it was the law of the land. (At that time, the Cubs were still basking in the glory of their World Series victory.)

The second paramount principle is that we have to educate all the children — regardless of needs and handicaps. That’s a necessity in a democracy. Denying a child admission on the basis of a handicap is, in most cases, illegal. Furthermore, it’s wrong. Public schools serve every child. The false fear John peddles is that the private school can’t afford to serve these children. That’s incorrect. It’s really quite simple. While great eruptions of umbrage are displayed, this problem has been solved for years. The private school contracts with (or hires) a specialist who bills the costs back to the public school. Approval in a given area requires that one sheet of paper be filed with the state. As simple as the solution actually is, some independent schools refuse to adopt an equal opportunity policy.

Instead, John proposes that Vermont “clone” Florida’s McKay Scholarship program where parents can choose the school for their handicapped child. That hasn’t worked out too well. If you think a “business management class” that sends students onto the street to panhandle is an acceptable education, then the McKay program may be just your thing. The Florida Department of Education has uncovered “substantial fraud,” including schools that don’t exist, non-existent students, and classes held in condemned buildings and public parks. And the state of Florida does not have the staff to adequately monitor the program. This is a recipe for abuse. Last May, the Center for Popular Democracy estimated that $216 million in charter school money went out the back door.

Finally, John raises the cost question and says private school scholarships would be “less expensive.” Yet he also criticizes the cost of the state’s excess public school capacity. Now let’s look at Vermont’s private independent school numbers. In 1998, there were 68 independent schools, and by 2016, the number had exploded to 93. In the decade 2004-14, independent school enrollments went down from 4,361 to 3,392. A 37 percent increase in schools with a 29 percent drop in students suggests somebody needs to revisit their business plan.

Taking it all together, (1) all who profit from the public treasury must be accountable for that money, (2) children have the right to be admitted to private schools, free of discrimination, on an equal opportunity basis, (3) private schools are a part of our system, (4) the public purse must be protected from fraud and abuse, and (5) directly or indirectly building and operating a parallel school system would be inordinately expensive and wasteful. Do these principles sound reasonable?

William J. Mathis is managing director of the National Education Policy Center and a member of the Vermont state Board of Education. The views expressed here are his own and do not represent the views of any group with which he is associated.

Source