News for today's 2018

Port drivers doing worse now than during 1963 March on Washington

<div class="MsoNormal"><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgP6hWc51vx5hKkwB35jloAWOOjTTcIv9EPCcQ5R3cqTQrdMITFJDLbx6PEJTeER7bVX6-adRJxh8SL4QSpT56RnXxE5aj0ump-TkjadicmeIHsOP0UK6bb-UAyCmnySQFn12AbI9gU4KSJ/s1600/GFS+practice+picketing.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgP6hWc51vx5hKkwB35jloAWOOjTTcIv9EPCcQ5R3cqTQrdMITFJDLbx6PEJTeER7bVX6-adRJxh8SL4QSpT56RnXxE5aj0ump-TkjadicmeIHsOP0UK6bb-UAyCmnySQFn12AbI9gU4KSJ/s320/GFS+practice+picketing.JPG" width="240" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">LA port workers, still seeking justice</td></tr></tbody></table>Next week is the 50th anniversary of the 1963 March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom. Marchers, including Teamsters from across the country, gathered in Washington, D.C., to demand good jobs for all people. This series focuses on how well (or not) our society has met the 50-year-old demands of the marchers. Yesterday’s piece discussed the marchers’ demand <a href="http://teamsternation.blogspot.com/2013/08/minimum-wage-lower-today.html">to raise the minimum wage</a>. A half-million people came to the 1963 March on Washington with a list of demands. One of those demands was “a broadened Fair Labor Standards Act to include all areas of employment which are presently excluded.” Since then, expanded federal employment regulations have improved the standard of living for some groups of workers, while deregulation in 1980 has hit port workers hard. The Fair Labor Standards Act, originally passed in 1938, establishes minimum wage, overtime pay, and child labor regulations for workers in America. In 1963 as well as today, some categories of workers are exempted from minimum wage laws and overtime, which has a dramatic impact on low-income families. Domestic workers, a significant number of whom were African-American women, were often exploited because they were not guaranteed minimum wage or overtime pay. Farm workers, government employees and workers at small retail stores were also exempt from the law. Today all of these workers are subject to the Fair Labor Standards Act regulations -- an important achievement of the Civil Rights movement. However, many other groups of workers are still not covered. Many workers in computers services and transportation industries are exempt from overtime regulations. Tipped employees do get overtime protection, but have a reduced federal minimum wage that has not been adjusted for inflation in more than 20 years. The actual real wage of $2.13 per hour workers get from their employers <a href="http://www.thenation.com/blog/166328/week-poverty-obamas-budget-your-servers-budget">has almost halved</a>. In 1963, most of the port truckers were members of the Teamsters. Their <a href="http://www.demos.org/sites/default/files/publications/Port%20Trucking%20Down%20the%20Low%20Road.pdf" rel="nofollow">wages and benefits were comparable to those of autoworkers, steelworkers and over-the-road drivers</a>. That's because trucking companies had to get a license from the Interstate Commerce Commission to haul freight. The ICC limited the number of trucks to keep the industry stable, which gave companies steady profits and their workers with decent wages and benefits. Then in 1980, port trucking was deregulated. A<a href="http://www.demos.org/sites/default/files/publications/Port%20Trucking%20Down%20the%20Low%20Road.pdf" rel="nofollow"> 2009 Demos study</a> reported:</div><blockquote class="tr_bq">New companies entered the industry, hiring their drivers non-union. Established companies faltered. Some went non-union; others went out of business. The firms that triumphed adopted a new business model. They sold all or most of their trucks to the drivers, then contracted with them on a per-load basis. The emerging independent contracting model meant trucking companies had few fixed costs, had no responsibility for workers’ compensation, social security, and unemployment insurance taxes, and were able to obtain drivers’ services without paying for health care costs or pension plans...</blockquote>In many, many cases these "contracted" workers are actually employees who were misclassified as independent contractors. Although drivers require great skill to transport goods from the docks to warehouses, <a href="http://cleanandsafeports.org/blog/2011/12/12/an-open-letter-from-america%E2%80%99s-port-truck-drivers-on-occupy-the-ports/">most drivers live in poverty and work on average over 60 hours a week in terrible working conditions</a>. Since independent contractors are not technically employees, companies have no incentive to reduce the amount of hours they work -- or even improve safety standards for the people who work for them, as workers are often required to supply their own trucks. This abuse has become so rampant that the Internal Revenue Service and Department of Labor have joined forces with 14 states to stamp out employer abuse through the <a href="http://www.dol.gov/whd/workers/misclassification/">Misclassification Initiative</a>. Through this project, millions of dollars in back wages have been reclaimed for workers. The nation's most active port is at Los Angeles/Long Beach. On Tuesday, port workers will hold a rally for justice, almost 50 years to the day after the 1963 March on Washington for Jobs and Justice. Find out more about the rally <a href="http://www.calaborfed.org/index.php/site/page/los_angeles_port_drivers_step_up_their_fight_for_justice">here</a>.

deregulation March on Washington ports Port drivers doing worse now than during 1963 March on Washington

LA port workers, still seeking justice Next week is the 50th anniversary of the 1963 March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom. Marchers, in...

Potential TPP costs keep going up

<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjL5GNPh4L9dyFEjafZgdiLgok9fpP5_M0vgNOuTOWAXZejHvGXGnGsP1spLECr7NtKsbzE1Y7RlXgK3QNdhzmGV_vRO4iWp0vuqjkx_b7TV33eLlje3d5hnhidRw71jJ4kMMouyRMMkqih/s1600/tpp.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="130" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjL5GNPh4L9dyFEjafZgdiLgok9fpP5_M0vgNOuTOWAXZejHvGXGnGsP1spLECr7NtKsbzE1Y7RlXgK3QNdhzmGV_vRO4iWp0vuqjkx_b7TV33eLlje3d5hnhidRw71jJ4kMMouyRMMkqih/s320/tpp.jpeg" width="320" /></a>Looking for <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-p-hoffa/congress-shouldnt-outsour_b_3618561.html">another reason to oppose a possible TPP trade deal</a>? How about this -- America could be on the hook for potentially billions of dollars if an international company sues the government because it decides our health and safety rules are getting in the way of its profits.<o:p></o:p> <div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">South Centre, an intergovernmental think tank based in Geneva, Switzerland, <a href="http://www.southcentre.org/" rel="nofollow">details how a biased arbitration system</a> used to decide cases between corporations and countries who are members of bilateral investment treaties (BITs) and “free trade” agreements is driving some nations to the financial brink:<o:p></o:p></div><blockquote class="tr_bq"> Under these treaties, foreign companies can sue governments if they introduce policies that these companies deem affect their future incomes.  The treaties define “expropriation” to include depriving investors of future profits due to new regulations.</blockquote><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"><blockquote class="tr_bq">So a tobacco firm has sued Australia and Uruguay for requiring cigarette boxes to have plain packaging. When Ecuador cancelled a contract with an American oil company for violating the terms of the contract, the company won took a case and was awarded US$2.4 billion.<o:p></o:p></blockquote></div>A report released last year by two European groups explains how <a href="http://corporateeurope.org/publications/profiting-from-injustice" rel="nofollow">a small group attorneys working for investors or as arbitrators have benefited from such litigation</a>. The lawyers also encourage big companies to sue governments for potential fat paydays.<o:p></o:p> Among some of the findings are: <div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"><blockquote class="tr_bq">• Only 15 arbitrators, nearly all from Europe, the US or Canada, have decided 55 percent of all known investment-treaty disputes.   This small group sits on the same panels, acts as both arbitrators and counsels and call on each other as witnesses.<o:p></o:p></blockquote></div><blockquote class="tr_bq"> • Many arbitrators show a clear bias towards investors.  Several prominent arbitrators have been members of the board of major multinational companies, including those who filed cases against developing countries.</blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq"> • A few law firms have been encouraging investors to sue governments, as a weapon to weaken or prevent laws on public health or the environment.  These investment lawyers are the new “ambulance chasers” and have fuelled an increase in cases from 38 in 1996 to 450 known cases in 2011.</blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq"> • Countries have to pay exorbitant legal and arbitration costs averaging over $8 million per dispute, and exceeding US$30 million in some cases.  The Philippines spent $58 billion defending two cases against a German firm.</blockquote>The U.S could be a huge target for such litigation if it enters into the TPP deal. Our country has more stringent labor, workplace safety, health and environmental rules than many of the 11 other nations we are currently negotiating with as part of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade pact. If we agree to the TPP, the only solution to avoid these lawsuits would be to lower our standards. That’s no solution at all. It's time we negotiate trade agreements that protect American workers, not the big corporations. We should be setting the standards on how to treat workers, produce the best and safest products, and protect the environment. If the TPP is going to sink the workplace standards to the level of sweatshops in Vietnam, we should pass.

deregulation TPP workplace safety Potential TPP costs keep going up

Looking for another reason to oppose a possible TPP trade deal ? How about this -- America could be on the hook for potentially billions o...

Port drivers doing worse now than during 1963 March on Washington

Potential TPP costs keep going up

Ads

Archive