Posts Tagged ‘workers’
Tags: Andrew Green, Cameron, cartoon, immigration, United Kingdom, United States, workers
Tags: benefits, humor, Only in America, wages, women, workers
Tags: corporations, crisis, currency, debt, film, income, money, state, United States, wages, workers
The second part of That Film about Money is even better than the first.
That’s because it explores the connection between money and the crisis of 2007-08, including giving the working-class more debt instead of increasing wages (which is why, as you can see below, household debt service payments as a percent of disposable personal income rose so precipitously from the early-1990s onward, until the crash) and why the banks have recovered since the crash (by taking cheap money from the government and lending it back, to finance the deficit, at higher rates of interest).
Tags: Chris Christie, minimum wage, Only in America, workers
New Jersey Governor Chris Christie announced yesterday, at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s annual Legal Reform Summit in Washington, D.C., he’s sick and tired of hearing about the minimum wage.
“I have to tell you the truth,” said Christie, a potential 2016 presidential candidate. “I’m tired of hearing about the minimum wage. I really am. I don’t think there’s a mother or father sitting around a kitchen table tonight saying ‘you know honey, if our son or daughter could just make a higher minimum wage, my god – all our dreams would be realized.”
Christie continued, “Is that what parents aspire to for our children? They aspire to a greater growing America where their children have the ability to make much more money and have much greater success than they had. And that’s not about a higher minimum wage, everybody. So we should start talking about what our aspirations are and how they can be achieved rather than the president playing to the lowest common denominator on a higher minimum wage.”
The fact is, as Max Ehrenfreund explains, about half of all workers earning a minimum wage in this country are not children. They’re at least 25 years of age.
Tags: corporations, discrimination, laws, Only in America, pregnancy, United States, women, workers
There is no federal protection for women workers who are pregnant. Such as Angelica Valencia [ht: sm], who was fired after she requested permission from her employer not to be forced to work overtime.
The United States did pass The Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978, which prohibits discrimination “on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions.” But the Act does not require employers to do anything to accommodate the needs of pregnant workers (although the Supreme Court is set to hear a case, Young v. United Parcel Service, on “whether, and in what circumstances, the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. . .requires an employer that provides work accommodations to non-pregnant employees with work limitations to provide work accommodations to pregnant employees who are ‘similar in their ability or inability to work'”). And the Pregnant Women’s Fairness Act, H.R. 1975 and S. 942 [pdf], which was referred to Committee on 14 May 14 2013, has no chance of being enacted anytime soon.
So, seventeen separate states and cities, such Illinois and New York City, have had to pass their own legislative protections. Still, many workers don’t know their rights, and often don’t have the means to demand compliance. And their employers often disregard the laws that do exist.
Respecting a woman’s pregnancy at work is also a social and racial equity issue. According to the National Women’s Law Center, low-wage women workers, many of them primary income-earners, often have more physically demanding duties, such as lifting boxes or prolonged standing. Pregnancy-related discrimination complaints have been concentrated in the highly gendered service sectors, like retail sales and hospitality. Many physically strenuous jobs like domestic work and home healthcare services are disproportionately done by immigrant and black women.
A female executive of the Lean In class probably wouldn’t be reprimanded for wanting to lean back a bit with a foot rest at board meetings. But women workers at Walmart had to wage a national campaign for months before the company changed its policies to ensure reasonable pregnancy accommodations (and many say the policy remains only spottily enforced).
There’s good news. And bad news.
The good: Angela Valencia’s bosses [ht: sm] have offered her job back. The bad: the United States still doesn’t have a Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (see original post).
Tags: CEO, Chicago, Illinois, McDonald's, minimum wage, Only in America, profits, sales, workers
Delores Leonard lives with her two daughters in Chicago and has worked for seven years at McDonald’s.
Her Illinois minimum wage is $8.25 an hour. Assuming she works the same number of hours each week (and gets two weeks of unpaid vacation), her annual income after taxes is $14,626.
McDonald’s reported $7.2 billion in second quarter sales, which generated a net income of $1.39 billion. That’s a profit margin of 19.31 percent.
McDonald’s CEO Don Thompson took home total compensation of $9.5 million in 2013.
Tags: 1 percent, corporations, Federal Reserve, income, inequality, Janet Yellen, surplus, United States, wages, wealth, workers
The other day, I reported that Fed chair Janet Yellen said a great deal about existing levels of economic inequality at the Conference on Economic Opportunity and Inequality in Boston.
Neil Irwin [ht: ra] reminds us there’s a great deal Yellen didn’t say. She didn’t, for example, say anything about the aspects of the inequality puzzle that have a close tie-in to the policies of the Federal Reserve.
there is a growing body of evidence — far from proven, but certainly gaining traction — that income inequality could be a significant force behind disappointing overall economic growth over the last 15 years.
The story goes like this: The wealthy tend to save a large proportion of their income, whereas middle and lower-income people spend almost all of what they earn. Because a rising share of income is going to the wealthy, spending — and hence aggregate demand — is rising more slowly than it would if there were more even distribution of income. Skyrocketing debt levels papered over this disconnect in the mid-2000s, but now we could be feeling its effect.
If true, this would help account for why the economy has notched mediocre growth since the turn of the century, with the exception being a brief period of the housing bubble.
Yellen also didn’t have anything to say about the economic opportunities that have allowed the gains of a tiny minority at the top to be captured in the first place. Top 1 percent incomes and corporate profits have to come from somewhere. They’re created during the course of producing goods and services—in the United States and around the world. But the workers who did all that producing only get to keep part of the value they create, in the form of wages and salaries; the rest—call it the surplus—is appropriated by their employers, who keep some in the form of corporate profits and then distribute the rest to their owners and top managers. Those employers, owners, and managers spend some of that income and plow the rest into the ownership of various forms of wealth. It’s no wonder, then, that—given the economic opportunities they’ve been provided within current economic arrangements—the distribution of both income and wealth has been getting more and more unequal.
That’s what Janet Yellen didn’t say.