Practices of 13 Retailers Questioned by New York Lawyers
The Market Business - April 14, 2015, by Rachel M - The lawyer at New York has initiated inquiry against 13 retailers,...
The Market Business - April 14, 2015, by Rachel M - The lawyer at New York has initiated inquiry against 13 retailers, inquiring them if workers are asked to come on call for short notice shifts and spend less than 4 hours when employees are required to report to operate, stating the practice as illegal in NY.
On-call scheduling requires workers to call in just a few hours in advance or the night before to see if they need to come in to work. If not needed, the employee will receive no pay for the day.
“For many workers, that is too little time to make arrangements for family needs, let alone to find an alternative source of income to compensate for the lost pay,”
A New York state law requires that employees who are asked to come into work must be paid for at least four hours atminimum wage or the number of hours in the regularly scheduled shift, whichever is less, even if the employee is sent home.
California has a similar law that says employees must be paid for half of their usual time — two to four hours — if they are required to come in to work but are not needed or work less than their normal schedule.
The letter was also sent to J. Crew Group Inc.; L Brands, which owns Victoria’s Secret and Bath and Body Works; Burlington Stores Inc.; TJX Cos.; Urban Outfitters Inc.; Sears Holdings Corp.; Williams-Sonoma Inc.; Crocs Inc.; Ann Inc., which owns Ann Taylor; and J.C. Penney Co.
The letters ask the retailers for more information about how they schedule employees for work, including whether they use on-call shifts and computerized scheduling programs.
Rachel Deutsch, an attorney at the Center for Popular Democracy, a New York worker advocacy group, said on-call scheduling can make it difficult for workers to arrange child care or pick up a second job.
“These are folks that want to work,” she said. “They’re ready and willing to work, and some weeks they might get no pay at all even though they set aside 100% of their time to work.”
Danielle Lang, a Skadden fellow at Bet Tzedek Legal Services in Los Angeles, said the attorney general’s action could have repercussions in other states.
“The New York attorney general is a powerful force,” she said. “It’s certainly an issue that’s facing so many of our low-wage workers in California, and anything that puts a highlight on this practice and really pressures employers to think about these practices is a good thing.”
Sears, Target and Ann Inc. said in separate statements that they do not have on-call shifts for their workers. J.C. Penney said it has a policy against on-call scheduling.
TJX spokeswoman Doreen Thompson said in a statement that company management teams “work to develop schedules that serve the needs of both our associates and our company.”
Gap said in a statement that the company has been working on a project with the Center for WorkLife Law at UC Hastings College of the Law to examine workplace scheduling and productivity and will see the first set of data results in the fall.
“Gap Inc. is committed to establishing sustainable scheduling practices that will improve stability for our employees, while helping toeffectively manage our business,” spokeswoman Laura Wilkinson said.
Source
Fed Up with the Economy?
The Good Fight - October 15 2014, by Ben Wikler - Why haven't wages risen in 40 years? It's not just bad luck. The...
Source
A puzzle for central bankers: Solid growth but low inflation
Against a backdrop of strengthening growth but chronically low inflation, Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen and other...
Against a backdrop of strengthening growth but chronically low inflation, Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen and other central bankers are taking their measure of the global economy at their annual conference in the shadow of Wyoming's Grand Teton Mountains.
With the prospect of new leadership at the Fed within months, investors will be listening for any hint of shifting interest rate plans from the policymakers. The most watched events will come Friday, when Yellen and Mario Draghi, head of the European Central Bank, will each address the conference.
Read the full article here.
The New York Times Comes Out Against Fed Interest Rate Hike
Progressive activists opposed to a Federal Reserve interest...
Progressive activists opposed to a Federal Reserve interest rate hike gained an influential new ally on Labor Day: The New York Times editorial board.
In a Monday editorial, entitled “You Deserve a Raise Today. Interest Rates Don’t,” the Times argued that if the Federal Reserve raises interest rates in the near term, it could slow job creation at a time when there are still too few jobs to generate substantial wage growth.
“Wage stagnation is a clear sign that the economy is not at full employment, which means it needs loose monetary policy, not tightening,” the Times wrote.
The Times called the Fed a “crucial player” in efforts to undo the decades-long trend of worker wages not growing in sync with the broader economy. The paper noted that from 1973 to 2014, median worker pay rose 7.8 percent while overall productivity increased by 72 percent, a finding published Wednesday in a report from the liberal-leaning Economic Policy Institute.
An interest rate hike would exacerbate, rather than reverse, this trend by slowing wage growth, the Times editorial suggested. The paper also said that an interest rate hike would send “the wrong signal of economic health,” undermining efforts by advocacy groups to raise workers’ wages through measures like increasing the minimum wage.
It is unclear what impact the Times’ editorial will have on the Fed’s decision-making, but it is a high-profile boost for progressive activists and economists, who have long argued that a Fed interest rate hike should be tied to wage growth that is about twice as high as it is currently.
These activists, led by the Center for Popular Democracy's Fed Up campaign, note that even as the official unemployment rate declined to 5.1 percent in August -- its lowest level since April 2008 -- wages have grown 2.2 percent in the past 12 months, only marginally outpacing increases in living costs. Since wages rise when demand for workers is high enough that businesses must compete for labor, many economists attribute ongoing sluggish wage growth to the number of people who are underemployed or have given up looking for work -- figures masked by the low official jobless rate.
The Fed Up campaign sent a memo to newspaper editorial boards across the country on Sept. 1, asking them to oppose an interest rate hike in 2015. The memo, a copy of which was obtained by The Huffington Post, employs arguments that resemble those used by The New York Times. The memo warned that an interest rate hike in 2015 would "leave millions in considerable andunnecessary economic distress and would exacerbate troubling longer-term trends in wages and incomes for the vast majority of American workers and their families."
Fed Up campaign director Ady Barkan celebrated the editorial, but stopped short of claiming credit for it.
"The New York Times Editorial Board is right," Barkan said in a statement. "Workers do deserve a raise! The data is crystal clear – stagnant wages and the lack of inflation mean that the Fed shouldn’t raise rates anytime soon. The Fed Up campaign is of course glad that the Times and other leading voices are speaking up about this issue."
Fed officials have signaled for months that they plan to raise the current near-zero interest rates before the year’s end, but William Dudley, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, recently indicated that a September increase may be too soon in light of market fluctuations. The Federal Open Market Committee, the central bank body charged with adjusting key interest rates, will report on whether it plans to raise rates on September 17.
Supporters of an interest rate hike argue that it is necessary to head off excessive price inflation, which, along with maintaining full employment, is part of the Fed’s dual mandate.
Source: Huffington Post
Schumer retira oferta sobre muro fronterizo de negociaciones sobre “DACA”
Schumer retira oferta sobre muro fronterizo de negociaciones sobre “DACA”
“Se sienten muy traicionados porque los demócratas habían hecho una promesa muy específica… no hay ninguna garantía, y...
“Se sienten muy traicionados porque los demócratas habían hecho una promesa muy específica… no hay ninguna garantía, y sabemos que la estrategia de votar por el Dream Act como una ley separada ha fracasado año tras año, no es una promesa que se traduce a un alivio para los Soñadores”, explicó Ana María Archila, del grupo Centro para una Democracia Popular.
Lea el artículo completo aquí.
80 Arrested in DC Protesting GOP Health Care Bill
Capitol Police arrested 80 people protesting the Republican health care bill in Washington, DC, reports CNN. Over 100...
Capitol Police arrested 80 people protesting the Republican health care bill in Washington, DC, reports CNN. Over 100 protesters from across the United States gathered outside GOP lawmakers’ offices on July 10 to try to stop the Republican bill—dubbed the Better Care Reconciliation Act (BCRA)—that would repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act (ACA, or Obamacare).
Read the full article here.
Attorney general reaches agreement with companies to stop on-call scheduling
Attorney general reaches agreement with companies to stop on-call scheduling
Several major retailers across the state and in Western New York have agreed to end on-call shift scheduling. The...
Several major retailers across the state and in Western New York have agreed to end on-call shift scheduling.
The announcement came from Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, who has worked with attorneys from several states to secure the agreement. The six major retailers agreeing to stop the practice include Aeropostale, Carter’s, David’s Tea, Disney, PacSun and Zumiez.
On-call scheduling requires employees to call their employers an hour before their shift starts to find out if they will be assigned to work that day. If the workers are not scheduled, Schneiderman says they are not compensated for their time, despite being required to keep their schedule open.
“On-call shifts are not a business necessity and should be a thing of the past,” said Schneiderman in a press release. “People should not have to keep the day open, arrange for child care, and give up other opportunities without being compensated for their time.”
The agreement comes after the attorney general sent out a letter earlier this year, detailing the challenges employees face with the on-call scheduling system.
The letter read in part, “Without the security of a definite work schedule, workers who must be ‘on call’ have difficulty making reliable childcare and elder care arrangements, encounter obstacles in pursuing an education, and in general experience higher incidences of adverse health effects, overall stress, and strain on family life than workers who enjoy the stability of knowing their schedules reasonably in advance.”
The AG’s office also requested documents relating to the companies’ use of on-call shifts.
In addition to ending the use of on-call shifts, Carter’s, Disney, David’s Tea and Zumiez’s have agreed to provide their employees with their work schedule one week in advance.
The AG’s office says the companies were able to find alternative methods for staffing stores during an unexpected employee absence or during a slow time for businesses.
“This latest announcement shows the sweeping positive impact that Attorney General Schneiderman's actions have had on the lives of people working in retail,” said Carrie Gleason, director of the Fair Workweek Initiative at the Center for Popular Democracy. “Today, we are seeing retailers across America take steps to curb unnecessary and unfair on-call scheduling.”
In 2015, as a result of an inquiry by Schneiderman into on-call scheduling, stores including Abercrombie & Fitch, Gap, J.Crew, Urban Outfitters and Pier 1 Imports all agreed to end the practice of assigning on-call shifts.
Source
La lucha tras DAPA
Corte Suprema puso en peligro más de cinco millones de vidas el mes pasado al no emitir un fallo con respecto a un...
Corte Suprema puso en peligro más de cinco millones de vidas el mes pasado al no emitir un fallo con respecto a un programa que podría haber ayudado a muchos inmigrantes a salir de la clandestinidad. El programa, llamado Acción Diferida para Padres de Estadounidenses y Residentes Permanentes Legales (Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents o DAPA), evitaría que se deporte a inmigrantes indocumentados si sus hijos son residentes legales del país.
El presidente Obama anunció el Decreto Ejecutivo sobre DAPA en noviembre de 2014. La medida se produjo dos años después de un programa complementario, Consideración de Acción Diferida para los Llegados en la Infancia (Consideration of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals o DACA), que permitió que quienes llegaron a Estados Unidos de niños legalmente soliciten vivir y trabajar en el país. Juntas, estas dos medidas significaron un avance hacia la solución de los graves problemas del sistema de inmigración de nuestro país, que victimiza y castiga a millones de personas que trabajan, pagan impuestos y contribuyen al futuro de nuestro país todos los días.
Las fuerzas antiinmigrantes no tardaron mucho en combatirlas. Al cabo de horas, algunos estados comenzaron a tomar medidas legales contra el programa. En total, 26 estados presentaron demandas para bloquear la implementación de DAPA. La Corte del Quinto Distrito exigió un mandato judicial para prevenir que se implementara DAPA en todo el país. La apelación pasó a los ocho miembros de la Corte Suprema, que en un empate de 4-4 dejaron vigente el fallo de la corte de menor instancia.
El gobierno del presidente Obama le ha pedido a la Corte Suprema que vuelva a oír el caso cuando cuente con nueve jueces. Esta medida del gobierno tiene sentido y la alentamos. Sin embargo, en pocas ocasiones la Corte cumple con dichas solicitudes, y si lo hace, lo más probable es que tome por lo menos un año que se llene el escaño y que se vuelva a oír el caso.
Ya que el programa federal está en limbo indefinido, defensores de la inmigración han hecho propuestas innovadoras para sortear el fallo en su contra. Peter Markowitz, profesor de la Facultad Benjamin Cardozo de Derecho, escribió una columna en el New York Times que propone que el presidente Obama use la facultad de indulto a su partida para otorgar amnistía a millones de inmigrantes afectados por el fallo.
Markowitz argumenta que tal medida también ayudaría a realzar el legado del presidente Obama. A pesar de los decretos ejecutivos, este ha deportado a 2.5 millones de inmigrantes, más que ningún otro presidente.
El Center for Popular Democracy ha apoyado el llamado a Obama para que imponga una moratoria en deportaciones, lo que promueven Not1More y muchos otros. Con el llamado de #noDAPA y #noDeportations, los activistas plantean que Obama debe comenzar a desmantelar las estructuras que produjeron un récord de deportaciones, a fin de mejorar su legado y crear un sistema más humano para el próximo presidente.
También es importante aprovechar campañas locales que han logrado ayudar a los inmigrantes. Incluso mientras nos lamentamos, grupos como Center for Popular Democracy y Make the Road New York están tomando medidas para asegurar que los inmigrantes se sientan seguros y apoyados. Continuamos diseminando información sobre el carnet de identidad municipal de Nueva York y, en el caso de quienes enfrentan la deportación, hay un programa de la ciudad que ofrece acceso a asesoría legal gratuita. CPD ayudó a facilitar ambos proyectos y también seguimos oponiéndonos a los centros de detención en
Nueva York y otros estados que mantienen encarcelados a inmigrantes injustamente durante varios meses, sin que se cumpla el proceso debido.
El fallo también reforzará los esfuerzos que ya están en marcha para que familias inmigrantes se inscriban para votar, la única manera de elegir a candidatos que reconocen el valor de la inmigración en este país. Ya ha aumentado el número de inscripciones electorales este año en comunidades latinas, debido a la retórica extraordinariamente xenofóbica de Donald Trump, el candidato republicano a la presidencia. Diversos grupos están ayudando a acelerar esta campaña en todo el país y a dar voz y voto a quienes se verían más afectados si un candidato antiinmigrante llegara a la Casa Blanca.
El fallo de la Corte Suprema es un paso hacia atrás, pero no es el fin del camino. Al trabajar juntos, nos aseguraremos de que se trate con dignidad y justicia a las familias inmigrantes que hacen que nuestro país sea un lugar mejor, y nos aseguraremos de que sus hijos reciban el legado de un futuro mejor.
By Adam Gold
Source
Local Puerto Ricans To Observe Hurricane Devastation, Make Call To Action
Local Puerto Ricans To Observe Hurricane Devastation, Make Call To Action
Vigils will be held Thursday in Hartford and Bridgeport to mark one year since Hurricane Maria made landfall in Puerto...
Vigils will be held Thursday in Hartford and Bridgeport to mark one year since Hurricane Maria made landfall in Puerto Rico.
Read the full article here.
How Trump's Criminal Justice Plan Is Really More For-Profit Incarceration
How Trump's Criminal Justice Plan Is Really More For-Profit Incarceration
The DOJ and the Trump administration seem to be working to expand private prison profits at the expense of communities...
The DOJ and the Trump administration seem to be working to expand private prison profits at the expense of communities of color...
Read the full article here.
2 days ago
2 days ago