FAIR USE NOTICE

FAIR USE NOTICE

A BEAR MARKET ECONOMICS BLOG


This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in an effort to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. we believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law.

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

FAIR USE NOTICE FAIR USE NOTICE: This page may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. This website distributes this material without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for scientific, research and educational purposes. We believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 U.S.C § 107.

Read more at: http://www.etupdates.com/fair-use-notice/#.UpzWQRL3l5M | ET. Updates
FAIR USE NOTICE FAIR USE NOTICE: This page may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. This website distributes this material without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for scientific, research and educational purposes. We believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 U.S.C § 107.

Read more at: http://www.etupdates.com/fair-use-notice/#.UpzWQRL3l5M | ET. Updates

All Blogs licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 3.0

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.

Monday, May 18, 2015

The meaning of social justice unionism





The meaning of social justice unionism

What labor activists today call social justice unionism is a renewal of a long tradition of solidarity in the U.S. labor movement, writes New York City educator Megan Behrent.


Chicago teachers march with supporters during their strike to defend quality public schools 

Chicago teachers march with supporters during their strike to defend quality public schools

 
UNIONS TODAY are in an existential struggle for survival, from the draconian anti-labor policies of Gov. Scott Walker in Wisconsin and the spread of right-to-work laws to half of all U.S. states, to the raiding of pension funds and the imposition of concessionary contracts in the era of austerity.

These are not just assaults on organized labor, but part of a broader attack on working class living standards. While some sectors of the economy have recovered the crisis hit its low point in 2008-09, much of that recovery has been on the backs of working people. Unemployment remains high--specifically in Black and Brown communities--while wages have remained low, unlike heath care payments, tuition rates, and local rents.

Meanwhile, unions are weaker than ever. Their strategies of backroom deals and political negotiations--the failed model of "business unionism," which still dominates the labor movement today--have left rank-and-file members demobilized and union leaders without much leverage.

Faced with this dire situation, many labor activists argue that unions need to adopt a new strategy of "social justice unionism"--an approach that begins with the premise that an attack on organizations of the working class requires a wider working class response.

From this standpoint, building a strong union movement requires broadening the fight beyond the specific demands of one union to class-wide or "social justice" demands-- which include traditional "bread and butter" issues, but are not limited to them.

"Given the horrific attacks on unions and teachers, business unionism is suicidal," argues education and labor theorist Lois Weiner in The Future of Our Schools. "Fighting for the social good," she goes on to write, "which is what a social movement union does, is actually the more practical option."

This tradition of unionism based on struggle, class solidarity and movements for social justice has a long and successful history in this country--from the IWW to the sit-down strikes of the 1930s.

In its latest incarnation, social justice unionism has attracted a generation of radicals from the global justice protests and Occupy Wall Street--as well as movements for environmental, educational and racial justice--who became political through different social movements and turned to unionism in search of a force with the power to win.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

PUBLIC-SECTOR workers--particularly unionized public school teachers--are central to these struggles, both because they represent one of the last bastions of unionized workers and because their struggles for fair wages and working conditions are intimately bound up to the fight to defend public services and the living conditions of the working class as a whole. As a result, while this article will argue for the importance of social justice unionism generally, it will focus primarily on how it has emerged within teacher unions.

Social justice unionism is a necessity because the only way that teachers unions can survive and make real gains for teachers and students is by allying with the communities they serve.

Many contractual issues are, in fact, social justice issues because the conditions of teachers' workplaces impact the learning environment of students. At the same time, if teachers want parents and communities to fight for the contract that teachers deserve, they must broaden the scope of traditional trade unionism and be ready to stand with them on issues that most impact parents' and students' communities.

Bob Peterson was elected president of the Milwaukee Teachers' Education Association following the 2011 Wisconsin labor uprising that battled heroically--but unsuccessfully--against the imposition of the draconian anti-public sector Act 10, which significantly eroded collective bargaining rights and requires annual recertification of unions by 51 percent of all eligible employees.
In a recent article in Rethinking Schools, Peterson argues that we need a revitalized movement based on social justice unionism--one that:
builds on the strengths of traditional "bread and butter" unionism. But it recognizes that our future depends on redefining unionism from a narrow trade union model, focused almost exclusively on protecting union members, to a broader vision that sees the future of unionized workers tied directly to the interests of the entire working class and the communities, particularly communities of color, in which we live and work.
This is a sea change for teacher unions (and other unions, too). But it's not an easy one to make. It requires confronting racist attitudes and past practices that have marginalized people of color both inside and outside unions. It also means overcoming old habits and stagnant organizational structures that weigh down efforts to expand internal democracy and member engagement.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

WHILE PETERSON'S vision of social justice unionism might indeed be a sea change from the business unionism that has dominated for the past few decades, it has a long tradition in the U.S.--particularly in the history of teachers unions.
The early teachers union movement had strong links to the women's suffrage movement, simply because with a female-dominated workforce, there was no way to talk about teacher rights without talking about women's rights.

Tenure, for example, was understood by early teacher unionists to be a women's rights issue. Without tenure and unions, women were routinely fired for being married or becoming pregnant. Lest the unmarried and childless women think they might be spared, one could also get fired for wearing pants or being out too late in the evening.

(This was not just a 19th century occurrence. My grandmother, a home economics teacher in Texas, lost her job when she got married. This was not extraordinary, but routine.)

Furthermore, as early unionists argued, the pay inequity between men and women was immense. "In 1850, four-fifths of New York's 11,000 teachers were women," historian Dana Goldstein notes, "yet two-thirds of the state's $800,000 in teacher salaries was paid to men."

This discrepancy was the subject of one of Susan B. Anthony's first speeches--made at the 1853 annual meeting of the New York State Teachers' Association--after which she became a full-time activist for women's rights.
Likewise, Margaret Haley, an early teacher unionist in Chicago known as the "lady labor slugger," saw the fight for suffrage as crucial to the ability of female teachers to fight for their rights. Haley also provided one of the earliest and clearest articulations of social justice unionism, arguing for the importance of contractual provisions to protect both teachers and students rights.

In her book Blackboard Unions, Marjorie Murphy quotes Haley's argument that the freeing of the child or the student:
can only be secured by the freeing of the teacher...to the teacher it means freedom from care and worry for the material needs of the present and the future--in other words, adequate salary and old-age pensions, freedom to teach the child as an individual and not to deal with children en masse. In other words, fewer children for each teacher. Last but not least, the teacher must have recognition in the educational system as an educator. The tendency is to relegate her to the position of a factory hand, or a taker of orders from above.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

HALEY'S WORDS continue to resonate today for a new generation of radical unionists--particularly in schools, hospitals and other public-sector workplaces where neoliberal restructuring has increasingly made it clear that attacks on working condition are attacks on the living conditions of the working class as whole.

This ultimately is the central argument of social justice unionism: To be successful, union struggles must move beyond the narrow constraints of individual workplaces to make links with social movements and fight for our interests as a class.

Social movement unionism," argues Weiner, "requires stretching the union's definition of 'what counts' for members...We shouldn't counterpose union work to other political activity. Instead, we need to find ways for members to bring their activism into the union, encouraging them to use the union as a vehicle for social justice work."

Weiner's point here is important in light of frequent debates about the relationship between school-based or workplace issues and "social justice" issues. In fact, the two are inextricably intertwined: to win changes at the school or shop level in the era of neoliberal austerity requires alliances and solidarity that extend beyond the individual school or workplace.

At the same time, we need to recognize the fact that, ultimately, the greatest power we have to win social justice is through our collective power as workers--in short, our ability to withhold our labor and shut down the system.
That is why Weiner also argues that "a social movement union not only endorses social justice outside of the school, it also exists as a social movement itself."
Weiner prefers the term "social movement unionism" because it emphasizes the fact that this type of unionism is not limited to social justice demands, but instead understands that internal union democracy--the organization of the union as a social movement--is likewise crucial.

Unions that advocate for social justice positions in the abstract while, in practice, suppressing dissent and adopting the organizing model of top-down service unionism are not the solution. Democracy is essential--not only because it is a principle to be defended, but also because without it, genuine rank-and-file movements are impossible.

A union that fails to foster genuine rank-and-file leadership on the shop floor will inevitably fail to mobilize the kind of rank-and-file militancy and organization that is crucial to winning demands and fighting for social justice.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

SOCIALISTS WHO see the self-organized struggle of the working class as the only means by which genuine liberation and democracy can be achieved have often used the term "class struggle unionism" to highlight the means by which demands for social justice can be achieved. From this standpoint, no amount of lobbying, advertising or moralizing will ever achieve social justice--it is only through rank-and-file-led class struggle that such goals can be achieved.

Activists around the country have looked to the Chicago Teachers Union (CTU) for inspiration as the union that has come closest to this model of social justice unionism in recent history--despite many ongoing debates in the CTU.

At the time of the 2012 strike, there was a clear sense that the union was fighting for more than just legally negotiable contractual provisions, but instead, for the "schools Chicago's children deserve." At the height of the strike, when people had the greatest sense of their own power, they insisted on the need to fight not only for raises, but also for air conditioners and against what CTU President Karen Lewis called a system of "education apartheid."

The CTU leadership came from the Caucus of Rank and File Educators (CORE), which from its inception built alliances with parents and community leaders in the fight to stop school closings. Karen Lewis summarized the success of CORE in a Jacobin article:
Only one [caucus] talked about the need to include our natural allies in the struggle against educational apartheid and the takeover of Chicago's public schools by the city's ruling class; only one had been organizing alongside those allies for years; and only one had begun laying the groundwork for the strike that would come in September 2012.
That caucus was CORE.
This practice of social justice unionism was the reason why the 2012 CTU strike received such immense support among parents and other members of the community--particularly among African-Americans and Latinos.

The flip side of this lesson is the devastating impact of a failure to understand the necessity of taking up social justice issues and the struggle against racism, sexism and oppression.

Nowhere is this clearer than in the 1968 teachers strike in New York City, which saw the United Federation of Teachers (UFT) pitted against advocates of community control in the African American community of Ocean Hill-Brownsville, a debacle that led to a decades-long term rift between the UFT and the communities in which its members worked.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

THE U.S. labor movement must take up the question of racism. It is no coincidence that the South, the region with the greatest legacy of our country's racist history, also has the lowest unionization rates.

This has been all the more important since the emergence of the Black Lives Matter movement in the wake of the resistance in Ferguson--and, more recently, Baltimore, which has posed new questions in the labor movement about the relationship between social justice issues and unionism.

Demanding justice for Mike Brown, for example, is also a class issue and a union issue. Mike Brown was a public high school graduate--from a school so underfunded that the entire graduating class had to share two graduation robes. His mother Lesley McSpadden is a member of the United Food and Commercial Workers union.

The fight against racism is not external to the trade union movement, but is very much at its center. When tragedy strikes one of us, it is felt by all of us," declared UFCW President Joe Hansen. "We stand in solidarity with our sister Lesley McSpadden and join her calls for a fair investigation and justice under the law." A revitalized labor movement should echo Hansen's words and push for them to be translated into action.

The same principles hold true in New York City: In the most segregated school system in the country, racism is a school-based issue. This was made all the more apparent when a small group of teachers wore NYPD T-shirts to show their solidarity with the police, rather than Eric Garner, after his murder at the hands of the NYPD.

While some teacher union members used the argument of "due process" for the police officer who killed Garner to justify their pro-NYPD stance, it's important to be clear that the only people who were denied due process were Eric Garner, a public school parent and an unarmed man, and his wife and children, all of them former and current public school students.

It is worth noting that of 179 fatalities involving the NYPD in 15 years, there have been only three indictments. To invoke due process or union solidarity with the police in this context is to leave the police to remain above the law--while inevitably alienating the Black and Brown communities our schools serve. It is to oppose the movement's slogan that "Black lives matter."

It's also worth noting that "union solidarity" rarely goes both ways when it comes to the NYPD. Indeed, in the event of a teachers' strike, it is the police who will be called in as strikebreakers to enforce the anti-labor Taylor laws that make it illegal for public-sector unions to strike in New York.

No matter what the individual political opinions of officers or their connections to members of other unions, as a force, the police serve the 1 Percent to maintain a system that is racist to the core and inherently at odds with the interest of the working class.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

REAL LABOR solidarity means standing with working people--union and nonunion--who are fighting for social justice. Such solidarity is not simply a question of political calculation, but a recognition of our shared interest in opposing exploitation and oppression.

In this regard, International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU) Local 10 in Oakland led the way on May Day by shutting down the Port of Oakland in solidarity with the Black Lives Matter movement.

As educators in North Carolina's Organize 2020 explained in a statement endorsing #BlackLivesMatter:
We believe deeply that the lives of all people matter. As teachers, our lives are constructed around this fact. Shouting loudly that Black Lives Matter does not negate our commitment to ALL of our students. In fact, we believe that challenging all of our students and colleagues to recognize the innate value of Black lives will help them grow, and that the quality of life for all who live in our communities will improve when we value the lives of everyone. Since so many of our Black students struggle to trust that our society values them, we must go out of our way to affirm that their lives, specifically, matter...
Historically, when Black people have fought for a more democratic society, the lives of all people have improved. Each time a barrier to Black people's potential has been erected, our whole society has suffered. Organize 2020 stands with those who proclaim that Black Lives Matter, and we commit our work in the classroom and the community to making this slogan a reality.
Putting the fight for racial justice at the center of the fight for educational equity is particularly important when those who seek to destroy public education drape their attacks in the mantle of civil rights. To expose their hypocrisy, it is essential to take up issues of racial justice.

As Weiner writes:

[The] failure [of teachers unions] to see beyond "bread and butter"--in particular, their unwillingness to put race and racism on the table as legitimate concerns of parents and students--has made them vulnerable to neoliberalism's audacious and effective usurpation of the rhetoric of equal educational opportunity historically associated with progressive movements.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

FOR ANYONE committed to the fight for public education or to reforming our unions so that they can be genuine defenders of workers' rights, the fight against racism and all forms of oppression is central. This is an essential principle of social-justice, social-movement and class-struggle unionism. It is at the heart of the old labor slogan that "An injury to one is an injury to all."

When the labor movement has been at its strongest, it has learned these lessons, showing in practice what genuine solidarity looks like: from the IWW textile workers strike in Lawrence, Massachusetts, that involved workers from 25 different nationalities, speaking 45 different languages, to the massive strikes of the 1930s that were able to organize so-called unskilled factory workers and win the support of the unemployed.

Most recently, it was evidenced in the CTU strike of 2012, which has led to a growing network of teacher unionists committed to social justice unionism as a means of reforming their own unions and fighting for educational equity.
If the labor movement hopes to emerge from its current death spiral, it must build on this history, learn its lessons and rebuild the kind of solidarity and alliances that are essential to its survival. Anything else is suicidal.

To achieve this aim, unions need to be rebuilt from the bottom up--or built anew--in every workplace, in every school, on every shop floor. But they must also reach beyond the confines of individual workplaces to unite with social movements in the fight for social justice for all working people. This struggle has never been more urgent.

Sunday, March 23, 2014

One by One, States Are Pushing Bans on Sick Leave Legislation


Economic Policy Institute



One by One, States Are Pushing Bans on Sick Leave Legislation


Nearly 40 million Americans—almost 40 percent of the private-sector workforce—lack the right to even a single day of paid sick leave. These employees commonly go to work sick, or leave sick children home alone, out of fear of dismissal. Even when they are not terminated, the loss of pay takes a dramatic toll—particularly since jobs without sick pay are concentrated among low-wage workers. A typical family of four with two working parents who has no paid sick leave will have wiped out its entire health care budget for the year after just three days of missed work.

As shown in the figure, ten states have adopted laws that ban any city or county within the state from establishing a right to sick leave. In Wisconsin, legislators repealed the city of Milwaukee’s mandatory paid sick leave law, which had been established by a referendum supported by 69 percent of voters in 2008. In each of the ten states, the bills’ sponsors included members of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). And in each case, the bills were adopted following vigorous advocacy by corporate lobbies such as the Chamber of Commerce, National Federation of Independent Business, and Restaurant Association.

These bans fly in the face of public opinion. 75 percent of Americans—including 59 percent of Republicans—think there should be a law guaranteeing all workers a minimum number of paid sick days. Yet, the nation’s most powerful corporate lobbies remain adamantly opposed, and have been pushing bans on paid sick leave legislation in one state after another. Read EPI’s new report The Legislative Attack on American Wages and Labor Standards, 2011–2012 to learn more about the unprecedented series of corporate-backed legislative initiatives aimed at lowering labor standards, weakening unions, and eroding workplace protections.

— With research assistance from Alyssa Davis 

See more work by Gordon Lafer

For Labor To Succeed, It Has To Be Disruptive

TPM




TPM Cafe: Opinion

For Labor To Succeed, It Has To Be Disruptive

Kowu1ea7xe9yamyw4mp6
 
AP Photo / Kris Tripplaar 
 
 
According to Soltas, the primary function of unions is to promote the narrow interests of their dues-paying members and "provide a voice for workers that management can hear." As a side benefit, unions also sometimes improve workplace productivity and reduce turnover, so everybody wins. It would be a shame if workers lost their voice and productivity took a hit, says Soltas, but there are technocratic fixes to those problems (such as better monetary policy) which can achieve a positive result for all without recourse to fundamentally selfish labor cartels.

Needless to say -- because so many others have already said it in the intervening weeks -- this line of thinking relies on a historically suspect understanding of how unions operate. The movement is not a monolith, and some unions will always pursue their own self-interest at the expense of all else, but even a cursory glimpse at American history should belies the idea that myopic acquisitiveness is somehow an intrinsic feature of organized labor. In fact, as Rosenfeld notes, so-called "cartels" of self-interested workers have always played an irreplaceable role in the struggle to lift standards for the entire working class.

That's why there's no top-down, technocratic fix to the hegemony of the boss: The technocratic class is unlikely to do anything of note for the working poor's living standards unless they're forced to. The power of organized labor rests not just in its ability to bargain with individual managers, but in its capacity for disruption on a massive scale. This country's economy has become more egalitarian and more progressive when the working class has used that power to extract concessions from the elite.

A classic example of massive disruption put to good use would be the General Motors Sit-Down Strike of the mid-to-late 1930s. By attacking the most powerful car manufacturer in the United States, the United Automobile Workers (UAW) sought to transform the whole industry. Their victory was a pivotal moment in the fight to better living standards throughout American manufacturing, and therefore the working class as a whole, but it didn't come easy: In order to get there, strikers had to occupy a GM plant and hold it against violent attacks from the local police department. When GM finally agreed to bargain with UAW, it was a victory for raw labor power first and foremost.

Not all confrontations between the rich and poor need be that dramatic, but the fact remains that power respects only power. The only way to improve the fortunes of the working class is to demonstrate that it has sufficient capacity to undermine any economic status quo in which it doesn't get a fair share.
Note that this doesn't mean organized labor exists to provide a "countervailing force" to capital, which is how Mother Jones' Kevin Drum characterized its mission in his response to Evan Soltas. There can be no enduring balance or harmony between workers and the boss; history never makes accommodations for that sort of lasting stability, and the only reason we pine for it now is because the post-World War II status quo briefly made the dream of a balance between class interests seem at least semi-plausible. We don't have the luxury of such illusions now. So long as there is class, there will be class struggle.

The question, then, is what shape that struggle will assume in the future. Soltas and Drum may very well be right in at least one regard: The modern American union is a historically idiosyncratic phenomenon, shaped by legal institutions which emerged only in the mid-20th century. That form of organized labor was never going to last forever, but that doesn't mean labor will stop organizing once it's gone. Unions were around long before the passage of the National Labor Relations Act, and they'll be around long after the post-NLRA labor system has crumbled. What they'll look like then is anyone's guess.

Ned Resnikoff is a reporter at msnbc.com, covering issues of class, labor, inequality and climate change.

Want To Win The War On Poverty? Rebuild The Labor Movement

TPM



TPM Cafe: Opinion

Want To Win The War On Poverty? Rebuild The Labor Movement

Zrafqktgincehvsuad4b
 
AP Photo / Frank Franklin II 
 
 
Amid all the discussions are familiar calls to raise the minimum wage, buttress the food stamp program, and expand health insurance to the nation's needy. Yet absent from the conversation is a proven and powerful way to reduce poverty: strengthening the labor movement. Historically, unions have played a vital role in supporting the most vulnerable, despite the fact that very few union members were then, or are now, themselves poor. Cross-nationally, countries with powerful labor movements have lower poverty rates. And, in the U.S., recent research by the sociologists David Brady, Regina Baker, and Ryan Finnigan finds that states with strong unions tend to do a better job reducing the number of Americans living “on the outskirts of hope,” as President Johnson memorably characterized the issue.

How have unions reduced poverty? Both directly and indirectly. Directly, by helping to double the wage levels in industries as varied as textiles in New England, California canneries, and department stores in the nation’s largest cities, as the historian Nelson Lichtenstein has found. Prior to their organization, wages for bottom-rung occupations in these industries were extremely low. Likewise, maritime work was once brutal, disorganized, and temporary – until unions successfully signed up thousands of port employees along much of America’s coastline.

But unions are not simply economic organizations. They are political ones too, and through their political efforts unions have consistently championed poverty-fighting policies, indirectly helping low-wage Americans. Take food stamps, a program whose funding was recently cut by Congress. Current controversies surrounding food stamps are nothing new. During the course of its existence, many lawmakers have lambasted the program as overly generous and in need of reform. Key segments of the labor movement have intervened against these efforts, repeatedly, during decades of attacks from budget-cutting politicians. During the mid-1970s, for example, organized labor took to the courts to fight for the program’s solvency: Over 50 labor unions joined various other organizations and sued the federal government over proposed cuts to food stamps. Half a decade later, unions would threaten court action again.

READ: MSBNC's Ned Resnikoff responds with "For Labor To Succeed, It Has To Be Disruptive"

Or take the minimum wage. As I explore in my book, unions have been pressuring elected officials for over half a century first to establish and then to raise the minimum wage, although not all their battles proved successful. Legendary labor leader George Meany once castigated President Jimmy Carter for failing to accede to union demands to increase the minimum wage to $3.00/hour. Meany claimed to the New York Times in 1977 that Carter’s intransigence was “a bitter disappointment to everyone who looked to this Administration for economic justice for the poor.” More recently, the campaigns to increase wage floors in states and localities across the country have been heavily underwritten by labor unions.

Finally take New York City's new mayor, Bill de Blasio, who in his inaugural address promised to “take dead aim at the Tale of Two Cities,” by combating inequality and lifting up those at the bottom of society. If not for the Working Families Party (WFP), a party funded and co-founded by some of New York’s still-powerful unions, de Blasio’s political ambition may have been stillborn. His 2009 campaign for public advocate was managed by the WFP, and the party considers him a longstanding ally. As documented by Harold Meyerson in the American Prospect, whatever successes the mayor may have in narrowing the yawning income and wealth gaps in the city will also be due to the WFP: The new mayor has the party to thank for the 20 allies that comprise the “Progressive Caucus” on the city council.

While organized labor remains strong in New York, it has been devastated elsewhere. Nationally, private sector organization rates have plummeted from approximately 35 percent to 5 percent. Public sector unions are fighting rearguard battles even in such traditional labor strongholds as Wisconsin and Illinois.

We recently celebrated the 50th anniversary of the War on Poverty. One clear lesson of the last half century is that if you take away unions you lose the financial and organizational resources behind various efforts to support the poor. Quite possibly, you lose New York’s new mayor. Over the next 50 years, winning the new War on Poverty will require a mix of creative policy initiatives, many of them now being touted by politicians across the ideological spectrum. But it will also require something almost nobody is discussing: a revitalized labor movement.

Adapted from What Unions No Longer Do by Jake Rosenfeld. Copyright © 2014 by the President and Fellows of Harvard College. Reprinted by permission of Harvard University Press. All Rights Reserved.


Jake Rosenfeld is an Associate Professor of Sociology at the University of Washington, co-director of the Scholars Strategy Network Northwest (SSN-NW), and a faculty affiliate of the Center for Studies in Demography and Ecology (CSDE), the West Coast Poverty Center (WCPC) and the Harry Bridges Center for Labor Studies. He received his PhD in Sociology from Princeton University in 2007. For more information, please see www.jakerosenfeld.net.

Monday, February 17, 2014

Advocates for Workers Raise the Ire of Business


Business Day

Advocates for Workers Raise the Ire of Business

Tuesday, September 10, 2013

Confronting the Myth that Low Wages Are Necessary for Profits in the Fast Food Business


  Labor  


Why In N Out Burger is far more attractive than McDonalds. 

Editors note:This is the third in a series of reader-supported—i.e. crowdfunded —articles about the powerful National Restaurant Association and the plight of low-wage workers who are being screwed at every turn by industry lobbying tactics and misleading propaganda. An amazing 387 AlterNet readers contributed more than $5,500 to support this ongoing investigative project. Many of the donors are listed at the end of the article. Read part 1&2 of the series here and here.



The more you look at what it means to work in America’s restaurants—especially at the corporate-run chains—the less you will want to eat out.
The ongoing protests by fast-food workers for higher wages and paid sick days underscore the most visible problems. There’s also wage theft. There’s gender and racial harassment. There’s discrimination in pay and promotions. There’s slick public relations efforts that paper over this exploitation, with corporate lobbyists repeatedly telling politicians that they can’t pay wokers more—while other executives tell Wall St. analysts about using their profits for stock-buybacks, expansion plans and shareholder dividends.

The nationwide fast food worker walkouts are highlighting and rejecting a predatory low-wage, low-benefit business model that’s all too common in service sector jobs. Ironically, some of the nation’s top business school professors say the restaurant industry’s scorched employee policies aren’t even the best way to build companies.

“If paying more is considered part of a bigger strategy, then yes, I think companies can afford to pay more,” said Zeynep Ton, a MIT Sloan School of Management professor and author of the forthcoming The Good Jobs Strategy: How the Smartest Companies Invest in Employees to Lower Costs and Boost Profits. “The only way to pay more (as well as invest in training, offer more stable schedules, etc.) without hurting business is if employees are more productive and more part of the company’s success.” 

But Ton’s prescriptions of investing in workers and empowering them are all-but absent in the restaurant industry, especially at the corporate chains. Instead, millions of the U.S. industry’s 12.2 million employees are all-too-often treated like robots and abused like serfs. And Ton and labor activists say that will not change until the public demands it.

“When we care, companies might start caring as well,” she said.

What follows are profiles of three trend-setting chains illustrating the issues that separate terrible employers from somewhat better ones. The fast food strikers want raises to $15 a hour and paid sick leave, as most are adults with families and not teenagers in first jobs. But they face other issues, too, such as gender and racial discrimination and harassment, segregated workplaces, and few opportunities for advancement.

Racing To The Bottom: McDonald’s.


McDonald’s is across-the-board terrible. They require employees to work at Christmas and Thanksgiving, but don’t pay overtime. They pay as close to minimum wage as possible. Their marketing to kids is predatory and creepy. Some salads have more calories than burgers. They use “pink slime” for chicken entrees. They encourage employees to get food stamps to offset low pay. And they’re everywhere.

This spring, USAToday and 24/7WallSt.com said that McDonald’s—more than any fast-food chain—was one of “eight companies that most owe workers a raise.” McDonald’s can afford to pay the vast majority of its 800,000-plus U.S. employees more, the paper reported, citing the firm’s own financial reports. Its stock was up 6.9 percent over last year, and up 68.2 percent over the past five years.

Most companies don’t make payroll data public, unlike their earnings reports. But there are websites that post jobs, average salaries and employee comments. Glassdoor.com lists hundreds of entries for McDonald’s. Almost all of its wages hover near legal minimums. For cashiers, the hourly average is $7.74. For crew member, it’s $7.70/hour. For a crew trainer, it’s $8.14. For drive through cashier, it’s $7.73. For grill cook, it’s $7.72. For fry cook, it’s $8.20. For swing manager, it’s $9.33. For general manager, its $43,862 a year, or $21.08 hourly. For assistant store manager, it’s $29,574 annually or $14.22/hour.

These are not living wages for adults or families. The federal mimimum wage is $7.25 an hour, although nearly two-thirds of the states have raised it a dollar or more. The striking fast-food workers are seeking $15 an hour, plus paid sick time. As USAToday noted, in late 2012, McDonald’s announced that it planned to return $5.5 billion to shareholders via increased dividends and stock buy-backs. It has paid dividends every year since 1976, the paper noted. Meanwhile, its senior executives have sent memos to franchise owners conveying customer complaints about poor service.

This big picture—chiseling employee wages and funneling profits to investors—is the reason for customer complaints, MIT’s Ton said. But it’s also part of a corporate culture that demeans workers. Writing of last Thanksgiving’s mandatory work and no overtime in the Harvard Business Review, she said, “employees are once again reminded of how little their companies care about their lives and well being.”

McDonalds’s can afford to pay its employees more, but, critically, it chooses not to. And that’s not the only thing that trouble employees. Its website, of course, boasts of careers and benefits. But employee share of paying for benefits is unaffordable, workers said on Glassdoor.com. And then there are other dimensions of restaurent and kitchen work that are abusive—and accepted as part of the work culture.

“Low pay, no insurance, top managers waste time on cell phones and… get involved in personal relationships with subordinates that caused preferential treatment,” a Newton, Mississippi, employee wrote on September 2. There’s little chance for advancement, an ex-assistant manager in Aurora, Colorado, wrote. “Rather hire in than train up.” There’s unreliable schedules. “Franchise stores focuses their hours around labor. Labor must be an overall 19 percent at the end of each month,” an Atlanta employee wrote this month. “So if store labor is 24 percent… be ready to have your hours cut.”

There’s also sexual harassment and a trail of lawsuits from it. The pro-worker advocacy group, Restaurant Opportunities Center United (ROC), issued a report last year about gender inequities—starting with lower pay for women in the same jobs as men—that also discussed sexual harassment. Its review of the previous four years of suits by the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission found that “McDonalds was named in 16 percent of the cases, including possibly the most egregious one, where an 18-year-old employee strip-searches and assaulted for several hours by staff and management at the behest of a caller impersonaing a police officer.”

Across the country, polls regularly find that 80 percent of the public supports minimum wage increases. But most people staring at pictures of the fast food protesters, most of who are women, have little idea what it’s like to work in these kitchens. A former McDonald’s cook from Wyoming, Pennsylvania, summed it up this month on Glassdoor.com, using their format of first describing the pros and then the cons.

“I worked at McDonald’s fulltime for more than three years,” he said, then list the pros. “If you already worked in the restaurant business, this job is a cakewalk. High volume, yes, but the work is easy and not very physically demanding… You don’t have to worry about over- or under-cooking food. You don’t have to do tons of prep work. You don’t even need to have a solid grasp of health and safety standards until you move up to management.”

And then the negatives. “If you never worked in a restaurant before, you’ll think this job is terrible. You’re on your feet all day, performing what feels like intense cardio exercise during peak hours. After your shift, you will be coated in a layer of grease and filth, and you will smell like cooking oil… You will make close to the minimum wage the entire time you work there, even when you’re promoted to low-level management.”

Jim Crow Jobs: The Capital Grille


There are more dimensions to poor working conditions than just wages. The restaurant industry is America’s largest employer of people of color and it is rife with segregation. Servers are predominantly white. Kitchens are predominantly people of color. And even though some chains have non-white CEOs, the culture and abuses are not very different from what’s depicted in the new movie, The Butler, profiling a self-educated African-American man who was a longtime butler at the White House.

Capital Grille is the high-price, fine-dining chain run by Darden Restaurants, the world’s largest full-service—meaning sit down—restaurant corporation. Darden also owns Olive Garden, Red Lobster, Longhorn Steakhouse, Bahama Breeze, Eddie V’s, Seasons 52 and Yard House. “We own and operate 2,100 restaurants, employ more than 200,000 people, and serve more than 425 million meals a year,” its website says. “At the Capital Grille, it’s guests enjoying a personalized dining experience reminscent of being in a private club.” It says that more than 80 percent of workers like Darden and their job.

Darden boasts that its values include “sustainability,” from reducing energy to treating employees well. But in late 2011, ROC and Capital Grille employees in five states sued Darden for wage theft and racial discrimination. The lawsuits are ongoing. This spring, ROC issued a report, Darden’s Decision, as part of a campaign to pressure the Florida-based corporation into treating workers better. “If it lived up to these values, Darden could serve as a model for the entire restaurant industry,” ROC said. “Unfortunately, there is a gap between Darden’s stated values and their actual practice.”

The Capital Grille is the chain’s flagship. It has dark wood-paneled dining rooms, a menu emphasizing meat, fish and wine, and formally attired servers. There are 49 grills around the country, with annual sales at each restaurant averaging $7 million, it told investors in June, estimating that sales would grow 4.5 percent this year. It pays a few dollars an hour more than for the same job at Darden’s other chains, according to Glassdoor.com. A host at Olive Garden averaged $8.99/hour, versus $11.38/hour at Capital Grille. An Olive Garden’s server averaged $10.99/hour, versus $12.62/hour at Capital Grille.

As a chain, Darden pays low wages and lacks paid sick days, ROC said, even though its website says “you will receive excellent benefits including health insurance, 401(k), paid vacations and advancement opportunities.” ROC Research Director Teófilo Reyes said that benefits are for the full-time employees—and many don’t get those hours, and, as is the case at McDonald’s, “you do have to pay in. It’s a pretty significant cost.” 

But ROC’s biggest complaints about Capital Grille have to do with intentionally stealing wages from its employees of color, and discriminating against them in promotions. Some “claim that their restaurant hired employees of color in the rush to open and replaced them with white workers once the restaurant was established,” ROC said in its Darden’s Decision report, which, in part, recounted claims from its lawsuits. A Darden company spokesmen has repeatedly called these allegations baseless. 

“We know what happens in the industry.We know that there is segregation,” Reyes said. “The question is, ‘Is it conscious and are restaurants discriminating against individuals?’ You are less likely to be hired into a better-paying job if you are a person of color.”  

Capital Grille employee comments at Glassdoor.com re-enforce ROC’s claims, but they are not quite as edgy. An ex-host from Troy, Michigan, said, you “must have ‘game face’ on 24/7,” and that he faced a “very stuffy work environment, have to use ‘Capital Grille’ vocabulary, [and] I was never offered a raise in the two years employed.” An ex-maitre’d from Palm Beach, Florida, said, “no career advancement… they want you to wear very pricey dresses, but not suits, at your own expense.”

The picture that ROC paints is more severe, particularly with employees of color who are segregated to the kitchens. There are many ways that workers can be treated poorly, ROC said. They can be denied sick days. “I called in sick once because of throat problems,” said Ignacia Villegas, a Capital Grille pantry station employee. “My manager told me, ‘If you don’t come, you already know what could happen. You could get fired.’”

They cannot be paid for all their hours worked—which is wage theft. Franz, a Haitian immigrant and dishwasher from Miami, said that he was routinely being “clocked out” by the sous-chef before he was finished cleaning. Elose Arestil, another Haitian dishwasher, complained about the same thing and was fired. But the vengeful treatment didn’t stop there, she said, because her managers stopped her from receiving unemployment checks. “My boss had told them [state officials] that I had quit when I was actually fired.”

Other ex-employees talked of “haves and have-nots,” ROC said, referring to the chain’s bias against non-white servers. “The Capital Grille’s regional manager told the General Manager that he wanted certain servers gone because they ‘didn’t fit the company image,’ Keith [Jones, an ex-Memphis, Tennessee, server] noted. Upper management wanted to remove black servers and used corporate image as an excuse.”

“Darden positions itself as being so conscientious,” Reyes said. “We find that’s not the truth of the matter.”

Taking The High-Road: In-N-Out Burger


The striking fast food workers have been calling for better working conditions, starting with higher hourly wages and paid sick time. They, and advocates like ROC United, and academics such as MIT business school professor Zeynep Ton, all say that paying more will not just improve job performance, employee morale and customer service, but it will save money in the long run that’s lost when new workers have to be hired and trained.

ROC’s founder and executive director, Saru Jayaraman, singed out one fast-food chain, In-N-Out Burger, which is privately owned and was started by a family with Christian values, as a chain that paid better than most and offered opportunities for advancement. In-n-Out, as its name notes, is a classic hamburger chain whose wrappers and cups cite biblical quotes. Bloomberg reports that the chain has almost 280 units in five western states, $625 million in 2012 sales, and a five-year growth rate of 4.6 percent.

What does it do that McDonald’s and Capital Grille does not? Compared to McDonald’s, they start by paying all workers, including new hires, several dollars above the minimum wage. They have been doing that for years, according to Harvard Business School Professor Youngme Moon, who chairs its MBA program. In a Harvard Business Review article a decade ago, she wrote, “In 2003, new employees were paid $8.25 to $9.25 per hour, almost $1.50 to $2.50 more than California’s minimum wage, and they received benefits that included paid vacations, a 401(k) retirement plan with matching company contributions, and discounted medical, dental, and vision coverage… As a result of this treatment, employee turnover at In-N-Out was low.” 

Today, the chain still pays several dollars above minimun wage. Where Glassdoor.com lists most McDonald’s salaries at below $8 an hour, the lowest-paid jobs at In-N-Out average above $10/hour, with some non-management jobs paying more than $13/hour. Their assistant managers average $51,200 annually, which is $24.61/hour. Employee comments on Glassdoor.com notice this difference. “Great compensation for industry,” said a level 5 ($11.58/hour) employee from Chico, Califonia. “This place starts you off with more than the minimum wage hourly. You get one free meal per shift,” a former associate said, adding. “They are very strict on your conduct. But it’s understandable being they are the only fast-food place that pays well.” Another wrote, “Starting pay is $10.50 in most areas.” An older employee commented, “Good for students, but pay is still low, but better than other food places.”

Compared to Capitol Grille, In-N-Out’s employees did not talk about discrimination or a lack of opportunities for advancement. An associate level 4, averaging $10.78/hour, from Las Vegas said, “Fast-paced, lots of room for growth, once you’re in, you’re pretty much in. Extensive hiring process, but all that means is they are selective in taking the best.” A Davis, Califronia, associate said, “This is a good paying job for the background required… good opportunities for advancement if you work hard.” But one employee from Palmdale, California, complained, “you can never get full-time hours and benefits once you’re hired. Lucky at some store[s] if you get more than 25 hours a week.”

As ROC’s Reyes notes, it’s important to keep In-N-Out’s pay and benefits in perspective, at least compared to what the striking fast-food workers are seeking. “The bar is set pretty low,” he said, referring to the restaurant industry’s pay and benefit standards. “They don’t pay $15 an hour, which is what the fast food workers are looking for.”

Where Can Progressives Eat Anymore?


The closer you look at America’s restaurant industry—especially the fast food and dining chains—the more you’re likely to pause before eating there. The reality of what goes on behind the practiced smiles of servers and kitchen doors does not inspire confidence.

The fast food worker protests are attempts to shame their employers into boosting wages, especially because the National Restaurant Association, the industry’s lobbyists, have a record of stopping or delaying minimum wage increases and paid sick day laws. (Similar walkout are planned for 15 Walmart stores this Thursday). ROC has created a guide for consumers that grades restaurants across the country, including those paying living wages and offering opportunities for a advancement. The guide contains postcards that can be left behind for management to consider and contact the group.

These activists don’t just want the public to pause before eating out; they want the public to gently push restaurant owners and managers to treat their staff better, just as they have demanded fresher ingredients in the menus. MIT’s Ton has reached the same conclusion, although she knows that the management mindset can be very inflexible.

“I imagine that executives are noticing [the fast food protests] but I don’t know if they’ll do anything to change,” she said. “What I really hope is that consumers are noticing. We as customers can choose where to eat and where to shop and we can start choosing businesses that treat their employees better. When we care, companies might start caring.”

***

AlterNet extends a special thanks once again to the following generous donors who made this article series possible:
Deidre Adams |Top AirFrames |Donna Alley |Robert Armstrong | Robert Atwood |David Aughey |Bobbie Aust |Bruce Babcock |Norma Bader |Judith Barnett |Richard Baron |Kenneth Barta |Al Bedrosian | Daniel Beerthuis |Samuel Benesch |Mark Beringer |Alan Bickley |Gary Billey |Beth Birnbaum |Gerald and Louise Blume |Valera Bochkarev |Duane Bogart |Alice Boston |Susan Bower |Rebecca Brackman |Linda Broadley |Robert Brodie |Karl Bronn |Susan Bryan |Lynne Bundy |Christian Burgess |Stephen Burton |Canary Burton |Terry Campbell |Christopher Carman |Robert Carrick |Andrew Carson |Marian Carter |Jane Chamberlain |Susan Christensen |Bruce Cohen |Sharlene Cole |Randall Collins |William Collins |Nancy Comas |Lauren Coodley |Gilberto Cooper |Johnny Costello |Harry Coverston |Paula Cronin |William Cross |Lili Cummins |Chase Dahl |Charles Daniels |Geoff Davis |Food Dolls |Alexander Domschot |Paul Donohue |Virginia Downs |Shona Dudley |Michael Duncanson |Jean Durel |Nancy Eckel |Margaret Edwards |William Ellwin |Peter Epprecht |Kelly Epstein |Tom Ericson |Garold Faber |Richard Fauconier |Annette Fenner |Ernest Ferguson |Kenneth Fingeret |Jerry Flach |Mark Flitter |Roy Ford |Thomas Ford |Audrey Franklin |Tommie Frye |Nivair Gabriel |Douglas Gallagher |Edward Gasperi |Donald Gates |Vida George |Robert Gilbert |Mandeep Gill |Richard Ginnold |Marianne Ginsberg |Cosimo Giovine |Miryana Golubovich |Carlos Gomez |William Gorman |Mark Gormley |David Graham |Kevin Graman |Bedene Greenspan |William S. Greer |Jason Gregory |Bruce Greif |Troy Grieves |Terry Grim |Joseph Grimaldi |Sarah Grimes |Seymour Gross |Linda Guffin |Steve Guillory |Lyn H. |Marghi Hagen |Angela Hailey |Carol Halsey |Dr. Rhonda Hammer |Roger H. Harrell |Dennis Harry |David Hart | Frederick Hein |Louis Hellwig |Louis Hellwig |Jason Herring |Maureen Hickey |Gary Hildreth |Claude Hillinger |Gregory Hofmann |James Holland |Jimmy Hollingsworth |James Hopkins |Ellen Hopkins |Michael Horner |John Hubertz |Alex Huss |Chad Irvin |Anthony Jeffries |Daryl Jennings |Tyson Jensen |Bruce Jewell |Darrell Johns |Kelley Johnson |Myna Johnstone |Miriam Jolidon |Prasanth Joseph |Jack Keaton |Lee Kefauver |Anne Kerrebrock |Ana Kimsey |Colleen Kinerk |Patrick Kirk |Diana Kistler |Dana Knickerbocker |Donald Kotval |Christine Krueger |John Kyler |Margaret Lane |Words for Health |Steven Laudano |Rachel Leip |Paul Leuenberger |Barry Lia |Marcia Liotard |John Lott |Steve Lull |Andrea Lurie |Jonathan Lynch |Neahle Madden |Anitra Makoni |Gail Mansouri |Bruce Marshall |Judith McCarthy |Thomas McConnel |Al McCullough |Herb McDonald |Patricia McHugh |Laureen McLaughlin |John Meng |Michele Metts |Erin Meyer-O'Day |Mark Miles |Kathleen Miller |John Moore |David Morgan |Karen Morris |Susan Mullins |Carol Mulrooney |Heather Myers |Phyllis Nunn |Norma Odell |Mary Oehlerich |Joan Oneill |Amanda Orchard |Odessa Osby |Dusan Palka |Leslie Parrish |Nick Pearson |Margaret Peeples |David Pettus |Aravinda Pillalamarri |Mary Pinto |Lucinda Plaisance |Leroy Pletten |James Polshek |Donna Pope |Angelina Popp |Clif Power |Elena Powers |Mark Proulx |Sherman Puckett |David Radcliffe |Verun Rahimtoola |Bettina Riedel |Richard Riggs |Elin Riley-Weiss |Randall Roberson |Joe Robinson |David Robinson |William Root |Dee Rosenfeld |Evan Rotner |Daniel Rous |Betty Rousey |Hannah Rush |Troy Sanders |John Sarette |Emily Sato |Kevin Schmidt |Roberta Schonemann |Gary Schreiner |Gordon Schultz |Sybil Schweitzer |Kenneth Scott |Charles Sereno |Joseph Sherman |Gloria Shin |Aida Shirley |Suzanne Shobe |Harold Shuckhart |Debra Simes |Crystal Sloan |Richard Smith |Berdine Smith |Neal Snyder |Priscilla Solomon |Joshua Stafford |Keith Stephenson |Edward Stewart |Robert Stimpert |Reba Stone |Peter Stromberg |Ramon Subscriber |Carolyn Sumners |Elda Tate |Joel Taub |Joan Taves |Lynn Tharsing |Kathleen Tucker |Daniela Turcios |Pauly Vachal |Frank Vandervegt | George Vincent |Martha Vinick |Andrea Vos |Carol Walker |Rita Walton |Henry Wasielewski |Schuyler Webb |John Weber |Robert Weissfeld |Gary Weldele |Thomas Wells |Todd Wermers |John Werntz |Clifford Westfall |Harrison White |Sissy Wiggin |Janice Wilfing |Alan Willard |Ellen Willcox |Andrew Willis |Wendy Wilson |Mark Worden |Iris Xie |Jeannine Yates |Zeus Yiamouyiannis |Alan Young |Dallas Young, Jr. |Chen Yu.
Steven Rosenfeld covers democracy issues for AlterNet and is the author of "Count My Vote: A Citizen's Guide to Voting" (AlterNet Books, 2008).

Friday, August 30, 2013

Labor Day Is a Time to Mobilize

August 30, 2013   

politics


Labor Day Is a Time to Mobilize

Posted: 08/30/2013 2:31 pm


For far too many Americans, Labor Day is simply another day off, another store sale and another small parade. The meaning of the holiday has been dulled by both rampant commercialism and public apathy. Where is the passion for elevating the wellbeing of American workers? Shouldn't Labor Day be a time to gather, contemplate and celebrate more just treatment of all those who toil without proper recognition or compensation?

Labor Day is the ideal time to highlight the hard-fought, historic victories already enjoyed by American workers, and push for long-overdue health and safety measures and increased economic benefits for those left behind by casino capitalism. After all, it was the labor movement in the early 20th century that brought us such advances as the minimum wage, overtime pay, the five-day work week, the banning of child labor and more.

The reality is that big corporations have abandoned American workers by taking jobs and industries to communist and fascist regimes abroad -- regimes that oppress their workers and enforce serf-level salaries and hideous working conditions. America's working men and women have also largely been abandoned by the corporate dominated Republican and Democrat two-party duopoly, whatever their rhetorical differences may be. The federal minimum wage has been allowed to languish far behind inflation as corporate bosses' pay skyrockets. The gap between worker salaries and CEO pay widens, even as worker productivity rises. Corporate CEO's in America make approximately 340 times more than that of the average worker. In 1980, by comparison, CEO pay was 42 times greater.

Look to the fast food strikers around the country for inspiration. Backed by the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), workers in cities across America are demanding fair pay at $15 an hour and the right to unionize. Beginning in New York City and spreading to other major cities, workers are beginning to rally and speak out against their poverty wages from hugely profitable fast food chains. Willietta Dukes, in a piece for The Guardian, writes:
Burger King says they can't pay employees, like me, higher wages because it would force them out of business. Yet last year it made $117m[illion] in profits and its CEO took home $6.47m[illion]. It would take me 634 years to earn that much.
I've worked in fast food for 15 years, and I can't even afford my own rent payments. We just want fairness and to be able to provide for our families. No one who works every day should be forced to be homeless.
Where are the other advocates for American workers? Now is the time to speak out and push for long-overdue action.

Where is President Obama? Candidate Obama promised that he would press for a $9.50 federal minimum wage by 2011. Now, in 2013, he has settled for $9 by 2015. This is far less than what workers made in 1968, adjusted for inflation. If the minimum wage had kept up with inflation, it would be $10.70 today. If it kept up with worker productivity in the corporate sector, it would be $22.

When Franklin Delano Roosevelt signed the Fair Labor Standards Act into law in 1938 -- which established the federal minimum wage amongst other things -- it was in the face of considerable opposition and criticism from Big Business, not to mention in the midst of The Great Depression. This is the type of courageous leadership we need from the White House today.

A recent piece in the Wall Street Journal cited an analysis by Mark M. Gray, a researcher at Georgetown University, who found that President Obama "mentions the poor in his speeches less than any other president in decades" -- even Ronald Reagan mentioned the poor in his speeches and public statements about twice as frequently.
What of the AFL-CIO, which represents 13 million American workers? I recently wrote a letter to its president, Richard Trumka, asking for his leadership in pushing for more attention about the plight of workers on this Labor Day. No response. The AFL-CIO has an opportunity for a major showing with rallies before the White House and Congress. Some reporters in the mainstream press have indicated they do not think the push for a higher minimum wage is serious without Mr. Trumka, President Obama, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid exerting serious efforts.

What of former President Bill Clinton? In his speech to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the March on Washington, President Clinton made passing rhetorical reference to "building a modern economy of good jobs and rising incomes." But the time for simply talking about these issues is long past. What about publicly supporting Rep. Alan Grayson's bill in Congress (H.R. 1346) which provides for a $10.50 minimum wage to catch up with 1968, and allow $30 million workers to afford more of life's necessities for themselves and their children? The support of Mr. Clinton might help galvanize the media and those in Congress to make this into the front burner issue it deserves to be.

And, what about the leading Democratic Presidential candidates for 2016 -- Hillary Clinton and Vice President Joe Biden? Why aren't they seriously championing this important cause that is both good for the economy and for workers and their children?
In an ideal world, the Sunday political shows the day before Labor Day would feature various prominent labor leaders and discuss key issues like the minimum wage, income equality, trade and more.

Labor Day should be a moment for the nation to shine a light upon the rights and plights of the nation's workers and recognize the need to reform restrictive labor laws, such as the notorious Taft-Hartley Act of 1947. After all, workers are the backbone of the economy.

(See here for facts and information on our efforts to raise the minimum wage to catch up with 1968, inflation adjusted, and find out how to get involved.)