"Arbitration has many benefits . . . ."
Objection, Your Honor- not in evidence.
"Arbitration has many benefits . . . ."
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.
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.Vrede wrote: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.
Look at that handsome chap.Vrede wrote: :?:
:sunny: :sunny: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:JTA wrote:Guess who's not going to work tomorrow
--->
Please allow me to adjust my pants so that I may dance the good time dance!
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 wrote::sunny: :sunny: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:JTA wrote:Guess who's not going to work tomorrow
--->
Please allow me to adjust my pants so that I may dance the good time dance!
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.bannination wrote:Speaking of wages.... Is wage theft on the rise?
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.Vrede wrote:How so given the decades long weakening of labor law?O Really wrote:...enforcement is getting better.
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.Vrede wrote: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
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.Vrede wrote: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.
Compared to when?O Really wrote:...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. ...
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."Vrede wrote: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.