The Worker Thread

[Boatrocker]

"Christian" corporate values:

Hobby Lobby Allegedly Fired Employee Due to Pregnancy

"Arbitration has many benefits . . . ."
Objection, Your Honor- not in evidence.

[JTA]

Engineer Took All the Right Steps But Still Didn’t Receive Fair Pay

For African-American Women—and All Women—Let’s Make Every Day Equal Pay Day

Do black women get paid less than their white male counterparts in the same exact job, performing the same exact tasks? If that's the case then that's messed up. Or, is the gap due to them working different types of jobs that just so happen to pay less? I think rstrong posted something about this a while back.

[O Really]

It's not so simple. Individual cases may vary, but a lot of the problem is in the inequitable starting rates, and then in the assignments given. So if in 2014, for example, one might defend pay differential by saying, "yes but the white guy has more complex projects..." The followup question then is "why?" An answer might be, "the black woman is less skilled" and that might be true in one case, but why are all the black women behind? Are all of them really less skilled? And so on. Discrimination definitely still lives - and in doing so keeps a lot of employment/labor lawyers in nice neighborhoods.

[JTA]

The first link speaks to black women getting paid less than their white male counterparts in the same exact job, performing the same exact tasks. If I understand correctly the second link and the graphic speaks to the cumulative result of that plus disadvantages in education and opportunities, which is still messed up.

rstrong posted about a particular Canadian solution that he had problems with, I don't think he denied that discrimination exists.

Black women are the best though. Back in my service worker days I used to get hit on like crazy by some black women, especially older ones.

"Mmm hmm boy all looking like Steven Segall wit that long hair. Mmm hmm." - Actual compliment.

[JTA]

:?:

Look at that handsome chap.

[neoplacebo]

I think they all had to work.

[O Really]

Thoughts on Labor Day... http://money.msn.com/investing/post--so ... -is-a-joke

[JTA]

Guess who's not going to work tomorrow
--->

Please allow me to adjust my pants so that I may dance the good time dance!

[bannination]

Guess who's not going to work tomorrow
--->

Please allow me to adjust my pants so that I may dance the good time dance!

:sunny: :sunny: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

[neoplacebo]

Guess who's not going to work tomorrow
--->

Please allow me to adjust my pants so that I may dance the good time dance!

:sunny: :sunny: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

I prefer doing the good time dance in just underwear; thus negating the need to adjust pants. This is most successfully done while wearing a t shirt that says "Let the Good Times Roll" in Latin, a dead language.

[bannination]

Speaking of wages.... Is wage theft on the rise?

[O Really]

Speaking of wages.... Is wage theft on the rise?

Yes, but mainly because the term "wage theft" is relatively new. There probably aren't more employers intentionally trying to shaft their employee now than in the past, but enforcement is getting better.

[O Really]

...enforcement is getting better.

How so given the decades long weakening of labor law?

The term "wage theft" might have varying meanings, but generally it's been used recently to apply to willful failure of an employer to pay wages according to the law, such as overtime, meeting/travel time, etc., or to take unlawful deductions. As such, these are primarily Fair Labor Standards Act violations, which hasn't changed a lot since 1938, and hasn't been subject to decades long weakening. For over 10 years, there have been more FLSA claims than for all other discrimination cases (race, sex, etc.) combined. The DOL has increased the number of investigators and the resultant amount of recovery. Wage-Hour plaintiff work is highly profitable and pretty easy to do. More people are aware that they're getting shafted, and there are more people (DOL and plaintiff attys) around to help them.

[O Really]

I thought the weakening of the NLRB had weakened real world implementation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Am I thinking of different law?

Tell Congress: Protect workers’ right to organize

You may be. The FLSA has nothing whatsoever to do with the NLRB. But speaking of the NLRB, you might want to read somebody who isn't carrying a pitchfork and torches. The petition-promoter isn't exactly accurate. While the enforcement process differs somewhat for denial of NLRA Section 7 rights (Employee rights) http://www.nlrb.gov/resources/national- ... ations-act from enforcement of the CRA, employees are not simply left on their own to "file grievances" and the process most commonly leads to back pay and offer of reinstatement - or, in some cases sanctions against the employer including such things as requiring them to provide a place for union reps to speak to employees, etc. The NLRB's strength and willingness to enforce has always ebbed and flowed with each administration. Republicans don't do anything; Democrats generally do. The current bunch can hardly be called wimps.

When you compare real-life redress for discrimination charges with NLRA violations, it isn't nearly as awful as portrayed. Most discrimination charges get settled, too, mostly with back pay and reinstatement. Sure, the EEOC will issue a "right to sue" letter you can take to federal court, but the big-dollar awards are rare.

The onslaught on public unions by the likes of Scott Walker is despicable, but has little to do with the decline of private sector unions. And the private sector's "success" in reducing the number of union members hasn't generally been due to illegality and hard fighting, but by improvement in their ways of management and behaviour. The ones who still think they're fighting with Norma Rae (like Wal-Mart) are the ones who keep having the battles, and will continue to do so.

[O Really]

You know far better than me. I'm just going by, as your link says, bosses thinking they can get away with it these days. I'm sure there are big wins for those relatively few workers that have the wherewithal to pursue redress.

...The NLRB's strength and willingness to enforce has always ebbed and flowed with each administration. Republicans don't do anything; Democrats generally do. The current bunch can hardly be called wimps. ...

Compared to when?

I certainly wouldn't make any presumptions about what you know, and expect that sometimes you know more than you admit to. But my original point wasn't to defend employers nor to deny there are violations. I just remember the old textile wars with JP Stevens, Farah in El Paso, and of course "Norma Rae" who was real (except for being hot), and don't see any evidence that things are worse.

Compared to whom or when? Compared to Reagan's appointees, Bush's appointees. The current Board is <actually> trying very hard to regain relevance.

[O Really]

Also, NLRA violations are, generally, easier to prove than CRA charges. And the NLRA doesn't apply only to unionized companies or directly to attempts to unionize. For example, "confidentiality" policies regarding pay have been found to be unlawful violations of Section 7. Prohibitions on personal use of social media has also been found unlawful. For example, an employee may not disclose proprietary information, and can't post something s/he knows to be false, but has a right to call their management worthless a-holes even if saying the same thing in person at work could get them fired. One major factor in retaliation cases is temporal or time proximity. If a guy is encouraging union membership (for example) and gets sacked a week or so later, the company picks up the burden of proof that the union activity wasn't the cause of the sacking. As to how quickly an aggrieved worker can get redress... Significant CRA cases that actually go to court are often measured in years, not weeks.
NLRB cases typically have an initial ruling within three months, although cases certainly drag out as the process expands.

But sure - Wal-Mart and some other retailers, along with some service industry employees would be better off with a union. The real reason they don't have one, however, isn't the resistance by the employer, whether lawful or not. It's that the unions haven't made their case with enough employees.

[O Really]

Also, NLRA violations are, generally, easier to prove than CRA charges. And the NLRA doesn't apply only to unionized companies or directly to attempts to unionize. For example, "confidentiality" policies regarding pay have been found to be unlawful violations of Section 7. Prohibitions on personal use of social media has also been found unlawful. For example, an employee may not disclose proprietary information, and can't post something s/he knows to be false, but has a right to call their management worthless a-holes even if saying the same thing in person at work could get them fired. One major factor in retaliation cases is temporal or time proximity. If a guy is encouraging union membership (for example) and gets sacked a week or so later, the company picks up the burden of proof that the union activity wasn't the cause of the sacking. As to how quickly an aggrieved worker can get redress... Significant CRA cases that actually go to court are often measured in years, not weeks.
NLRB cases typically have an initial ruling within three months, although cases certainly drag out as the process expands.

But sure - Wal-Mart and some other retailers, along with some service industry employees would be better off with a union. The real reason they don't have one, however, isn't the resistance by the employer, whether lawful or not. It's that the unions haven't made their case with enough employees.

[O Really]

Thanks. I wasn't baiting. They were sincere questions. I rarely get expert info. directly from lawyers, especially for free.

We hear about the big legal fights and you of course get involved when a boss is in trouble or trying to avoid it. It'd be interesting to see data on how many workers get screwed compared to the number that win in the end.

In FLSA cases, the employee wins an overwhelming percentage of the time. That's why most don't make it to court. It's too expensive to chase a losing rainbow. That's because FLSA violations are much more clear-cut than discrimination claims. The guy either did the work or he didn't. He either got paid or he didn't. The complicating factors and fact fuzziness aren't nearly as great as in discrimination issues. However, to know "how many workers get screwed," we'd have to know how many accepted their shaft without filing a complaint. It's a lot. Some because the employee doesn't know any better; some because the lost wage isn't worth the effort and risk of complaining. Most FLSA complaints are filed by that famous and well-known "disgruntled employee." When I hear somebody try to brush off a complaint with that, I ask them - "OK, fine - did you hire a disgruntled employee or did you make him disgruntled? Pick one."

[O Really]

The petition-pusher, above, wants to model union membership protection along the lines of other discrimination, i.e., race, gender, age, etc. A better model would be the Fair Labor Standards Act. For any discrimination claim, a person is required to go first through the EEOC, which will investigate - eventually - and may or may not come up with a finding. But they'll issue a "Right to Sue" letter that allows the charging party (CP) to bring suit in federal court within 90 days. Most discrimination isn't baldly blatant, and none of the cases that head to court are open/shut or without their multiple sides. They're frightfully expensive and often drag out for months of depositions, investigations, document production, yada.

A person alleging an FLSA violation, however, does not have to go to the Department of Labor (Wage-Hour Division, WHD) first, but can go directly to court. What's more, plaintiff attorneys don't generally get paid on contingency, such as for personal injury or discrimination. They are entitled to collect fees if they win. And "win" means finding anything whatsoever that the employer did wrong. So let's say your employer calculates your overtime incorrectly. You work 30 hours at one job rate and 15 at a higher rate. The employer pays you 5 hours OT at your stated (the lower) rate of pay. Wrong. You're supposed to get OT paid on the blended rate by dividing total dollars earned by total hours worked. That number will be less than the higher rate you worked for, but more than your stated hourly wage. How much more? Probably not much. But your friendly wage-hour attorney could file a lawsuit, get you your $30 back, plus another $30 liquidated damages for willful violation, and still get paid a few hundred dollars for filing the case. Doesn't usually work like that, but it could. lRL, the attorney would first write the employer a demand letter and the employer would fix the problem. But in any FLSA action, the potential is there for double back pay (up to 3 years for willful), plus attorney's fees. Also, in really awful cases, they could be fines. The fine doesn't sound like much (max of $1,000 per violation) until you realize what a "violation" is. Everything FLSA is based on a workweek. So if you short a guy's pay this week, that's one violation. If you short it the next, that's two violations. If you short 5 guys for two weeks, you're up to $10,000 and growing. Again, most violations aren't willful (legally) and most don't incur fines. But the potential is there.

[neoplacebo]

I went back to work today and ended up having to do a bunch of shit other people should have already done. Do I have a case? Can I get a witness?